Abortion- Unexpected results

[Saint_Ann]

Yes, yes, you've been quite bellicose in your belief that procedures that don't affect you personally should be regulated at the state level. Medical procedures that DO affect you, though, one would suspect you claim you have a "right" to basic medical care.

Just suppose for a moment the state you lived in outlawed spinal procedures. because reasons. Oh how you'd squeal! (Well, more than you usually do). You fire a pewpew into the air in a moment of outrage and immediately pay for your "sin" as the recoil does damage to your genetically fragile backbone. Normally, that would require a trip to your orthopedic doctor but hooo ha! Now YOU would have to "move to a different state" in order to seek relief from your condition!

How about them apples, counselor? Give us some rationale to support your expected "rules for thee, but not for me" bumper sticker doggerel!!

No procedure done to him results in the death of a future human being?

 

[RobDownSouth]

No procedure done to him results in the death of a future human being?

What constitutes a "future human being"? A zygote?

 

[Tigersman]

I keep telling them this but they always seem to have an excuse not to do it and instead demand that the State they're in cater to their personal and ideological whims instead of the desires of the people.

Apparently when it comes to Democrats and abortion, any inconvenience to the desires of the minority outweighs the will of the majority.

No man or state should have any say in regard to a woman's reproductive system. If men do want a say then they should subject themselves to complete castration.

 

[ll74]

The easiest approach is to let abortion be what it is, a medical procedure, and lift all restrictions. No need for states or feds to be involved

 

[HisArpy]

No man or state should have any say in regard to a woman's reproductive system. If men do want a say then they should subject themselves to complete castration.

Then you should take your own advice and shut the fuck up about it.

 

[Saint_Ann]

What constitutes a "future human being"? A zygote?

You know the answer to that question.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You know the answer to that question.

deflection. sad.

I saw a discussion the other day about exactly when a "soul" enters the body.

Many fundamentalist christians and quite a few Roman Catholics are adamant it happens at the moment of conception to support their claim that a human being has been formed.

There was quite a bit concern and churlishness when someone pointed out that on day 11 post-fertilization, a zygote will sometimes bifurcates and a pregnant woman is now gestating twins.

Where does this soul then go?
To the orginal zygote or the newly formed zygote?
Can you split a soul in two parts?
Is one twin born without a soul?
Does the other soul put out a help desk ticket to a Higher Authority for another soul?
Are the rules different for "fraternal twins" (multiple eggs fertilized) vs. "identical twins" (split zygote)?

So many questions!

And based on your posting history, we're obviously not going to get any substantive answers from you.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

No procedure done to him results in the death of a future human being?

Should we impose tough climate change laws to protect future human beings?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The easiest approach is to let abortion be what it is, a medical procedure, and lift all restrictions. No need for states or feds to be involved

To put the above into terms even HisArpy might understand: "Your honor, the defense rests".

 

[HisArpy]

deflection. sad.

I saw a discussion the other day about exactly when a "soul" enters the body.

Many fundamentalist christians and quite a few Roman Catholics are adamant it happens at the moment of conception to support their claim that a human being has been formed.

There was quite a bit concern and churlishness when someone pointed out that on day 11 post-fertilization, a zygote will sometimes bifurcates and a pregnant woman is now gestating twins.

Where does this soul then go?
To the orginal zygote or the newly formed zygote?
Can you split a soul in two parts?
Is one twin born without a soul?
Does the other soul put out a help desk ticket to a Higher Authority for another soul?
Are the rules different for "fraternal twins" (multiple eggs fertilized) vs. "identical twins" (split zygote)?

So many questions!

And based on your posting history, we're obviously not going to get any substantive answers from you.

What a strange and mixed up view about abortion. Trying to equate it with religion and souls and zygotes while at the same time denying that the developing fetus is human so it can be discarded at whim at any time.

Maybe that's why you and all the other abortion adherents have so much trouble with this issue, you're confused about what it is that you're trying to say and believe.

 

[Saint_Ann]

deflection. sad.

I saw a discussion the other day about exactly when a "soul" enters the body.

Many fundamentalist christians and quite a few Roman Catholics are adamant it happens at the moment of conception to support their claim that a human being has been formed.

There was quite a bit concern and churlishness when someone pointed out that on day 11 post-fertilization, a zygote will sometimes bifurcates and a pregnant woman is now gestating twins.

Where does this soul then go?
To the orginal zygote or the newly formed zygote?
Can you split a soul in two parts?
Is one twin born without a soul?
Does the other soul put out a help desk ticket to a Higher Authority for another soul?
Are the rules different for "fraternal twins" (multiple eggs fertilized) vs. "identical twins" (split zygote)?

So many questions!

And based on your posting history, we're obviously not going to get any substantive answers from you.

You know the answer. It's a matter of how far you are willing to go to convince yourself otherwise.

 

[HisArpy]

You know the answer. It's a matter of how far you are willing to go to convince yourself otherwise.

He's more than willing to lie to himself as long as it gets him the attention he craves but can't get anywhere other than on the internet.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Should we impose tough climate change laws to protect future human beings?

There is no proof whatsoever those laws would prevent global warming.

 

[HisArpy]

To put the above into terms even HisArpy might understand: "Your honor, the defense rests".

Somehow you seem to think that just saying those words means that the opposition's case just evaporated. It doesn't work like that.

