Abortion at any point in a woman's pregnancy is wrong
Scroll to see replies
Original post by h3rmit
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
@Joel96
1) The definition of a parasitc relationship as necessarily heterospecific is overly restrictive, as it excludes the few homospecific relationships which do fit the core definition of parasitism, such as cancerous or tumoral cells and narcomedusae. Most parasitic relationships are heterospecific but if a definition excludes relationships which are also sensibly classified as parasitic, it needs reworking.
2) The other gamete required for conception comes from an outside source.
3) The fetus is generally harmful. It causes a whole host of side effects such as
Nausea.
Constipation.
Sore boobs.
Vomiting and morning sickness.
Indigestion and heartburn.
Braxton Hicks.
Depression.
Anxiety.
Detrimental emotion changes due to the fetus pumping the mother full of hormones.
Fatigue.
Bloating.
Insomnia.
Pressure on the bladder leading to increased urination.
And it can cause and be involved in some conditions, like
Hyperemesis gravidarum
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
Dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
Gestational diabetes
Placenta previa
Anemia (which can be life-threatening)
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Severe cramping
Embolism (blood clots)
Medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
Diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
Serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
Hormonal imbalance
Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone" )
Hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery
Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
Severe post-partum depression and psychosis
Research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
Research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
Research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
From
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/15/1082439/-The-fetus-is-a-parasite
It's partially an opinion piece, so I cleaned the reasoning up a bit.
4) The human embryo burrows into the endometrium to gain *direct* access to the blood vessels.
5) The endometrium does cut off embryos from the host - it's only by virtue of aggression and strength this defence is overcome. Also, there are competing biological systems here - the immune system recognises a parasite, but procreation is essential for successful organisms so the hemochorial placenta is a way around that. Still, the amniotic sac is still cutting off the fetus. It's like building a giant wall on a border then having one door (placenta). There's not a complete cut off, but it's still cut off that.
6) This point even shows the mother does have an immune response to the fetus, but the fetus has evolved defenses against it. Lots of parasites evolve defenses against their host's response too. The increased chance for homosexuality with younger brothers also indicates the mother does attack the fetus - and gets better with it at each pregnancy.
7) The woman is definitely weakened by the presence of the fetus - there's a reason pregnant women are advised not to do heavy lifting. Also, lots of parasites are completely unrelated to the reproductive system. If you acknowledge reproductive capacity in terms of ability to conceive offspring and also in terms of ability to conceive *healthy* offspring (which would sensible since we're a K-selected species), the biological stress and low mass of babies after repeat pregnancies shows fetuses damage reproductive capacity.
8) Remaining with one host for life is not central to the definition of parasite. Lots of parasites actually move between hosts, so this is an invalid point.
The fetus-mother relationship is commensal at best and if you're an optimist, but parasitic if you're a realist.
@Joel96
1) The definition of a parasitc relationship as necessarily heterospecific is overly restrictive, as it excludes the few homospecific relationships which do fit the core definition of parasitism, such as cancerous or tumoral cells and narcomedusae. Most parasitic relationships are heterospecific but if a definition excludes relationships which are also sensibly classified as parasitic, it needs reworking.
2) The other gamete required for conception comes from an outside source.
3) The fetus is generally harmful. It causes a whole host of side effects such as
Nausea.
Constipation.
Sore boobs.
Vomiting and morning sickness.
Indigestion and heartburn.
Braxton Hicks.
Depression.
Anxiety.
Detrimental emotion changes due to the fetus pumping the mother full of hormones.
Fatigue.
Bloating.
Insomnia.
Pressure on the bladder leading to increased urination.
And it can cause and be involved in some conditions, like
Hyperemesis gravidarum
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
Dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
Gestational diabetes
Placenta previa
Anemia (which can be life-threatening)
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Severe cramping
Embolism (blood clots)
Medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
Diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
Serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
Hormonal imbalance
Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone" )
Hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery
Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
Severe post-partum depression and psychosis
Research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
Research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
Research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
From
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/15/1082439/-The-fetus-is-a-parasite
It's partially an opinion piece, so I cleaned the reasoning up a bit.
4) The human embryo burrows into the endometrium to gain *direct* access to the blood vessels.
5) The endometrium does cut off embryos from the host - it's only by virtue of aggression and strength this defence is overcome. Also, there are competing biological systems here - the immune system recognises a parasite, but procreation is essential for successful organisms so the hemochorial placenta is a way around that. Still, the amniotic sac is still cutting off the fetus. It's like building a giant wall on a border then having one door (placenta). There's not a complete cut off, but it's still cut off that.
6) This point even shows the mother does have an immune response to the fetus, but the fetus has evolved defenses against it. Lots of parasites evolve defenses against their host's response too. The increased chance for homosexuality with younger brothers also indicates the mother does attack the fetus - and gets better with it at each pregnancy.
