The Big Abortion Thread

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

45 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And if my mother had married a different man, I wouldn't have been here either. The thing is that I at least am not that concerned about it -- there isn't a core of me-ness that is aware of existence before I was born, and therefore there isn't any loss if I'm not born. I don't know about any core of me-ness after I die, either, but I'm comfortable with that. I'm not in charge.

I like to think of myself as a happy accident, kind of like a whole lot of evolution that turned out to be better.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Every so often I think the same thing.

Have I changed the world to any notice?  No.

When I die, will the world notice?  No.

I've had a fairly good life, raised some kids I'm crazily proud of, and have two grandkids that I also am crazily proud of. 

I've done the job Mother Nature asked of me.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited January 11, 2022 by JerryBaumchen

[kallend 1,621]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

I support choice.  I'm concerned that it might be the wrong choice.

I was born in 1958.  I was adopted in 1958.  Pretty sure I wouldn't be here had I been conceived in the past 40 years.

Given the various choices that were made by your ancestors going back to the dawn of life on this planet (and not even considering the sperm races), the odds that you were born at all is about 2^quadrillion against.    For all practical purposes, you aren't here.

[NewGuy2005 51]

8 hours ago, airdvr said:

I support choice.  I'm concerned that it might be the wrong choice.

I was born in 1958.  I was adopted in 1958.  Pretty sure I wouldn't be here had I been conceived in the past 40 years.

You used the term "I" six times in five sentences.  Do you (or anyone) know at what point you ceased to be your mother's tissue and you became "I?"

[NewGuy2005 51]

7 hours ago, wmw999 said:

...there isn't a core of me-ness that is aware of existence before I was born...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you don't recall being aware of your existence before you were born?  It is possible that you are correct, and you were not aware of your existence. However, the only thing you can say with certainty today is that you have no recollection of being aware of your existence.  

Not being aware of your existence and not currently recalling being aware of you existence are two totally different things.

 

[NewGuy2005 51]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Given the various choices that were made by your ancestors going back to the dawn of life on this planet (and not even considering the sperm races), the odds that you were born at all is about 2^quadrillion against.    For all practical purposes, you aren't here.

No doubt, but what does that have to do with anything we are discussing here?

[billvon 2,381]

59 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you don't recall being aware of your existence before you were born?  It is possible that you are correct, and you were not aware of your existence. However, the only thing you can say with certainty today is that you have no recollection of being aware of your existence.  

On a related note, some people with profound autism remember their births.  Scientists believe it's because people with that level of autism have to come up with a new way of storing long term memories since the usual methods don't work.  One woman - Rebecca Sharrock - says she can remember being in utero.

[kallend 1,621]

8 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

No doubt, but what does that have to do with anything we are discussing here?

Whooosh

[BIGUN 1,049]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

One woman - Rebecca Sharrock - says she can remember being in utero.

Marilu Henner 

[NewGuy2005 51]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Whooosh

Apparently.  Please explain it to me.

[airdvr 197]

13 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

You used the term "I" six times in five sentences.  Do you (or anyone) know at what point you ceased to be your mother's tissue and you became "I?"

Not the point I was going for.

[NewGuy2005 51]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Not the point I was going for.

For sure, but it made me notice that when we discuss the generic topic of abortion, we use clinical language like fetus and tissue, but when we talk about specific instances of abortion we often use more personal terms. You referred to yourself as “I” as far back as conception. 

The point I’m trying to make with all of this is that somewhere along the continuum of conception to birth there has to be a transition from tissue to person. Maybe transition is not the right word. 

Prior to this point, it’s purely a matter between a woman and her doctor and no one gets to influence any of it. 

After that point, it’s a much bigger picture and I think that is where the debate lies. 

I don’t know the answer. For the record, I don’t take any kind of religious stance on this. 

[kallend 1,621]

Pity the pro-life crowd for the most part opposes any effort to save these kids:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2022/kids-shot-killed-2021-gun-violence-record/

..... an epidemic unique to the United States, where, on average, at least one child is shot every hour of every day. Many survive, but many others do not. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Pity the pro-life crowd for the most part opposes any effort to save these kids:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2022/kids-shot-killed-2021-gun-violence-record/

..... an epidemic unique to the United States, where, on average, at least one child is shot every hour of every day. Many survive, but many others do not. 

Live kids have a constitutionally protected right to become statistically and suddenly absent from society, not so with zygotes.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 1/12/2022 at 10:19 AM, NewGuy2005 said:

...The point I’m trying to make with all of this is that somewhere along the continuum of conception to birth there has to be a transition from tissue to person. Maybe transition is not the right word. 

Prior to this point, it’s purely a matter between a woman and her doctor and no one gets to influence any of it. 

After that point, it’s a much bigger picture and I think that is where the debate lies. 

I don’t know the answer. For the record, I don’t take any kind of religious stance on this. 

I've made this point before, but here goes again:

Historically, the fetus became a 'person' at the 'quickening', when it first shows detectable movement.

There were rules and laws about things like harming the fetus, executing the pregnant woman (really) and other stuff that changed then. It stopped being 'all about the mother' and the fetus began to factor into things.

Interestingly, modern medical science has reached the point where the fetus is viable (with pretty heroic support) at about the same time.

I'm in favor of restricting abortions to 'medical necessity' after that.