-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Since the overwhelming majority of abortions occur during the first trimester, this ultimately feels like a trivial non-issue. If a given state decides that second-trimester abortions are unethical and thus ought to be illegal, so be it -- there's still plenty of time to decide whether or not to carry a child to term during the first trimester.
As long as abortion in general isn't restricted, I'll accept that what constitutes viability is a moral gray.
As long as abortion in general isn't restricted, I'll accept that what constitutes viability is a moral gray.
That comment caused me to pause..............had to check............and, now I understand.......
\
from Profile Page:
[h=5]About Lizathrose[/h]Gender:femaleMarital Status:not marriedSpiritual Status:not Christian
I can always understand how unbelievers view abortion as being "ok." It's when believers begin to think this that I am concerned.
\
from Profile Page:
[h=5]About Lizathrose[/h]Gender:femaleMarital Status:not marriedSpiritual Status:not Christian
I can always understand how unbelievers view abortion as being "ok." It's when believers begin to think this that I am concerned.
S
Yeah, it seems to be pretty popular in non religious circles.
So, as a non Christian I would assume you consider yourself pretty progressive, yes?
Isn't the whole point of contraceptives to avoid abortion in the first place? Given the number of women who have more than one abortion, some of whom later end up going to fertility clinics to try and have a baby "when the time is right", how can you argue that abortion is even healthy except in extreme cases?
Moral debates aside, abortion can be a pretty damaging process on the human body. Why anyone would argue that people should have unlimited access to the procedure has always confused me - you're better off teaching people not to get pregnant.
So, as a non Christian I would assume you consider yourself pretty progressive, yes?
Isn't the whole point of contraceptives to avoid abortion in the first place? Given the number of women who have more than one abortion, some of whom later end up going to fertility clinics to try and have a baby "when the time is right", how can you argue that abortion is even healthy except in extreme cases?
Moral debates aside, abortion can be a pretty damaging process on the human body. Why anyone would argue that people should have unlimited access to the procedure has always confused me - you're better off teaching people not to get pregnant.
A week or so ago, there was a blurb on FNC about a ultrasound video of a baby in the womb. When they played a certain song, the baby would clap it's hands in time with the music...........it was so funny to watch, then I thought...........what if?
What if people had to see videos like this before they got an abortion? Could it save a few children?
What if people had to see videos like this before they got an abortion? Could it save a few children?
S
Look up a video called the silent scream. It was done with the relatively crude ultrasound methods of the time, and as far as I'm aware no abortion provider has ever allowed an abortion to be filmed via ultrasound since. It's a first trimester (12 week) abortion.
But arms aren't developed until about 8 weeks. While this is still well within the first trimester, a child isn't viable for delivery at that time. You're always going to be left with a moral debate about whether or not the procedure is fundamentally wrong, and I don't think one side is ever going to agree with the other about it.
But arms aren't developed until about 8 weeks. While this is still well within the first trimester, a child isn't viable for delivery at that time. You're always going to be left with a moral debate about whether or not the procedure is fundamentally wrong, and I don't think one side is ever going to agree with the other about it.
Yes, in a broad, general sense, although I'm uncertain if your view or definition of progressivism and that of the generally-established mainstream political conception would square. Your point?
I've neither mentioned nor implied anything here, but I'd certainly agree that contraception, aside from abstinence, is the ideal solution to avoiding unwanted children. I'm not certain that any reasonable person would dispute that, hence the extent to which contraceptives and comprehensive in-school sex education are promoted as ways of mitigating accidental pregnancy rates.
As far as abortion being "unhealthy," I know of no reputable, widely-accepted scientific evidence to suggest that properly-conducted procedures are particularly threatening or damaging to a woman's body, although I'm sure you'll dispute that by referencing material from discredited sites with a readily-apparent political agenda, such as deVeber. Legal abortions performed by properly-trained individuals in developed countries are among the safest procedures in modern medicine. Outrageous claims concerning links between breast cancer and abortion have been thoroughly investigated and refuted, abortions virtually never result in serious infections, and preterm birth isn't more likely after a woman receives an abortion. Aside from that, there's nothing particularly "damaging" about the procedure at all (in reference to both medical and modern surgical abortions).
I've neither mentioned nor implied anything here, but I'd certainly agree that contraception, aside from abstinence, is the ideal solution to avoiding unwanted children. I'm not certain that any reasonable person would dispute that, hence the extent to which contraceptives and comprehensive in-school sex education are promoted as ways of mitigating accidental pregnancy rates.