7) The woman is definitely weakened by the presence of the fetus - there's a reason pregnant women are advised not to do heavy lifting. Also, lots of parasites are completely unrelated to the reproductive system. If you acknowledge reproductive capacity in terms of ability to conceive offspring and also in terms of ability to conceive *healthy* offspring (which would sensible since we're a K-selected species), the biological stress and low mass of babies after repeat pregnancies shows fetuses damage reproductive capacity.
8) Remaining with one host for life is not central to the definition of parasite. Lots of parasites actually move between hosts, so this is an invalid point.
The fetus-mother relationship is commensal at best and if you're an optimist, but parasitic if you're a realist.
This.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Nerry
Wait till you get several women pregnant then they post you the bill
Children are ****ing expensive, when men see just how expensive they are they will be grateful for abortion
Children are ****ing expensive, when men see just how expensive they are they will be grateful for abortion
killing a human that is your own offspring just for a kick back expresses lack of morals.
Original post by koira
The mother is fully functioning, alive human being, a fetus is fully dependant on the mother and cannot survive on its own. A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life.
A newborn baby is also fully dependent on someone else to survive. It cannot go and get food for itself, it relies on someone else's using their own motor functions to go and do that for the baby.
If a "right to life" does not imply the right to rely upon someone else's body to sustain it, then this would imply that it is acceptable for a parent to let that newborn baby starve, because "I decide what I do with my body, and I'm not using it to go and get food for that child".
On the contrary, parenthood implies a responsibility to make the effort to ensure that the child remains alive, even if it requires use of their body.
Fetuses cannot even feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation meaning they won't feel the abortion, most abortions take place early on also.
Killing someone without them feeling it is easy. For example, a person who is under general anaesthetic can be killed without them feeling any pain whatsoever. Your argument would suggest that this is acceptable too.
Do you see a grown adult woman as having less importance than the fetus inside her?
In the case of an unborn child, we're talking about the difference between life and death.
In the case of a parent, we're not (usually) talking about life and death. We're talking about having to go to the effort and inconvenience of having a child, as well as the fact that it is (usually) absolutely their own fault that the child exists in the first place.
So you can probably see why someone would think protecting the life of an unborn child would be more important than protecting its parents from effort and inconvenience, especially when it was self-inflicted in the first place.
Original post by h3rmit
I have not artificially limited responses, there are only two - nuke or not nuke, nothing else is of the sufficient magnitude or feasible. Past conception, there are only two options also - abort or not abort. There's not a secret option I'm hiding.
1. Not sure what is meant by "artificially" since this is just talk. However, you do ridicule an opposing viewpoint the same time of presenting a question. Or was it meant to be rhetoric?
" Whose interests do you have at heart? "
Scenarios limit outcomes that are considered to formulate an answer - an answer is the response.
"launching nukes to minimize further damage"
just about every scenario I have seen involving nukes leads to nuclear holocaust when countries target countries.
best to consider another movie - war games
[video]https://youtu.be/m4wk6jSNZU8[/video]
First scenario proclaimed that if hitler did not exist, there would be no war or holocaust. though this is one possible outcome, it is also possible that other factors that accumulated into nazi germany continued without hitler - since "founders" to nazi party are still alive.
Despite Hitler being a big center of nazi germany, it takes more than him to glue it all together. People often blame hitler for all the woes, but even with him out of the picture early you still have an arrange of factors and people that held hitler up in order to obtain his popularity.
In both scenarios, appears you try to guarantee that the opposing response will be/is bad.
It doesn't seem like you did consider the long term consequences, since you made an absolute statement, which should involve every possible consequence since it is an absolute, but then proceeded to consider only one consequence, and an immediate one at that.
" i. Like "women dying from childbirth." this doesn't explain how or why they are dying. statement only assumes that childbirth is an event that lead to or allowed some unknown circumstance to transpire. That unknown circumstance is the cause of death, not childbirth by itself. But since there is a refrain from determining what that unknown circumstance is - we don't get to go into all the possible solutions that would reduce risk or is alternative to abortion
ii. I did not say mentally ill people can't have kids. I disputed idea that mentally ill parents must hurt or automatically will hurt their kids. those with mental illness are not all crack pots who could be good parents. killing the child would not solve problem.
iii. poverty and job loss is unrealistic. especially in u.k. where your job is protected if you get pregnant. I already disputed earlier (maybe different post) that the condition of poverty is not how much money you spend but how money is managed along with factors being economy and govt. - not childbearing.
