Nobody has commented on the Ohio abortion bill yet?

[Cyberyeti]

 

 

Oh come on. You keep overbidding. It is nowhere as dangerous as stepping out of your house everyday.

 

18.5/100K in 2013 in the US, curiously it's doubled over the last 30 years (hospital acquired infections ?) although that doesn't include post natal depression caused deaths.

[MrAce]

18.5/100K in 2013 in the US, curiously it's doubled over the last 30 years (hospital acquired infections ?) although that doesn't include post natal depression caused deaths.

 

 

And did you check the fatality risks of abortion? Some sources says birth is safer than abortion.

I made a search on it. Most of the sources that says birth is safer have interesting arguments that I do not want to get into. But from my search I am convinced abortion is safer when it comes to fatality. But you are talking as if the alternative of birthgiving is risk free, which is not true.

When it comes to post natal depression, there is also post abortion depression.

[helene_t]

Unfortunately there is no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of the existence should be associated to life.

A fertilized egg is certainly "life" but so are most of the cells in a freshly deceased body and so is an E. Coli bacterium.

 

The question is why we have a tabu on killing fellow humans (as opposed to a general tabu on destroying life). If we think about this deeply enough we might come to a conclusion as to whether it should extend to a 6-week embryo, a 30 week foetus or to a 6 months child for that matter.

 

I think that allowing parents to kill their 12 years old children would be impractical for a number of reasons. First, it is not clear if it should be the mother's sole decision because other family members and friends have invested in the child's upbringing and developed an emotional attachment to the child. Second, a 12 year old child would be conscious about the possibility that it could be disposed off which might influence its psychological development in negative ways, even if it would be very rare that it actually happened.

 

I really don't see how these arguments would extent to a 6-week foetus. They become increasingly stronger as the embryo/foetus/child grows older, and making the time of birth the threshold may be somewhat arbitrary. However, I think it is a well-defined threshold that is more practically enforced than the alternatives.

 

I know this is a very cynical point of view. Almost all people would say there is something "sacred" (not necessarily in a religious meaning) about the life of a human. I suspect that "sacredness" is (or should be) a proxy for practical arguments like the above. But I am probably missing something.

 

On the other hand I also think that almost all pregnant women, even those seriously considering abortion, have a stronger emotional attachment to the foetus than anyone else. So I would strongly suggest leaving the decision to the pregnant woman and trust that she has made a reasonable weighing of the different moral and practical arguments. If she decides to have the child even if it will have Down's Sydrome, have a terrible life and be a huge burden on society, it should be respected. If she decides to have an abortion because the wrong guy is the father then that should be respected also. We can disagree with her decision but it is hers to make nonetheless.

[ggwhiz]

I listened to an audio book a long time ago on a long drive to a Chicago NABC, Freakonomics. A large portion of it correlated the access to abortions with the drop in the crime rate. Fewer single parents being condemned to and raising kids in poverty is the simplistic view.

 

That's a cold reason but it's a very interesting read. My own opinion is simplistic too, that the same pro choice that exists in my marriage is certainly right for women I don't know.

[Cyberyeti]

And did you check the fatality risks of abortion? Some sources says birth is safer than abortion.

I made a search on it. Most of the sources that says birth is safer have interesting arguments that I do not want to get into. But from my search I am convinced abortion is safer when it comes to fatality. But you are talking as if the alternative of birthgiving is risk free, which is not true.

When it comes to post natal depression, there is also post abortion depression.

 

The sources I checked said abortion was 10-20 times safer than childbirth, particularly chemical ones properly medically administered. I wonder if the discrepancy is to do with late surgical ones which have all the normal risks of a surgical procedure, and self administered chemical ones which often use drugs that aren't actually licensed and can cause serious bleeding.

[Kaitlyn S]

I think that allowing parents to kill their 12 years old children would be impractical for a number of reasons. First, it is not clear if it should be the mother's sole decision because other family members and friends have invested in the child's upbringing and developed an emotional attachment to the child. Second, a 12 year old child would be conscious about the possibility that it could be disposed off which might influence its psychological development in negative ways, even if it would be very rare that it actually happened.