Meanwhile I reiterate MY POSITION ON THIS ISSUE one more time:

If abortion is legal where you live and you want to kill your progeny, you can. IF, OTOH, you cannot do that, then your choices are limited to not getting what you want or moving to a state where abortion is legal.

So you stating that your opinion is somehow greater than mine, which is essentially the same, and thereby negates it merely because you "rest your case," is nonsensical and only goes to show that; A) you don't pay attention; B) you just post bullshit in order to post something controversial so you get a response/attention; C) you're about as stupid as stupid gets.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What a strange and mixed up view about abortion. Trying to equate it with religion and souls and zygotes while at the same time denying that the developing fetus is human so it can be discarded at whim at any time.

Maybe that's why you and all the other abortion adherents have so much trouble with this issue, you're confused about what it is that you're trying to say and believe.

Are you now claiming having a soul is not a requirement to be a human being?
Odd.
I was taught that every "human being" had a soul.
When does a soul manifest in a "human being"?
Hmmm?

 

[HisArpy]

Are you now claiming having a soul is not a requirement to be a human being?
Odd.
I was taught that every "human being" had a soul.
When does a soul manifest in a "human being"?
Hmmm?

A convenient mischaracterization of what I said because I NEVER SAID that having a soul is part of the abortion issue.

Rather, YOU DID!

So, stuff your lying ass back under the rock you crawled out from underneath.

 

[Saint_Ann]

The easiest approach is to let abortion be what it is, a medical procedure, and lift all restrictions. No need for states or feds to be involved

Primum non nocere.

 

[ll74]

Primum non nocere.

Ending a pregnancy harms no one

 

[HisArpy]

Ending a pregnancy harms no one

Some believe that abortion scars the psyche of the mother. Certainly there is data to support that in some cases the mother needed some counseling afterward.

So the blanket statement doesn't fit.

 

[ll74]

Some believe that abortion scars the psyche of the mother. Certainly there is data to support that in some cases the mother needed some counseling afterward.

So the blanket statement doesn't fit.

"some believe...."

In magical creatures

Pregnancirs also result in post pattern depression often......in some cases the mothers needed some counseling afterward.

Medical procedures aren't easy. My statement is valid.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Some believe that abortion scars the psyche of the mother. Certainly there is data to support that in some cases the mother needed some counseling afterward.

So the blanket statement doesn't fit.

Yeah, about that...

Why we’re still arguing about abortion and regret​

https://i.imgur.com/JH3In8k.png

So we have a situation here, folks.

• On one hand, we have a leading medical ethicist has documented peer-reviewed research indicating that the number of women (out of 50 MILLION abortions) who suffer from post-abortion regret would likely fill a hotel ballroom.
• On the other hand, we have a Literotica poster who has strong opinions about everything under the sun claiming that "many women" suffer trauma post-abortion and insists that to believe otherwise is accepting a "blanket statement".

Who should we believe?
Tell us!

 

[Saint_Ann]

It's unfathomable to me how people that don't believe in a soul can use it as the basis of their arguement.

 

[ll74]

It's unfathomable to me how people that don't believe in a soul can use it as the basis of their arguement.

Abortions don't involve souls

 

[HisArpy]

"some believe...."

In magical creatures

Pregnancirs also result in post pattern depression often......in some cases the mothers needed some counseling afterward.

Medical procedures aren't easy. My statement is valid.

Post partum depression has been around as long as women have been giving birth. The cause is known.

Post abortion mental health issues are a different thing altogether. A 2019 study gives information on this:

https://lozierinstitute.org/new-study-elevated-suicide-rates-among-mothers-after-abortion/

Interestingly enough, in 2014 the NIH found that pre-abortion mental health (supposedly) wasn't a predictor on who would have post-abortion mental health issues.

Conclusions​

After accounting for confounding factors, abortion was not a statistically significant predictor of subsequent anxiety, mood, impulse-control, and eating disorders or suicidal ideation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3929105/

YET, what they also said about WHO is getting abortions is very interesting:

Results​

Women in the abortion group were more likely to have never been married, p = .001, to have had more prior adverse experiences, p = .049, and to have had a pre-pregnancy miscarriage, p = .044, than women in the childbirth group (Table 1). In addition, before their pregnancy, women who had abortions had significantly more mental health disorders overall, p < .001, and were significantly more likely to have had an anxiety disorder, p = .004, mood disorder, p < .001, substance use disorder, p < .001, and suicidal ideation, p < .001, and marginally more likely to have had an impulse-control disorder, p = .059, than women in the childbirth group... (Emphasis added)

After looking at the studies, what I see is that post-abortion mental health problem are greater in those who had mental health issues pre-abortion. Which negates the conclusion drawn by the NIH in that same study and calls into question their data analysis.

This conclusion on my part also supports my position that abortion tends to cause (or acerbate) psychological issues. Unlike your comparison with post partum depression, which is a natural phenomenon occurring after birth with known causes and treatments.




Hidden in the details and gobbledegook is one pertinent factor - it APPEARS as if the majority of those who seek abortion are already mentally ill to begin with. Which gives rise to the question; do we want the mentally ill driving social policy regarding human reproduction?

 

[Saint_Ann]

Abortions don't involve souls

Of course not. No such thing.