An honest conversation about Abortion

First of all, restricting abortions doesn't do away with abortion. It does however increase the death rate of those seeking one. Everyone who is pro birth dogs on Planned Parenthood, but 97% of their services are to prevent unwanted pregnancies and offer screenings for breast and ovarian cancer. I don't see churches offering that. Matter of fact, no one has a answer to those kids who were born by a mother who really didn't want them and found themselves in foster care, waiting to join a family that never comes. There are currently over 400,000 children in foster care. Where are all those adoptive families the pro birthers say are out there?

This is from an OP Ed from a medical student who used to be an evangelical and ardent abortion proponent:

The reality is, though, at some point this year, over 600,000 Americans will seek out an abortion, and many of them will be restricted or denied altogether. Abortions are a part of a continuum of essential reproductive health access. Whatever you believe, if you believe in saving the greatest number of lives, that effort begins by supporting unrestricted access to safe and legal abortion.

Not only will this save the most lives, but it would give pregnant people — young, old, healthy, ill, perhaps even someone you know personally — a window into autonomy over their body and health care. For many Americans — struggling to make ends meet, survivors of abuse, having multiple miscarriages — the support and humanity that comes from making abortion a safe and legal practice not only saves their lives, but it changes them for the better, too.

 

Abortion isn’t murder, so your example doesn’t apply.

 

Can you provide support for that statement? It did not sound right to me, as surgery is far beyond what PP usually provides and is set up for in any area. I googled it and services are listed by location but none of the ones I checked provide surgery, only hormone therapy. The two are very different. I would be surprised if PP provided any surgery, but you seem very confident, so I thought I would ask.

Edited to add - this link seems pretty clear that only hormone therapy is provided

What Health Care & Services Do Transgender People Require?

 

93% of abortions occur in the first trimester, before 15 weeks. The number 2 reason a woman would wait after 15 weeks is medical reasons, i.e. life of mother and/or child. Number 1 reason? Finances. Repealing the Hyde Amendment would allow women to be covered by medical insurance or Medicaid, like other health services. And would mean around 97% of abortions would likely occur before 15 weeks, with 2% done after that mark to be for health reasons.

A new law that repeals Hyde, restricts to 15 weeks except for health of mother or fetus, would be a law consistent with most Euro countries. And one that would cover the majority of abortions, and one that wouldn't create too many gray areas. But keep Hyde active, and poor women will suffer. And could possibly sue, as the SCOTUS upheld Hyde under the Roe decision. Would the SCOTUS uphold Hyde if there was a Federal, Congressional law? Interesting legal question.

 

A big part of the problem on the abortion issue is that one side believes that its position is the only correct one based a theological belief. When one believes with absolute certainty that human life begins at the moment of conception and that for all intents and purposes a zygote the size of the head of pin or a 6-week old fetus roughly the size of a kidney bean is as much of a human being as baby after it is born or any of us for that matter there is no room for compromise. As far as hard line prolifers are concerned even allowing early first term elective abortions would be allowing the destruction of a human being or in other words murder. While the other side is also tends to be inflexible, its opposition to a compromise is based on the assumption that it would be the first step down a slippery slope leading to a near total ban on the procedure and based on the post Roe anti-abortion laws it appear that they may be correct.

 

Heartbreaking to know so many were killed for convenience. Your stat here proves that.

 

Think you mean a "kidney bean", but even that may not be correct. Kidney beans are about 1.5" - about 12 mm, according to Google. A 6 week old developing fetus is about 6mm, about half that (all numbers through Google)

 

Think I found one of them. In any event, not a medical question

 

And you are welcome to condemn each and every one who made her decision to hell, for all I care. But you shouldn't have the ability to remove their choice over what happens with their bodies.

 

And yet, if a pregnant woman is killed in a homicide there's an additional charge levied for the child. Currently there are 38 states with fetal homicide laws, 29 of them apply this at conception.

 

That's kind of the point. Murder is defined legally. It's an unjustified killing. There are plenty of killings of people that happen regularly, about a thousand a year by police, that are considered not murder because they are legally justified in the way the law has defined

 

Like the woman who is actually defined by everyone as living?

 

Just a vessel. Nothing more

 

Of course, what was I thinking.

 

Thanks. Corrected the typo.

 

Playing devils advocate here a bit, but what I'm hearing is that it's only murder and only a child if it's not state sanctioned? A fetal version of the "he/she needed killin'" defense?