As far as abortion being "unhealthy," I know of no reputable, widely-accepted scientific evidence to suggest that properly-conducted procedures are particularly threatening or damaging to a woman's body, although I'm sure you'll dispute that by referencing material from discredited sites with a readily-apparent political agenda, such as deVeber. Legal abortions performed by properly-trained individuals in developed countries are among the safest procedures in modern medicine. Outrageous claims concerning links between breast cancer and abortion have been thoroughly investigated and refuted, abortions virtually never result in serious infections, and preterm birth isn't more likely after a woman receives an abortion. Aside from that, there's nothing particularly "damaging" about the procedure at all (in reference to both medical and modern surgical abortions).
Last edited:
S
Come on, you have to at least give someone the benefit of the doubt here.
Do you honestly expect a well funded scientific study for a topic about which the medical community is largely silent? Both of us is going to have to settle for causality, because neither anti nor pro abortion research is conducted under very scientific conditions (for starters, the researchers always start with a supposition either for or against it)
If you're not going to take a biblical case seriously, then the only thing I have left is data. I have no reason to lie or use something that is demonstrably false. Give a guy the benefit of the doubt at least.
The breast cancer link is a two edged sword that can actually be an argument for abortion, since carrying a child to term also increases the risk of breast cancer. Abortion just complicates things, as it depends on the timing of the procedure, and the frequency of said procedure. I don't know why you'd try and say that there can't be a link though - getting pregnant elevates estrogen levels, and there is a direct relationship between elevated estrogen levels and breast cancer.
As for your statement about properly trained individuals, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Abortion is rarely carried out in a hospital environment since providers typically specialize in only abortion. It's going to follow that it isn't necessarily going to happen under ideal conditions (although even a hospital operating room is a pretty inopportune place for a medical procedure, most do not have 100 percent outside air, and you have human beings in the room, so it goes without saying it's actually quite filthy).
And I'm going to have do disagree with you that there is no link between abortion and infertility. Scraping the uterine wall can cause scar tissue.
It's not a medically necessary procedure that carries with it risks and repercussions, just like every other medical procedure. Many abortion providers do not council their clients about this.
I'm not really right wing, so prepare to be disappointed.
My definition of progressiveness is mainstream political conception. It's just secular humanism under a new name.
I don't fit very well in any generally defined boxes other than simply - conservative. I'm not right wing in that I don't believe in attempting to use laws to force people to behave themselves, and I'm not liberal for the same reason. My religious views do impact my decisions, but I doubt lobbying is going to save very many people. The only causes you'll ever see me supporting on a political level are those which preserve existing laws and rights. Heaven help us if we have any new laws - they just cost a lot of money and are generally useless.
My biggest gripe is I've met very few progressives who afford me the level of respect I give them. It seems many would like to take freedom of religion too far and interpret it to mean freedom from religion. They also like taking away constitutionally protected rights, like the right to free speech (when it doesn't agree with their world view), or the right to bear arms.
Do you honestly expect a well funded scientific study for a topic about which the medical community is largely silent? Both of us is going to have to settle for causality, because neither anti nor pro abortion research is conducted under very scientific conditions (for starters, the researchers always start with a supposition either for or against it)
If you're not going to take a biblical case seriously, then the only thing I have left is data. I have no reason to lie or use something that is demonstrably false. Give a guy the benefit of the doubt at least.
The breast cancer link is a two edged sword that can actually be an argument for abortion, since carrying a child to term also increases the risk of breast cancer. Abortion just complicates things, as it depends on the timing of the procedure, and the frequency of said procedure. I don't know why you'd try and say that there can't be a link though - getting pregnant elevates estrogen levels, and there is a direct relationship between elevated estrogen levels and breast cancer.
As for your statement about properly trained individuals, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Abortion is rarely carried out in a hospital environment since providers typically specialize in only abortion. It's going to follow that it isn't necessarily going to happen under ideal conditions (although even a hospital operating room is a pretty inopportune place for a medical procedure, most do not have 100 percent outside air, and you have human beings in the room, so it goes without saying it's actually quite filthy).
And I'm going to have do disagree with you that there is no link between abortion and infertility. Scraping the uterine wall can cause scar tissue.
It's not a medically necessary procedure that carries with it risks and repercussions, just like every other medical procedure. Many abortion providers do not council their clients about this.