"oh but it costs so much." yes and there is help for parents from their family, from non-profits, and govt. and abortion? does not take you out of poverty.
iiii "Children being forced into care (which would occur in ridiculous magnitudes if abortion was illegal, literally tens of thousands every year) at the cost of prosperity of the society."
wow! there are many people who went to a clinic wanting abortion but left still caring the baby full term. luckily they talked to someone nice outside. we can read about them and how they have enjoyed their lives with the child they were about to terminate. your statement assumes that parents could not be happy and would automatically place a child into care. "
ii. I did not say mentally ill people can't have kids. I disputed idea that mentally ill parents must hurt or automatically will hurt their kids. those with mental illness are not all crack pots who could be good parents. killing the child would not solve problem.
iii. poverty and job loss is unrealistic. especially in u.k. where your job is protected if you get pregnant. I already disputed earlier (maybe different post) that the condition of poverty is not how much money you spend but how money is managed along with factors being economy and govt. - not childbearing.
"oh but it costs so much." yes and there is help for parents from their family, from non-profits, and govt. and abortion? does not take you out of poverty.
iiii "Children being forced into care (which would occur in ridiculous magnitudes if abortion was illegal, literally tens of thousands every year) at the cost of prosperity of the society."
wow! there are many people who went to a clinic wanting abortion but left still caring the baby full term. luckily they talked to someone nice outside. we can read about them and how they have enjoyed their lives with the child they were about to terminate. your statement assumes that parents could not be happy and would automatically place a child into care. "
There seems to be more considered than that which I was responding to.
After conception has occurred, there aren't many other options.
1. you provide link to a woman saying (which I presume involves u.k.statistics) "for a very small number of women..." I could not see how a very small number of women could determine induced abortion plausible and moral for all situations.
2. Good that link goes into some depth as to what can go wrong, but these conditions need to be considered according to individual and what can be done at that given moment. In some cases, like a blood clot, an induced abortion would not solve that problem. the woman would still have a clot in her body.
Furthermore, this condition is preventable and treatable.
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a1048412/thrombosis-in-pregnancy
[*]"if you smoke, stop smoking.
[*]Drink plenty to make sure you stay hydrated.
[*]Eat healthily, particularly if you are overweight.
[*]Take regular exercise, such as walking or swimming, to improve circulation in your legs.
[*]Wear compression stockings if you are travelling on a long-haul flight or if you need to stay in hospital. Compression stockings squeeze your feet, lower legs and thighs, helping blood to circulate more quickly.
[*] Blood clots are treated in the same way that they are prevented, with an anticoagulant. Your obstetrician will probably offer you LMWH.
Treatment with LMWH is usually recommended for the rest of your pregnancy and for at least six weeks after your baby’s birth. In total, you're likely to be taking LMWH for three months to help you recover. At first, you may also need to keep your affected leg raised when you're resting, and to wear compression stockings.
If you need treatment after your baby's birth, your obstetrician may give you another type of anticoagulant, called warfarin. If you are breastfeeding, it's safe to use either LMWH or warfarin.
If you need to take warfarin, you will have regular blood tests to check how long it takes for your blood to form clots. You may also need to wear support stockings every day."
We can also see how other conditions can create blood clots but this beings an emphasis to consider your risks prior to pregnancy not during.
blood clots
http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/how-to-prevent-deadly-blood-clots-in-pregnancy/
If we were to break down every single condition, we can see what causes that condition, how to prevent it, how to cope, and how to move forward. Some of these conditions require more study to understand how to move forward to best ability.
I will still stress that the unknown will cause fear and fear can be dealt with.
Mentally ill parents are far more likely to neglect and abuse their children. You keep saying "must" or "automatically", but that's not my implication. When I say Australia is a hot place, that doesn't mean every single second of every single day is upwards of 40C. There are, definitely, cold days (though the cold days are still warmer than the cold days of colder countries). Still, I can still make the claim confidently that it is not a good place to bring a psychrophile or any organism that thrives in cold environments.
"There are lots of scenarios, like if: the mother would die if she gave birth; the parents were starving and the child would be too; the parents are mentally ill and would abuse the child; the country or place is in a persistent time of war with no evidence of stopping; the child would be one of hundreds of thousands forced into the care of a society unable to care for them; the baby would be disabled"
All pertaining to absolute negative outcome. In order for your example to be considered, a parent that is mentally ill HAS to abuse their child. Regardless of intent, a child birthed to a mentally unstable parent does not need to remain in that environment nor is that parent condemned to only be a negative impact on their child.
Your point about job loss is valid. However, the poverty cycle itself is continued via children, and careers (particularly of women) suffer due to children. Abortion allows you to get out of poverty by minimising your burdens with respect to finances and time.
Even if poverty can "end" for a single individual - the result is not due to limited responsibility but attributed to a person's attitude and will. Which is attributed to the person.
