Abortion to become legal.....

[mmoon]

I agree wholeheartedly with citygirl above. I will respond to Steve's response to her comments...
1. I am sure what citygirl means is not that abortion doesn't ultimately prevent birth. However, the idea that women often get abortions because they just couldn't bother to use birth control and figured they would just get an abortion is offensive. Men and women make mistakes, birth control fails, people drink too much, there is violence against women...and women get pregnant and have to deal with the consequences. I cannot understand why anyone thinks an unwanted CHILD should be a consequence/punishment for any of the above. What we need in this world is not simply more children, but more wanted children. And I speak as a mom who loves being a mom.
2. I don't even know what that means. And it assumes that all abortions come as a result of unprotected sex. Again, if someone has unprotected sex (whether willingly or unwillingly), does it truly seem like a desired result that that woman should be forced to have a child? What if they can prove they used protection and it failed? Then does a woman have control over her own body? Are you interested in adopting one or more of these unwanted children? It's not like we have enough adoptive or foster parents for children who are given up.
3. Sigh.
4. Finally, reality. The truth is that wealthy women in Argentina have and will always have abortions and access to safe services inside and outside of the country. It's the poor women who bear the burden of the attitude that abortion is the "easy" way out. Put yourself in a pregnant, poor woman's shoes and ask yourself what that must be like.

I have to add that if it seems that public funding for abortions will somehow be more expensive than the long-term cost of supporting unwanted children, that is incorrect.

Some of the clearest signs of an evolved society are that they support women's education, promote women in leadership and protect the rights that women have over their reproduction. Whether you believe in abortion or not personally (and I've known a few people who weren't pro-choice until they suddenly were pregnant or had a partner who was pregnant), it must be a choice.

 

[sergio]

No it must not be a choice. The aborted child has no choice. The child is killed. There is no right more fundamental than the right to life. All other arguments against this are nothing less than justifications for the denial of the right of the child to live.

 

[gracielle]

I agree with every comment made by mmoon. And "in an evolved society"....on the other side of the continent...

May 18, 2018...What the White House’s proposed rule to block abortion funds means for women’s health
The Trump administration proposed a new rule Friday that would take federal funding away from health clinics that perform abortions or provide referrals to other clinics with abortion services.

........ Women’s health advocates said that people who qualify for low-income services could be most at-risk if they lose access to Planned Parenthood. In addition to family planning, contraception, reproductive care, and in some cases abortions, affiliated clinics also offer cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases....

....“A president who doesn’t know the difference between HIV and HPV shouldn’t be interfering with doctor-patient relationship,” Laguens said. She was referring to a leaked speech by Microsoft founder Bill Gates this week in which he said that Trump asked him twice in separate meetings to explain the difference between HIV and HPV.

....The new rule is an administrative rule, which means it doesn’t require congressional action or approval. After the rule was submitted, it entered the agency rule-making process. Here’s how that breaks down: Once the Office of Management and Budget formally accepts the submitted rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, the clock starts on a public comment period of 30 to 60 days. After the public comment period closes, those public comments would be reviewed and then a rule would most likely be issued.

 

[London2Baires]

Its preposterous that some people still use the argument that abortion kills a baby. Abortions are in all but exceptional cases (i.e. risk to the mothers life / rape) carried out before there is a fully formed brain and therefore conscience/sentience.

A 'baby' has a life to be protected as it can feel pain, has sentience and is, in many senses of the word, a 'person'.

This does not apply to a clump of cells.

The people who say otherwise either don't understand science, logic and ethics. Or choose to ignore them to put forward their own uninformed and biased views, often stemming from a religious 'understanding' of protecting the 'soul'.

This sort of thinking would be funny were it not for the immense pain, suffering, mistreatment etc that many women (ACTUAL sentient beings who are in need of our ethical protection) have to go through as a consequence.

Best Wishes to all those who are on the right side of history, and my sincere hope that those that are on the wrong side re evaluate their archaic, misplaced, and damaging views.

 

[perry]

Its preposterous that some people still use the argument that abortion kills a baby. Abortions are in all but exceptional cases (i.e. risk to the mothers life / rape) carried out before there is a fully formed brain and therefore conscience/sentience.

A 'baby' has a life to be protected as it can feel pain, has sentience and is, in many senses of the word, a 'person'.

This does not apply to a clump of cells.

The people who say otherwise either don't understand science, logic and ethics. Or choose to ignore them to put forward their own uninformed and biased views, often stemming from a religious 'understanding' of protecting the 'soul'.

This sort of thinking would be funny were it not for the immense pain, suffering, mistreatment etc that many women (ACTUAL sentient beings who are in need of our ethical protection) have to go through as a consequence.

Best Wishes to all those who are on the right side of history, and my sincere hope that those that are on the wrong side re evaluate their archaic, misplaced, and damaging views.

https://oneofus.eu/es/2013/05/expert-tells-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/


I for one do not agree with you on your interpretation of the fetus as it is a living organism with a funcioning brain very early on . . The overall organization of the nervous system of a fetus is established within 4 weeks of gestation ( most abortions happen after this ) . The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development. This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity.”