I'm not really right wing, so prepare to be disappointed.
My definition of progressiveness is mainstream political conception. It's just secular humanism under a new name.
I don't fit very well in any generally defined boxes other than simply - conservative. I'm not right wing in that I don't believe in attempting to use laws to force people to behave themselves, and I'm not liberal for the same reason. My religious views do impact my decisions, but I doubt lobbying is going to save very many people. The only causes you'll ever see me supporting on a political level are those which preserve existing laws and rights. Heaven help us if we have any new laws - they just cost a lot of money and are generally useless.
My biggest gripe is I've met very few progressives who afford me the level of respect I give them. It seems many would like to take freedom of religion too far and interpret it to mean freedom from religion. They also like taking away constitutionally protected rights, like the right to free speech (when it doesn't agree with their world view), or the right to bear arms.
I'll concede that establishing causal links between abortion and a variety of ailments is somewhat difficult, since randomized studies are obviously impossible -- and unethical -- to conduct. However, impartial research is certainly carried out in the form of observational case-control and cohort studies, which imply retrospective and prospective designs (the latter of which is generally considered to be more reliable and authoritative). Over the years, claims concerning the medical risks of abortion have been largely debunked by the general scientific consensus through cohort studies reviewed by authoritative groups such as the US National Cancer Institute. Although not ideal, scientific research on abortion is indeed conducted under "scientific conditions," since case-control and cohort studies are accepted research methodologies.
What data, specifically? Are you able to confirm whether this data, and the conclusions reached from said data, are the result of case-control studies or cohort studies? Is there any possibility of recall bias? To what extent does the general consensus of experts agree with the aforementioned conclusions? When citing "data," you're going to have to ask yourself some tough questions concerning impartiality and bias. It's especially easy to draw false conclusions from poorly-conducted case-control research that makes no attempt to rule out false causal relationships.
I'll reiterate that, at present, no known causal relationship exists between abortion per se (irrespective of pregnancy, in other words) and breast cancer as far as the general consensus is concerned. You're also somewhat wrong with respect to pregnancy and breast cancer -- in fact, women that never become pregnant (or get pregnant after age 30) are at the highest risk of developing breast cancer, whereas women that experience pregnancies early in life, or multiple pregnancies overall, tend to exhibit a lower risk of breast cancer. However, it's true that pregnancy increases breast cancer risk in the short-term. Still, none of this is relevant to abortion itself, which -- as is often claimed -- increases breast cancer risk.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to. Abortions result in death in roughly one out of every 100,000 cases, which, to reiterate, makes it one of the safest procedures in modern medicine. Statistically, you'd have a much higher risk of death from an allergic reaction to penicillin. "Ideal conditions" are, for all practical intents and purposes, conditions that reasonably minimize the risk of severe complications resulting from procedures. Legal abortions carried out in developed countries do an outstanding job at this, a fact that's reflected in extraordinarily low mortality rates. As far as "filthy" conditions, surgical abortions virtually never result in severe infections, and it thus goes without saying that sanitation is more than adequate in facilities that provide legal abortions. Whether or not you "disagree" is irrelevant.
Only in rare cases, and even then, scar tissue is usually repaired after D&C (the procedure that most commonly causes scarring). While it's true that cervical problems can arise from having multiple abortions, this is often fixed simply by using cerclages, which keep the cervix closed to prevent it from dilating prematurely.
Given the above, the "risks and repercussions" of abortion are largely overblown. I wouldn't disagree that potential risks shouldn't be discussed, though.
I've no issue with the second amendment, and I fully respect the right of citizens to worship as they please. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't know of many cases in which the notion of "freedom from religion" as opposed to "freedom of religion" can be substantiated. Separation of church and state is often pretty clear-cut, and it certainly doesn't infringe on one's right to worship and believe as they see fit, for instance.
What data, specifically? Are you able to confirm whether this data, and the conclusions reached from said data, are the result of case-control studies or cohort studies? Is there any possibility of recall bias? To what extent does the general consensus of experts agree with the aforementioned conclusions? When citing "data," you're going to have to ask yourself some tough questions concerning impartiality and bias. It's especially easy to draw false conclusions from poorly-conducted case-control research that makes no attempt to rule out false causal relationships.