However, regardless to the financial situation with or without children - to kill another human for pure desire to pertain or maintain finances is an immoral act.
Abort all the foetuses of single mothers regardless of what trimester it is. Nobody benefits from it, not society, nor the mother, not the family. Kill the child before it has any real awareness and you'd do the whole society a huge favour.
what if rape, what if they are ready for it,
i don't remember anything until i was like 3, i cant remember being in the belly what if u get it tested and find out they would be born with horrible genetic disease abortion is right and so is euthanasia.
i don't remember anything until i was like 3, i cant remember being in the belly what if u get it tested and find out they would be born with horrible genetic disease abortion is right and so is euthanasia.
Abortion should always be an option.
1. No woman should feel ashamed for having an abortion. It is absolutely her choice.
2. No, it isn't murder. A fetus isn't a human being yet. It's still developing from a bunch of cells.
3. There are cases when it would be unreasonable to have a child. Not just talking about rape victims either. Things go wrong, it isn't anybody else's choice, nobody should basically just say to a woman that they should be changing her life plans and future around, for a baby they didn't plan to have.
It's not your life to try and control because you're to shallow to try and understand someone else's situation.
If a woman is using birth control and/or any other type of protection, and falls pregnant then she actively tried to prevent pregnancy, and if she falls pregnant, should not feel ashamed for having an abortion.
1. No woman should feel ashamed for having an abortion. It is absolutely her choice.
2. No, it isn't murder. A fetus isn't a human being yet. It's still developing from a bunch of cells.
3. There are cases when it would be unreasonable to have a child. Not just talking about rape victims either. Things go wrong, it isn't anybody else's choice, nobody should basically just say to a woman that they should be changing her life plans and future around, for a baby they didn't plan to have.
It's not your life to try and control because you're to shallow to try and understand someone else's situation.
If a woman is using birth control and/or any other type of protection, and falls pregnant then she actively tried to prevent pregnancy, and if she falls pregnant, should not feel ashamed for having an abortion.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Miss tiara
Abortion should always be an option.
1. No woman should feel ashamed for having an abortion. It is absolutely her choice.
2. No, it isn't murder. A fetus isn't a human being yet. It's still developing from a bunch of cells.
3. There are cases when it would be unreasonable to have a child. Not just talking about rape victims either. Things go wrong, it isn't anybody else's choice, nobody should basically just say to a woman that they should be changing her life plans and future around, for a baby they didn't plan to have.
It's not your life to try and control because you're to shallow to try and understand someone else's situation.
If a woman is using birth control and/or any other type of protection, and falls pregnant then she actively tried to prevent pregnancy, and if she falls pregnant, should not feel ashamed for having an abortion.
1. No woman should feel ashamed for having an abortion. It is absolutely her choice.
2. No, it isn't murder. A fetus isn't a human being yet. It's still developing from a bunch of cells.
3. There are cases when it would be unreasonable to have a child. Not just talking about rape victims either. Things go wrong, it isn't anybody else's choice, nobody should basically just say to a woman that they should be changing her life plans and future around, for a baby they didn't plan to have.
It's not your life to try and control because you're to shallow to try and understand someone else's situation.
If a woman is using birth control and/or any other type of protection, and falls pregnant then she actively tried to prevent pregnancy, and if she falls pregnant, should not feel ashamed for having an abortion.
1. no person should shame or abuse another for their life choices - agreed. however, the emotional response can derive from the woman herself.
is "her choice" is the reasoning to why a woman should not feel remorse or doubt or ashamed? The legal ability to choose an act does not mean the act is moral or can not result in negative responses after having made such a choice.
There are mixed responses among women about abortion in general. Our own perceptions play a role along with societal "norms." But these things can change and be played with - to the point that even immoral acts are considered okay.
2. you are a bunch of cells.
what a horrible description that is lost from basic biology. the child within the womb can not be anything other than human - otherwise you are trying to claim he/she is of another species. Please rely only on biology, which identifies the child as human and their own being.
3. A future does not need to be "moved around." although priorities change, a woman does not need to abandon her entire life goal - which itself is an unknown. you may never reach it even if you do have an abortion. Unknowns can not be made to an absolute - by which another human's ability to live should not be decided upon by anyone who is not that person.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
LSE september 2024 grad intakeLast reply 1 minute ago
Unsure of where to find student finance breakdownLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Posted 3 minutes ago
Can I get an A/A* using claire bio and ms estruch vids for OCR A level biologyLast reply 3 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
Why are the grade requirements for Computer Science at Manchester University so high?Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official Royal Veterinary College Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
Looking for fellow students! MMU Postgrad.Last reply 14 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 47 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 47 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
