Abortion

Yeah but the law is based on a cultures morality not the other way around. I dont believe in life at conception but I'm pretty sold on certain benchmarks being off limits. Certainly when the baby is viable that to me is a fully developed individual and the word murder applies.

But it comes down to being able to prove (for lack of a better word) your argument. If you cant give a good basis for it then you cant pass a law banning it. You need to leave it up to the individual. So first trimester I'm fine with it being legal and hopefully rare.

Pro choice people in my area are hardcore though. They dont care what the circumstances are, they believe in the divine infallibility of all women everywhere to make the right choice. Even if that's in the 8th month for a superficial reason.

Late term abortions are terrible things. I can approve and be pro-choice for first trimester; if you have a reason that you simply cannot bring a child into a safe, loving environment, or other factors are forcing you to question whether you should have the child, you should know all of these things by then.

Any argument I have made or might make has always assumed this to be the case. I'm not entirely certain I know where I stand as far as where "life" starts for the child, but I'm concerned enough about it that I could never be ok with anything after that first trimester. If for no other reason than soon after that kid, or embryo, or mass of cells actually starts resembling a person.

Most of the people under going IVF are unable to have a baby through normal means. My wife and I just did it, we got pregnant once a few years back and were unable to get pregnant again. Our issue was egg quality since she is 38 (post 35 woman's eggs deteriorate quickly). Others in the group that went had similar issues although a couple had defects in her tubes and one couple had a low sperm count. Most were egg quality issues though.

What they do for you and how many eggs they shoot for depends entirely on your risk factors and the reason you are there. In our case we had been trying to have another baby for 3 years without success. Since it was likely an egg issue given all the facts they super stimulated her to produce eggs, higher quality eggs than had been done in a natural cycle and fertilized them. We had 17 eggs retrieved and 16 were ok to be fertilized and all of them were fertilized by the sperm. Over 3 days more than half stopped dividing and on day 5 all but 2 were dead. They implanted a perfect looking Blast and the other that was still kicking and only the blast attached. She is now pregnant.

Had we continued through the natural method we likely would have never had another child. Each of those eggs would have launched one or two at a time, been fertilized and died. No different than the super controlled results giving them the best chance of life possible, just all at once.

If we had extra we would have frozen them and either used them or donated them to another couple (adoption) if we didn't want any more kids. Now if we decided to kill perfectly good blasts and discard them I'd have moral issues with that but so long as we chose the "life" options in all our decisions I was ok with the process despite being pretty wary about it at the start.

You are creating life and the life that is dying in the process is life that wouldn't have survived naturally. People dropping 17k a throw for a coin flip chance to have a kid aren't doing so willy nilly. They are there because its their only option at that point because they have been trying for years without success. Years of very likely seeing fertilization and non viable embryos, all of which are exactly the same that didn't make it during the procedure. You have control over the entire process with input from the Doctors. Less risky patients often limit the number of eggs fertilized (one pastor that used them only had 4 done all of which fertilized and they got twins on two batches as an eg) to control the possibility of getting more than you need and they always limit the number that go back in the the woman. At least the reputable doctors do.

I do not believe in souls. To me, a person is the electrical signals in their brain. I expect that when a person dies and their brain stops functioning then there is nothing for them, just non existence. This means that I do not believe that life begins at conception, because until the brain has somewhat developed the mass of cells may as well be dead.

I am willing or even hoping to be proved wrong by science in the future, but at the moment unless you believe in a soul I am surprised that you believe that life begins at conception. What is life when you have no awareness?

I am sure someone will bring up the coma argument, so I will say now that a person in a coma at least has friends and family who value their life, even if they cannot.

Tuco_sl said:

1. Would you people stop abusing the word murder.
2. This is a huge problem for people like me who support all kinds of child creation technology but believe that life happens at conception. Okay there's not many of us. But I have no problem with this because the ultimate goal is to create a life, so if it a mother goes through 20 zygotes to get that one kid I think it's ok but I still realize that 19 unique individuals were sacrificed to get there.

Click to expand...

1. No. And please stop trying to censor people.

2. Freeze those unused fertilized ova for future implantation in infertile women. I'm not sure where you're getting the 20 Zygotes? Do You mean 20 fail to implant so they're flushed out? Nothing you can do about that - and that happens naturally all the time anyway, just a super early miscarriage. Indeed some reasonably large amount of naturally fertizlied Ova fail to implant and flush out.

Flank_sl said:

What is life when you have no awareness?.

Click to expand...

So when people are asleep but not lucid dreaming they're not human?

Caliane_sl said:

life starts before conception. SPerm is alive, eggs are alive, the parents are alive(hopefully)

The question is, what cells matter?
you don't give a fuck about blood, skin, or any other random cell.
So why do you care about embryo's? The body flushes out unfertilized AND fertilized eggs naturally. Sometimes, during pregnancies the body rejects, and absorbs the fetus.
You don't care about sperm, or eggs. But somehow it magically different the moment its fertilized? bullshit.