I believe that a fairly devastating side effect would occur when an undiagnosed mentally ill 12-year old fears that his being killed is imminent and takes steps to prevent it.

[MrAce]

The sources I checked said abortion was 10-20 times safer than childbirth, particularly chemical ones properly medically administered. I wonder if the discrepancy is to do with late surgical ones which have all the normal risks of a surgical procedure, and self administered chemical ones which often use drugs that aren't actually licensed and can cause serious bleeding.

 

My first wife, mother of Slam (my daughter, pronounced as Sheelam in Turkish, so you know how much I love bridge http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) is a Gynecologist. I know that there are many abortion methods. Some women are in higher risk with one method than an another.

 

Here some of the highlights that I remember about abortion and its effects/risks and studies. Not most of them are about fatality but human health.

Surgical ones has some serious disgusting methods in them. Vacuum, Dilation&evacuation, Dilation and Extraction. The more grown the baby is the nastier it gets. They basically inject the baby's skull and with 2 scissors they open the skull in order to suck out the brain of the baby. When brain is sucked the skull collapses and they vacuum the remains. some other mrthod basically chops the body of baby into pieces so they can suck it out. These procedures has the risks of Heavy Bleeding due to cervix is torn and uterus is punctured, partial or total body infection, anesthesia risks, damage to internal organs and/or losing the uterus. The risks of losing life depends on where you have the surgery. Trust me if you are not in a well equipped and staffed medical center, the risk is much higher than they will tell you. Blood transfusion and a full new surgery may be needed to recover the mother. It may even be needed right there at that time, depending on what went wrong.

 

 

Women who undergo abortion carry a significantly increased risk of delivering prematurely in the future. There are many studies that claims breast cancer and abortion has ties. But I found the sources biased so I can not tell whether it is true or not.

 

Carrying first pregnancy to its full term gives protection to breast cancer. Abortion causes loss of this protection. This claim looks like having more credentials than the one above.

 

About the pill form; even though it looks safer, if it is used on the wrong women, it has fatal effects. For example it can not be used with ectopic pregnancies. If your doctor somehow missed it and used this form, the tube may burst and cause internal bleeding. But you already knew that as you wrote.

 

A fertilized egg is certainly "life" but so are most of the cells in a freshly deceased body and so is an E. Coli bacterium.

 

Yes, I was referring to "human life"

To me, when it started it's heart beat in the female body, it is more precious than most of the human lives that I see everyday on the news. But that's me.

[Cyberyeti]

Scissor abortions are an abomination and pretty much any beyond 24 weeks (which are very rare) are extremely unpleasant.

 

I was mainly talking about the reasonably early "routine/lifestyle" ones that take place after 6 weeks (when you would say life begins) but before the foetus gets very big, I believe the chemical abortions are usually up to about 9 or 10 weeks, after that it will be surgical and more risky.

[Winstonm]

Some responses above. Kasich strikes me as a more reasonable type of R though, one I could have voted for. So there is some hope that you are right.

 

I think I have mentioned this before, but back in the 90's I was not a fan of Bill Clinton and I hoped (maybe not wisely) that Kasich would run against him. I think he is a little more reasonable that many Republicans - he used to be or so it seemed.

[Winstonm]

A fertilized egg is certainly "life" but so are most of the cells in a freshly deceased body and so is an E. Coli bacterium.

 

The question is why we have a tabu on killing fellow humans (as opposed to a general tabu on destroying life). If we think about this deeply enough we might come to a conclusion as to whether it should extend to a 6-week embryo, a 30 week foetus or to a 6 months child for that matter.

 

I think that allowing parents to kill their 12 years old children would be impractical for a number of reasons. First, it is not clear if it should be the mother's sole decision because other family members and friends have invested in the child's upbringing and developed an emotional attachment to the child. Second, a 12 year old child would be conscious about the possibility that it could be disposed off which might influence its psychological development in negative ways, even if it would be very rare that it actually happened.

 

I really don't see how these arguments would extent to a 6-week foetus. They become increasingly stronger as the embryo/foetus/child grows older, and making the time of birth the threshold may be somewhat arbitrary. However, I think it is a well-defined threshold that is more practically enforced than the alternatives.

