View Single Post
Old 02-05-2019, 12:58 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Domer Domain Junior
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,779

Originally Posted by Kelly Gruene View Post
I'll admit I'm confused about the topic of abortion.
There's so much more to it than just a headline.
I hate that it has become the "one thing" that determines how Republicans and Democrats judge the 'fitness' of Supreme Court nominees.

Those on the political right seem to mandate no one gets an abortion, yet they don't seem to want to pay for services for children born into poverty and/or circumstances where the newborns are unwanted and are not cared for. Yes, there are opportunities to have those newborns placed into alternative care situations, but the financial support for those services is constantly under fire.

Those on the political left make this a political mine field. If a politician doesn't want to allow all abortions regardless of the situation, that politician must be against all women and women's health forever and they are just awful people.

As in the article referenced in this thread, there are certainly situations where a fetus will not be able to live. Anencephaly is one example; a fetus born without major parts of the brain. A baby born with this condition is not going to live more than a few days at most. It's just a fact that there are many women in this country who receive no prenatal care. They go the the emergency room when their membranes rupture and they are in labor. They have no knowledge of the health of the baby until the ultrasounds and fetal monitors start in the ER. So, maybe to me it's a matter of semantics. A baby born with this condition (anencephaly) will be made comfortable. We can either spend a few hundred thousand dollars keeping the baby alive on a ventilator for a few days, giving it i.v. nutrition, sticking it with needles to do a bunch of monitoring, or the mother and doctors will have conversations, as mentioned in the article, about what to do. Is it 'euthanasia of the untouchables' to instead just allow this baby to die more rapidly than doing a lot of things to it that will never ever ever change the outcome? Is it reasonable to do an abortion at this point? Semantics?

I think there are too many nuanced situations to make this a one-size-fits all conversation. Doctors and patients should be able to make decisions in some circumstances.
But of course this is just my opinion. Maybe this makes me a Nazi.
I understand what you're saying. For many it does simply come down to whether or not taking a life is acceptable. Putting a chart of the development stages of a fetus in front of a person and then asking at what point is it acceptable to kill it is a telling exercise. People more often will be extremely reluctant to point out an area where the fetus is anything but a "clump of cells", because definable visual traits give people pause. Also when science enters the fray and clearly outlines that the fetus has a distinctly different set of DNA than the mother, the my body I can do what I want with it argument starts to fall apart.

The main problem is arguing situations from the outliers, similar to your example. They are not what make up the large bulk of abortions in the US. It's the same as saying what about rape and incest. I'll concede and say I'm open to discuss those situations at a greater length, if the other person can agree that the other 90%+ don't fit the outlier criteria and are "bad".

We've gone from the message provided by pro-abortion people of safe, accessible, and rare to abortion on demand anytime including after birth. Give an inch and take a mile. Polls are showing even the most dyed in the wool democrats are having a very difficult time with the extreme direction the party has taken on this issue.
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!