I'll reiterate that, at present, no known causal relationship exists between abortion per se (irrespective of pregnancy, in other words) and breast cancer as far as the general consensus is concerned. You're also somewhat wrong with respect to pregnancy and breast cancer -- in fact, women that never become pregnant (or get pregnant after age 30) are at the highest risk of developing breast cancer, whereas women that experience pregnancies early in life, or multiple pregnancies overall, tend to exhibit a lower risk of breast cancer. However, it's true that pregnancy increases breast cancer risk in the short-term. Still, none of this is relevant to abortion itself, which -- as is often claimed -- increases breast cancer risk.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to. Abortions result in death in roughly one out of every 100,000 cases, which, to reiterate, makes it one of the safest procedures in modern medicine. Statistically, you'd have a much higher risk of death from an allergic reaction to penicillin. "Ideal conditions" are, for all practical intents and purposes, conditions that reasonably minimize the risk of severe complications resulting from procedures. Legal abortions carried out in developed countries do an outstanding job at this, a fact that's reflected in extraordinarily low mortality rates. As far as "filthy" conditions, surgical abortions virtually never result in severe infections, and it thus goes without saying that sanitation is more than adequate in facilities that provide legal abortions. Whether or not you "disagree" is irrelevant.
Only in rare cases, and even then, scar tissue is usually repaired after D&C (the procedure that most commonly causes scarring). While it's true that cervical problems can arise from having multiple abortions, this is often fixed simply by using cerclages, which keep the cervix closed to prevent it from dilating prematurely.
Given the above, the "risks and repercussions" of abortion are largely overblown. I wouldn't disagree that potential risks shouldn't be discussed, though.
I've no issue with the second amendment, and I fully respect the right of citizens to worship as they please. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't know of many cases in which the notion of "freedom from religion" as opposed to "freedom of religion" can be substantiated. Separation of church and state is often pretty clear-cut, and it certainly doesn't infringe on one's right to worship and believe as they see fit, for instance.
V
Irrelevant. Sixty-four percent of abortion providers in the U.S. offer second-trimester abortions. Even if there are fewer abortions after 13 weeks than there are before, your reasoning allows life to be ended just a few weeks before the child becomes viable.
I'm sure you are of the opinion that just one death in war is too many. Why can't you bring that reasoning into the womb?
You want the legalized murder to continue, in other words.
My wife's a NICU nurse. Has been for 40 years. When she became a nurse, viability was at about 27 weeks, and they had less than a 50% chance of surviving. Today, a 27-weeker has a 95% chance of surviving, and a 21-weeker has a 60% of surviving. Your opinion of viability being a "morally grey area" would make her blood boil, as it would ever other NICU nurse I know.
As long a child remains in the womb, it is viable, and after only five months and one week, it is viable outside the womb. I wish you could spend a day with my wife and her fellow employees and see what they do. It just might change your mind.
I'm sure you are of the opinion that just one death in war is too many. Why can't you bring that reasoning into the womb?
You want the legalized murder to continue, in other words.
My wife's a NICU nurse. Has been for 40 years. When she became a nurse, viability was at about 27 weeks, and they had less than a 50% chance of surviving. Today, a 27-weeker has a 95% chance of surviving, and a 21-weeker has a 60% of surviving. Your opinion of viability being a "morally grey area" would make her blood boil, as it would ever other NICU nurse I know.
As long a child remains in the womb, it is viable, and after only five months and one week, it is viable outside the womb. I wish you could spend a day with my wife and her fellow employees and see what they do. It just might change your mind.
S
I'm saying that any study on abortion is susceptible to confirmation bias. To publish a study indicating that abortion did anything except take the patient to a land of bunnies and unicorns would be career limiting for the person foolish enough to even take on the endeavor.
The only people dumb enough to go for either the pro life or pro choice spectrum are people who feel strongly enough about it that they are willing to risk their careers. Everyone else stays silent.
I never said it did. You brought it up, not me.
Sigh. I can see you've never studied HVAC for sterile facilities. I said even the average Operating Room was a filthy place, because there are people in it. I'm not really going to bother going into further detail there.
So you admit that multiple abortions can cause damage that requires medical intervention to repair. That's not an established definition of a harmless elective procedure.
Which was what I was getting at. Who is going to tell the patient? Certainly not the abortion provider, and the people picketing outside aren't going to have the most useful literature (and often won't even have the most understanding attitude).
Well then I've got to give you credit then. A lot of the secular humanists I've met seem to want to dispense with concepts they believe no longer hold merit. I wasn't joking about free speech either - people on both sides of the isle often try to shut that one down for different reasons.