 

I know this is a very cynical point of view. Almost all people would say there is something "sacred" (not necessarily in a religious meaning) about the life of a human. I suspect that "sacredness" is (or should be) a proxy for practical arguments like the above. But I am probably missing something.

 

On the other hand I also think that almost all pregnant women, even those seriously considering abortion, have a stronger emotional attachment to the foetus than anyone else. So I would strongly suggest leaving the decision to the pregnant woman and trust that she has made a reasonable weighing of the different moral and practical arguments. If she decides to have the child even if it will have Down's Sydrome, have a terrible life and be a huge burden on society, it should be respected. If she decides to have an abortion because the wrong guy is the father then that should be respected also. We can disagree with her decision but it is hers to make nonetheless.

 

The point of the abortion debate is about the appropriate time for the government to step in and mandate an attempt at a functioning human life/birth. In other words, at what point does the fetus have the same rights as the parents? It is a legal question made much more difficult due to the moral nature of the choice.

[barmar]

I listened to an audio book a long time ago on a long drive to a Chicago NABC, Freakonomics. A large portion of it correlated the access to abortions with the drop in the crime rate. Fewer single parents being condemned to and raising kids in poverty is the simplistic view.

His conclusion is pretty controversial, and other studies have disputed it. One of them found a much larger correlation with the phase-out of lead in gasoline in the 90's. But the Roe v. Wade decision cited earlier research that came to a similar conclusion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

[kenberg]

I have held off on commenting, I am not sure I have anything either original or useful to say. Sperm are life in some form, I am not planning on protecting them. Women have been coping with unwanted pregnancies as best they can forever. More easily in some times and paces, with more difficulty in other times and places. It seems to me that there is some form of life in a pregnancy, but I do not wish to tell anyone what to do about it. If I really felt compelled to meddle, I think it would be to keep pregnant women away from cigarettes, away from alcohol, away from illegal drugs.

 

Being closer to the other end of life, I see a disconnect in attitudes. Depending on how things play out, I can very much imagine that at some point I would want to say that's it has been a good life and now I am done. If a pregnant woman can abort a pregnancy with legal medical assistance, I see no reason why I cannot, at a time of my choosing, end my own life with legal medical assistance. I don't see why I should have to move to a different state, or prove that I have a terminal illness, or prove anything to anyone. Perhaps it should require a psychiatrist to certify my sanity, perhaps the same should be required of a woman wanting to terminate a pregnancy. Beyond that, I don't see why it is anyone's business but my own.

 

That won't be today, by the way. Not to worry!

 

Anyway, I think that there is life there, but at least through a large portion of the pregnancy, I have no wish to decide for the woman what she should do. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has enough problems.

 

Incidentally, I was born to a 20 year old unmarried farm girl. I have a high regard for adoption as a solution. My high regard for this solution is not binding on anyone else.

[awm]

While abortion is a tricky question, it seems like:

 

1. We should be able to achieve consensus around making birth control easily available, as this has been shown to have great impact in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. The fact that we cannot do this is really proof that (most of) the "pro life" side is more interested in forcing their religious beliefs on everyone than anything to do with preventing abortion or saving fetuses.

2. We should be able to achieve consensus around making childcare and pre-k as cheap and easy as possible, so that women who have babies young and/or out of wedlock can minimize the disruption to their education and career. This will help the babies themselves (which are surely at least as deserving of "life" as fetuses) as well as encouraging women to choose not to abort. Again, the fact that we cannot do this is really proof that (most of) the "pro life" side is obsessed with punishing women who get pregnant young/out of wedlock rather than with helping babies/fetuses.

3. Lawmakers weighing in on these issues really ought to do some research as to the reasons/stories around women who get abortions, especially abortions fairly late in the pregnancy. The vast majority of these cases involve something seriously wrong with the fetus, where the baby is unlikely to survive much beyond birth (or is even already dead in the womb). They are very sad stories and not at all the sort of "elective abortions" that most people find at least somewhat distasteful.