Let me ask you, on the other end.
Terry Schrivo. Would you have cut off her life support?

She was brain dead. If you agree she was DEAD, and it as just her body hanging on as a complicated system that can carry on past death of the brain. then the same applies at gestation. the fetus must develop as simple tissue, and masses of cells, that develop into a body. But until the brain is up and functioning, its not a person, its just a developing body.
I'm not going to pretend we know exactly when that occurs.. but its certainly enough to allow for early term abortions.

Tissue cultures, skin grafts, etc. Cloning. no brain. not a person.

Click to expand...

Don't use brain, use cerebral cortex. A dead cerebral cortex is an absolutely 100% no coming back dead human. In context of a developing fetus a functional and working connection between the thalamus and cortex are necessary before you can go from "a mass of cells" to a "fetus that could potentially feel pain". Or about 20-26 weeks of development.

The reason for higher cortex development over brain activity is that brain activity can be see as early as six weeks even when a fetus has the rare condition of no cortex and is quite literally never going to be alive.

Tuco_sl said:

Telling people the correct definitions of words is not censoring them. You and everyone else is free to abuse the english languages as much as you want. Functional not can the simple body end blood ever been so far as.

Click to expand...

Abortion was considered murder for the greater part of the history of the United States and indeed Western Civilization. That it is legal in the United States doesn't mean that it isn't murder - do I really need to bring up other mass genocides that were legal in their respective countries?

I guess so:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_conference

Tuco_sl said:

2. This is a huge problem for people like me who support all kinds of child creation technology but believe that life happens at conception. Okay there's not many of us. But I have no problem with this because the ultimate goal is to create a life, so if it a mother goes through 20 zygotes to get that one kid I think it's ok but I still realize that 19 unique individuals were sacrificed to get there.

Click to expand...

I mean this gets down to the core of it doesn't it?

Its ok morally, by your standards, if 20 zygotes die because the ultimate goal is to create 1 life. That tradeoff is ok to you.

Its ok morally, by others standards, if one zygote or embryo or fetus dies in order to acheive the ultimate goal to preserve the life or wellbeing of the mother (be it physical or mental). This most accurately describes my stance/what I think is an acceptable tradeoff. Where her life is at risk or where the mental consequences are involved (rape, incest being two prominent examples) then morally, that trade is ok by me. Again, I don't believe in abortion as birth control, but the problem is that society can't even gtfo when its an 11 year old carrying her father's child, or gtfo in instances like birth control, and in order to protect that child or every woman's right to birth control in the age of personhood amendments it means (unfortunately) having a completely arbitrary standard of viability as the point at which abortion is no longer ok. Its my legal stance, not my moral one, but I also don't think I have the right to impose my morals on others until the baby can reasonably be said to be capable of survival outside the womb.

But I do think that, for the reason that I do, and always have, agreed that abortion as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible, that what keg said needs to be given some thought. Lets not shield ourselves from the reality that it is another life. That's why it *should* be a tough decision. No matter if I believe that the mothers interests may outweigh the childs in certain instances or not, the gravity of taking a life to spare another's needs to be enormous because that's the respect that life, even if its taken, deserves. I'm not saying I agree with 48 hour waiting periods and parental consent and all that nonsense (for various reasons), but this shouldn't be a decision that anyone takes lightly and that's also part of the problem. People far to the left on this issue try and downplay things by saying 'its just a bunch of cells' - its not. However its not yet a human being who, in all cases, has rights equal to or in fact greater than the mother's. The answer is somewhere in the middle and the line has been drawn around the end of the second trimester.

Until the right stops acting completely batshit crazy on this we'll get no where. Because I'd still rather protect the life of an 11 year old who has been raped by her dad than protect the life of the unborn child she carries inside her. And if that means that babies in the grey area between 'bunch of cells' and 'viable human being' have to perish, then that is the cost that the right wing has chosen to pay instead of trying to approach things with a modicum of rationality.

Abortion IS the termination of a life. What we think constitutes an acceptable trade off is where most people get lost. And in cases (ie the right) where there is no trade off good enough, then once again you can't even have a rational discussion about what is or is not an acceptable trade off. To include IVF, birth control, rape, incest, mother's life at risk etc. Because its like arguing with a wall. You get fucking nowhere.

I think when you begin to realize your stance requires a hypocrisy or a double standard, you need to come to terms that your stance is wrong.

A functioning cerebral cortex is surely the point of no return. however, I would agree the bar should be set earlier.
3rd tri, only in life or death situations.
2nd tri, life or death, cases of rape. I wouldn't have a problem with this being locked down more. (granted.. not my body.)
1st tri, any.

I'm pretty left leaning on most things, but the more I've looked and read and thought about it I can't deny the moral implications. I look at the progression of a pregnancy and that mass of cells turns into something resembling human life really fucking fast. I'm assuming most abortions don't take place in the first month, and if they take place in the third I have to concede that you're already in a tough spot to deny it being a life.

