The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

[St. Clown]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

Random thought: You are horribly sexually repressed. Try doggy style, it'll open your eyes to a whole new world.

Or cowgirl, but that might be a little more of a mind blowing concept than opening new worlds.

Big picture thought: Has anyone besides me ever considered that since 1981 there are millions of kids who grew up with a poor education simply because of where they lived that could've cured cancer? The millions of kids who died of hunger? How about the millions of homosexual kids who killed themselves rather than face a society hostile to them? How about the millions of kids killed in gun accidents because we don't have effective gun control laws? How about all the people killed in two unnecessary wars? All the people killed as a result of the drug wars? The people killed or doomed to extreme poverty because of our terrible foreign policy?

Here's a hint: Maybe stop concerning yourself with the unborn and actually start caring about the ones already born.

You're throwing around that word "millions" awfully loosely with kids dying from homosexual-related suicides and gun accidents over the last 35 years.

[Jimjamesak]

Or cowgirl, but that might be a little more of a mind blowing concept than opening new worlds.

One step at a time man.

You're throwing around that word "millions" awfully loosely with kids dying from homosexual-related suicides and gun accidents over the last 35 years.

Forgive the hyperbole, I was rolling...

[FreshFish]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

And he went to prison for murder.

which was exactly my point!






Me (start): OK to remove fetus, just keep child alive instead of kill it.
You (snark): where can you do it?
Me (calmly): here is what happens when you do not keep the child alive after you remove it
You: you get convicted of murder, which reinforces what I had said.

[FreshFish]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

The earlier you take a child from the mother's womb, the less developed the child is, obviously. Right now doctors are worried about brain development of children delivered prior to the 36th week, and really every week prior to the 38th or 39th, let alone the 13th week. Even if the rest of the body had already developed by then, we run the risk of so many adverse health conditions to these fetii that you're looking at decades or, more likely, centuries of medical advancements before what you're proposing could ever be feasible.

What I'm proposing is totally feasible from around the 7th month or so onward, according to your post.

Kepler and I are pretty much in total agreement on this point, surprisingly. If "it" can survive on "its" own, you can't kill "it."

If "it" cannot survive on "its" own, while "it" is indeed a living being (it has its own heartbeat), it is not at all clear whether "it" is a living human being or not. I tend to sidestep what to do in those situations as I am not comfortable with either alternative, and try to deflect toward using preventive steps ahead of time and using the "morning after" pill if you forget to do so. IF the pregnancy is going to be terminated, then the sooner the better.

[FreshFish]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

Or black kids who are [killed by other black kids in gang warfare, often innocent bystanders who get shot when the shooter misses his/her target].

But only fetuses matter.

[St. Clown]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

What I'm proposing is totally feasible from around the 7th month or so onward, according to your post.

Kepler and I are pretty much in total agreement on this point, surprisingly. If "it" can survive on "its" own, you can't kill "it."

If "it" cannot survive on "its" own, while "it" is indeed a living being (it has its own heartbeat), it is not at all clear whether "it" is a living human being or not. I tend to sidestep what to do in those situations as I am not comfortable with either alternative, and try to deflect toward using preventive steps ahead of time and using the "morning after" pill if you forget to do so. IF the pregnancy is going to be terminated, then the sooner the better.

A) Define on "its own". Does being hooked up to premature life support systems in incubation pods (don't know the specific words) count as living on its own?

B) Who pays for the enormous medical costs associated with these children when the mothers don't want them?

[FreshFish]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

Here's a hint: Maybe ... concern yourself [both] with the unborn and ... the ones already born [as well].

That seems reasonable. Hard to argue with that sentiment!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

A) Define on "its own". Does being hooked up to premature life support systems in incubation pods (don't know the specific words) count as living on its own?

B) Who pays for the enormous medical costs associated with these children when the mothers don't want them?

Also, what happens if having the baby threatens the life of the mother. An awful choice but why is that the State's choice to make?

[Jimjamesak]

That seems reasonable. Hard to argue with that sentiment!

[FreshFish]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

A) Define on "its own".

That seems like a place where a reasonable societal consensus can be achieved. and it doesn't have to happen all at once, incremental steps are fine.

B) Who pays for the enormous medical costs associated with these children when the mothers don't want them?

Who pays to feed, clothe, and house infants and toddlers who have been removed from their mothers due to horrific child abuse? No one here would be comfortable letting a small child get beaten daily or starved, I assume....if so, then someone has to pay to care for those children who have been rescued. This is merely an extension of what we already have in place.



No doubt that Catholic Charities, Mormon Church, et all, would gladly do so. Most of the people who have attended the March For Life every year since 1974 would happily contribute to support it.

[unofan]

which was exactly my point!






Me (start): OK to remove fetus, just keep child alive instead of kill it.
You (snark): where can you do it?
Me (calmly): here is what happens when you do not keep the child alive after you remove it
You: you get convicted of murder, which reinforces what I had said.

If that's what you think just happened, I'll take a hit of whatever drug you're on.

You propose a solution out of a Sci-fi novel, and wonder why no one takes you seriously.

[trixR4kids]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

Says the guy who has no interest in fixing these neighborhoods or enacting meaningful gun laws.

[St. Clown]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

That seems like a place where a reasonable societal consensus can be achieved. and it doesn't have to happen all at once, incremental steps are fine.

Who pays to feed, clothe, and house infants and toddlers who have been removed from their mothers due to horrific child abuse? No one here would be comfortable letting a small child get beaten daily or starved, I assume....if so, then someone has to pay to care for those children who have been rescued. This is merely an extension of what we already have in place.



No doubt that Catholic Charities, Mormon Church, et all, would gladly do so. Most of the people who have attended the March For Life every year since 1974 would happily contribute to support it.

You're proposing a huge burden on our Child Protective Services, or whatever each state calls their respective agency. These people are already overworked and underfunded for the tasks we've assigned them, but you want to add on the medical bills amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per child in incubation. That's not realistic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180163/

The average direct cost of care for initial hospitalization of a premature newborn in 2004 was $2,386 USD. Total hospital expenses and professional services for all premature infants in this hospital were $227,000 and $69,500 USD, respectively. The costs for diagnostic testing and blood products for all premature infants totaled $22,440 and $1,833 USD. The daily average cost of a premature newborn weighing less than 1,000 g was $115 USD, and the daily average cost of a premature newborn weighing more than 2,500 g was $89 USD. Amounts reimbursed to the hospital by the Unified Health System corresponded to only 27.42% of the real cost of care.

[jerphisch]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

You're proposing a huge burden on our Child Protective Services, or whatever each state calls their respective agency. These people are already overworked and underfunded for the tasks we've assigned them, but you want to add on the medical bills amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per child in incubation. That's not realistic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180163/

Brazil? Those figures are beyond low. My daughter was born at just under 31 weeks in 2004 and her hospital stay was about $250k, at least before insurance worked it's magic and I'm sure paid them something less.

[St. Clown]

Re: The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Abortion Thread

Brazil? Those figures are beyond low. My daughter was born at just under 31 weeks in 2004 and her hospital stay was about $250k, at least before insurance worked it's magic and I'm sure paid them something less.

I was taking one of the first offerings from my search, figuring that their costs were lower than ours. Still, it illustrated perfectly the cost to the system - $292,500 in hospital resources for the average premature baby.