I am an atheist myself but do believe in the right of life and my right to express myself in a democratic society . I understand that for many abortion is a very controversial subject but my conscience does not allow me to accept this as correct and harmless .

 

[RodalfoWalsh]

The argument of whether or not the fetus has developed certain characteristics at certain points misses the fundamental point of the pro-choice argument. Which is that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to be pregnant and the state should not at gunpoint force her to be pregnant should she not wish it.

Her choice and freedom take precedence over that of the dependent organism.

 

[London2Baires]

https://oneofus.eu/es/2013/05/expert-tells-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/


I for one do not agree with you on your interpretation of the fetus as it is a living organism with a funcioning brain very early on . . The overall organization of the nervous system of a fetus is established within 4 weeks of gestation ( most abortions happen after this ) . The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development. This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity.”

I am an atheist myself but do believe in the right of life and my right to express myself in a democratic society . I understand that for many abortion is a very controversial subject but my conscience does not allow me to accept this as correct and harmless .

The science you quote is from a partisan pro-life 'source' by the way, and though it is correct, it is spun in a particular way to justify a position instead of being given in context and neutrally.

If you read through a scientific week by week explanation of brain development, instead of a cherry picked out of context data point (see: https://bodytomy.com/brain-development-in-fetus , for example). Then things look very different.

If you then add actual stats on what % of abortions are carried out in which week/month, then you will see even more so that the facts and science point strongly one way on this issue overall. (see this source which uses CDC stats: http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/). In particular you may note that more than 2/3 of abortion in the USA take place before your arbitrary (and erroneously early if you read through the earlier link) 8 week period anyway.

This is not to say that some reasonable discussion shouldn't be had about the point at which ethical duties should be owed to a life form (at its various stages of progress towards sentience). Similarly we should always consider important questions such as those relating to the relative weight one ethical duty may have when weighed against another's right (those of an already existing sentient person; the woman). But to say, as the source you quote says on its homepage, that they lobby to protect 'human beings' 'from conception', well that's great rhetoric, but skin deep and very damaging to women.

The way a lot of the discussion is framed on this issue is clearly not based on a fair reading of the detailed science, logic and ethics (I've only even brushed on the first of those three here, and that's already far more profound than most would bother with anyway, unfortunately). To have religious (as is most often the case) or well meaning but misplaced emotional, or other miscellaneous reasons for being 'pro-choice' just isn't good enough.

Most people are good at heart though and are capable of re-examining their positions when confronted with enough evidence. And those that don't should be respected but vocally challenged wherever possible for the good of the community as a whole!

Best Wishes.

 

[perry]

Yes I am prolife and believe in the rights of the living fetus from gestation . This is not a position that comes from any religious belief but is my personal belief . I do respect though that your opinion is different to mine and in a democratic society healthy debate must be encouraged. I thank you for your response

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Agree entirely. In my opinion. the national Ministry of Health should implement a sex education program at all the schools (public and private non-sectarian) for students between the ages of 10 and 18 that covers a wide range of topics, including STDs, puberty, healthy relationships, contraception, and sexual orientation. This type of initiative would function in tandem with that age group receiving annual preventive health exams. Which would include making available to them all forms of contraception at no cost thru the public hospital system and state-funded neighborhood clinics.

Sure, It used to be like that in the K administration. Now they tried to give religion clases instead, and lucky us the SC stoped it.
You probably read about Albino...

 

[gracielle]

Sure, It used to be like that in the K administration. Now they tried to give religion clases instead, and lucky us the SC stoped it.

Bajo_cero2
1. Please site specific public health programs which addressed the issues I suggested that were actually instituted at the national or at any provincial level during the presidencies of Nestor and Cristina. Macri has not done any better in this area.

2. On the subject of appointing Dr. Abel Albino as national health minister, that intention has not prospered due to the negative feedback.
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/88376-cruzada-cientifica-contra-el-cruzado-moral

https://www.laizquierdadiario.com/A...ogra-convenios-con-el-Ministerio-de-Educacion
A reader posted.....
Silvia Garcia · National University of La Pampa
Once I had the opportunity to attend one of his talks (in reference to Dr. Abel Albino) and found out that in his speech he included macho jokes like: the hen lays an egg and cackles, while the pig commits to providing the ham. The salmon puts 10,000 eggs. I could not help myself so I said : Sorry doctor, the one that puts the 10,000 eggs is the hen salmon. Although his work can be gigantic, there are other ways to keep the attention of the audience. The saddest thing is that many women laughed at those jokes. Not to mention the men. Those ill-fated jokes contain a lot of violence.

Any positive deeds attributed to Dr. Albino's foundation in the reduction of malnutrition cases in Mendoza is praiseworthy in itself. But I concur with the opinions cited by the ARG Society of Pediatrics and the Arg Society for First Infancy. He is not fit to assume any public health position at any level due to his personal beliefs as cited in the aforementioned article in Pagina 12.