I mean, I think folks may not be aware of what 'the first month' is in pregnancy. How far along you are is inclusive of weeks you hadn't even conceived. Example- first day of my last period was Oct 7. However, that's the day that is used for getting the first calculation of how far along I am. So that's 11 weeks. But I didn't even ovulate until on or after the 23rd of Oct (and going by my ultrasound on 29 Nov, I was only 6.5 weeks along instead of just over 7, so its likely I didn't ovulate until like 25 October). So thats what, over 2.5 weeks where conception hadn't even taken place but its still counted in terms of how 'far along' I am.

Basically by 'week 8' your baby looks like a baby. But you may have only had actual conception for like 6 weeks, maybe 5 (which would make it really 'week 7' but you dont really know until you have the first ultrasound which a lot of places dont do until 9-10 weeks).

I'm 10.5 - 11 weeks along at this point and the baby looks like a baby. Its the size of a lime. It has fingernails, working organs, toothbuds.....and I haven't even cleared the first trimester yet. I still have 2.5 weeks to go.

Saying its just a lump of cells at this point is ridiculous. But its still nowhere close to viable. Grey area.

Tuco_sl said:

We're exactly where you and I want to be. Abortion is legal in all 50 states. For you, that 11yo girl is able to terminate her pregnancy. For me, women are able to make their moral choices on what to do with their pregnancy. I may disagree with most women who abort but I believe they should have the right to make the choice.

Click to expand...

Yeah. From a legal perspective I suppose you're right. Morally I think we still have a ways to go because I think that we as a country could do better on sex ed and preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place but I suppose that's a separate (though related because the right thinks sex ed in schools=license to fuck) issue.

Part of me (not the legal part) wishes that say on the third elective (meaning not rape, incest, life of mother in danger etc) abortion we should be able to contemplate forced sterlizations (and also forced sterlizations on mothers who give birth to babies who are addicted to drugs or with fetal alcohol syndrome). Legally no way but morally.....if you can't make responsible decisions you shouldn't get the right. But that's bound to be an unpopular opinion. I also think we should be able to force fathers who have like 10 plus kids and don't pay child support to undergo sterilization or face jail time (its not like they're paying their obligations anyways). /shrug.

Like I said. Its a legal vs moral distinction. The fact that it would be a nightmare legally to implement (let alone unconstitutional) means that I'm only saying that I support it from a moral/feeling perspective.

Its kind of the same thing I feel about guns. Left to my own devices I'd say get rid of them all. But thats not a realistic or constitutional option. Its not a rational position to take.

Each menstrual cycle the ovaries start maturing dozens of eggs from their dormant phase. The eggs that grow the fastest, the fittest or most environmentally and nutritionally fortunate then terminate the growth of the other lesser eggs of that cycle via signal molecules. When we harvest eggs for IVF this process does not occur - all the eggs harvested are not subjected to the competitive nature of the ovarian environment. The naturally occurring mechanisms for weeding out the immediately non-viable zygotes are being bypassed - both for sperm and egg. A part of the IVF process is also testing for know genetic disorders. This is yet another way of bypassing nature - we simply terminate or don't implant those zygotes we know have undesirable genetic disorders.

I am curious why some of you equivocate the termination of the fertilized harvested eggs with murder then? Have we not already committed deus ex machina by 1) harvesting the eggs 2) artificially fertilizing them 3) artificially inserting and implanting them 4) administered hormones to sustain pregnancies?

Why is it murder when we terminate said zygote without truly knowing it's implanting capability, survivability and in the long run capabilities: genetic makeup?
Is it murder when the body does the same for what seems to be non-viable zygotes?
Is it murder when men masturbate or when women ovulate with no sperm to fertilize the fittest egg?
Is it murder if the ovarian tubes are blocking the eggs decent and thus fertilization never happens?
Is it murder if the ovarian tubes cilia does not respond to circulating hormones and does not favor transport of the zygote to the uterine cavity?
Is it murder if the mucosa of the ovarian tubes does not favor transport of sperm to fertilize the egg?
Is it murder if the endometrium is not thick enough or implant friendly enough for the zygote?
Is it murder if the endometrium is not responsive enough for circulating hormones to make said implant friendly environment?
Is it murder if the woman has a HPA axis disorder and has too little or is receptor sub-responsive to hormones and thus does not provide an implant friendly environment or cannot sustain pregnancies hormonally?
Is it murder if the woman is a smoker and thus pollute her body with toxins that makes zygote implant harder / impossible?
Is it murder if the woman is drinking alcohol which terminates the feeble zygote or simply makes the endometrium less susceptible to implant?

Where do you guys and gals draw the line and why?

@Etoille
I understand the pain of being unable / having a hard time conceiving, sure. I'm curious, though as to what you mean by no IVF being unfair? Is having a child a right in your eyes or a privilege? Please elaborate