[nige1]

His conclusion is pretty controversial, and other studies have disputed it. One of them found a much larger correlation with the phase-out of lead in gasoline in the 90's. But the Roe v. Wade decision cited earlier research that came to a similar conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia...nd_crime_effect

Thank you. The sting in the tail of Barrmar's quioted article is that

 

Laws against abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion.

I don't like the conclusion, but this research suggests that strict abortion-law simply creates and rewards criminals and increases the risks to the mother manquée.

[Winstonm]

I have held off on commenting, I am not sure I have anything either original or useful to say. Sperm are life in some form, I am not planning on protecting them. Women have been coping with unwanted pregnancies as best they can forever. More easily in some times and paces, with more difficulty in other times and places. It seems to me that there is some form of life in a pregnancy, but I do not wish to tell anyone what to do about it. If I really felt compelled to meddle, I think it would be to keep pregnant women away from cigarettes, away from alcohol, away from illegal drugs.

 

Being closer to the other end of life, I see a disconnect in attitudes. Depending on how things play out, I can very much imagine that at some point I would want to say that's it has been a good life and now I am done. If a pregnant woman can abort a pregnancy with legal medical assistance, I see no reason why I cannot, at a time of my choosing, end my own life with legal medical assistance. I don't see why I should have to move to a different state, or prove that I have a terminal illness, or prove anything to anyone. Perhaps it should require a psychiatrist to certify my sanity, perhaps the same should be required of a woman wanting to terminate a pregnancy. Beyond that, I don't see why it is anyone's business but my own.

 

That won't be today, by the way. Not to worry!

 

Anyway, I think that there is life there, but at least through a large portion of the pregnancy, I have no wish to decide for the woman what she should do. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has enough problems.

 

Incidentally, I was born to a 20 year old unmarried farm girl. I have a high regard for adoption as a solution. My high regard for this solution is not binding on anyone else.

 

Your biological mother passed on good genes and it shows.

[Winstonm]

Thank you. The sting in the tail of Barrmar's quioted article is that

 

 

I don't like the conclusion, but this research suggests that strict abortion-law simply creates and rewards criminals and increases the risks to the mother manqué.

 

Curious here. Why don't you like the conclusion?

[Vampyr]

Curious here. Why don't you like the conclusion?

 

Read the rest of the sentence and you will see why.

[blackshoe]

…these babies…

 

baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born. -- Oxford American Dictionary

 

These are not babies you're talking about.

[blackshoe]

then I use my vote on her life rather than the baby's.

What makes you think you have a vote? What makes you think you should have a vote?

[blackshoe]

Did you happen to read the reason given for passing this bill? Because Trump had been elected. Just the first of many horrible things that are bound to occur over the next 4 years.

What idiot gave that reason for the passage of this bill? Why should we believe him?

[blackshoe]

At the end of the day, my view is that the state should be extremely cautious about imposing its moral ideas about when life begins and allow a lot of discretion to the mother, ensuring that she gets proper medical advice to assist her in making a decision. The heartbeat or the 20 weeks, etc, don't measure up to me.

 

Well said.

[nige1]

Curious here. Why don't you like the conclusion?

I presented my view in an earlier post

[Winstonm]

What idiot gave that reason for the passage of this bill? Why should we believe him?

 

It came from CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/ohio-abortion-bill/

 

CNN:

State legislators had considered the bill in previous years but it never passed the Senate. So what made the legislature's Republican majority move now?

"One, a new President, new Supreme Court justice appointees change the dynamic, and that there was a consensus in our caucus to move forward," Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, a Republican from Celina, told reporters after the final vote.

[Winstonm]

Read the rest of the sentence and you will see why.

I don't think so. His comment pertained to this quote:

 

Shah and Ahman, in a 2009 WHO study, said:

Laws against abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion.

 

I'm curious why someone would object to this conclusion.

[barmar]

I'm curious why someone would object to this conclusion.

Presumably because it implies that if you're against abortion, reversing Roe v. Wade isn't a solution. It won't reduce the number of abortions; affluent people will travel to countries that allow it, poor people will go back to back-alley abortions like they did before it became illegal.