here we go again...

[redfox]

You know, I really like the idea of shifting the convo. There was a story about 15 years of two women who had been friends in their small, midwestern high school. They had not seen each other in a decade, until they spied each other across the street on opposite sides of a rally, about abortion. They went to lunch, and discovered parallel lives; married, same number of kids, etc. Their only significant difference was their stance on legal abortion.

They decided to work together on an issue they both cared deeply about, and shelve their differences on abortion, agreeing to disagree, and build upon their mutual love for children. They worked on their shared hopes and dreams. THAT has always lit my fire!

So, my hopes and dreams are that every child is a chosen one, and that all children are born into families with enough of of the basics - food, shelter, medical care, safe neighborhood, solid education, and of course, love. What are your hopes & dreams?

[Gregg]

The zygote/embryo/fetus under discussion is a developing human; no doubt about it.

No argument from me. The sun goes down every night, too. Science can tell us the exact moment the sun sets. But when does it get dark? KWIM?

[Zoebird]

The difference between you and me...loosechicken....is that i believe every child is precious and valuable in the world.

Here is another statement that qualifies as presumptuous and condescending.

When a person -- another individual -- defines a fetus as a 'child' or 'person' is going to be different. If you ask 10 people from 10 diverse backgrounds, they're likely going to give you 10 different answers. One is yours, and one will be on the other side of things -- such as that the fetus isn't a child until they breathe on their own (which can be determined/defined in many different ways).

Not one of these people does *not* believe that "every child is precious and valuable in the world." But when a fetus is a child is what is up to question.

Please note that I am not using "fetus" to state that the baby inside the person is not a child or a baby. But rather, it's the correct term for a late-stage gestation phase. That is all.

[Zoebird]

Why do you think that women who see the baby on ultrasound ususally do not have an abortion?

Foremost, I cannot say that the aspect is absolute. That is to say "women who see the baby on an ultrasound do not usually have an abortion."

So far, we've only had your anecdotal evidence, and with this the assertion of the type of pregnancy center in which you work. It sounds to me very similar to the catholic centers where I volunteered as a teen. To contrast this, I have also worked in a clinic more akin to a Planned Parenthood as well (in a state where counseling prior to abortion was required).

In both instances, my volunteer work lasted only a single summer (12 weeks), but included training, meetings, and some sessions (sitting in as a matter of training), though I mostly filed and greeted people in both clinics.

I found my experience in these to have two contrasting experiences around counseling:

A. In the catholic clinic, the women who were coming in were often stating that they felt they had no other option than to have an abortion, that they 'wanted' one. But, through the counseling process, it was largely their fears about not being able to care for themselves in pregnancy or their child after -- and the catholic group would gently draw them into the space where they would keep their pregnancies and provide the services that the women needed (from medical to adoption to services for child care/rearing, housing, etc).

I would characterize this counseling as encouraging, gentle, loving, but with a clear sense of what they wanted for the woman and child -- largely because they didn't provide abortion services, nor would they help the woman if that was the decision she made. They encouraged towards their POV.

If a woman was particularly unclear about the nature of her pregnancy and the child, then they might use an ultrasound to help her "connect" emotionally.

I do not think that this process is "wrong" in any way. I'm just explaining what I experienced. I felt that women were often "walked through" the ideology and perspective, until they came to the conclusion that the crisis center wanted them to have. If the woman wanted to continue with abortion even after this, then they would (kindly) inform her that she needed to go elsewhere, but would not tell her where to go.

B. In the other clinic, the women who were coming in had similar trepidations, but also seemed more certain in their decisions. They were provided with counseling, but instead of one idea being lovingly and consistently unfolded before them (the idea that it is possible to maintain the pregnancy, that there are options for child care and/or adoption), i found that it was more informational rather than supportive in any one direction.

This clinic, by law, had to provide information on adoption services, welfare and related services, and also provided maternity care (for free), so it was passing along the exact same information as the catholic center where I'd volunteered before. But, whatever the woman's ultimate choice was, they would simply follow through and "support" her in her decision.

The people who worked in this community, like red fox, were very caring about these women and their families, wanting to provide their best support and care, but without convincing the woman one way or the other -- toward or away from abortion. I don't recall a woman ever being offered an ultrasound to see her baby (as would happen in the catholic clinic and I would be asked to prep the room for that when it happened, or book the appointment for it), but if a woman asked, she would be given one.

This is largely a difference in method, drawn out of a difference in perspective. In the first, the child holds greater importance to those who are helping, and in the second, the mother's choice (or you could say the mother) holds greater importance.

In both instances, I always felt that both parties were compassionate toward the mother and the child, though those on each side of the "sense" would see the other as not valuing the other (i.e., the catholic clinic would say the other one did not value the child enough; the other clinic would say that the catholic clinic did not value the mother enough).

On a personal note, I say that both cared for both "enough" -- but weighed one over the other in each case -- and provided services based on that perspective.

In regards to why women would be convinced, I am asserting two positions in this regard:

1. If you are working in a clinic similar to the catholic one, the intentional process in the counseling is to make certain that the woman sees the gestating infant as a child, a person, a baby. If it takes a ultrasound to get to that, then they'll use it. And, I found that -- in those clinics -- most women were deterred from having an abortion.

Was that due to the ultrasound? the counseling/education? where these women predisposed to it by choosing to come to this center first, as opposed to another center where they could -- more quickly -- walk in, get through the legal requirements, and get an abortion?

2. I believe that the intended process of this ultrasound is two-fold:

A. to provide more information for the woman;

B. to create an attachment for the gestating infant in the woman.

Part of what I am curious about is this.

In your clinic -- and based on how I see you expressing your experience, which mirrors my own experience in the catholic clinic -- you provide these ultrasounds and you get the result that you seek: women keeping their children. It might be what creates that attachment, as opposed to simply providing information. The reason I think this is because so much information was already provided to the woman in abstract ways (i.e., pictures, drawings, and descriptions of the gestational age of the child, plus things like "heart beat!" and "brain waves!" thrown into the mix as well. A lot of people focus on the Juno-aspect (from the film): finger nails! But no one gives a crap about finger nails. In our world, heart beats and brain waves mean life! And, so, the posters read "abortion stops a beating heart" doesn't it?

In the other clinic, if it is provided more dispassionate, informative way, the question remains as to whether the majority of women would be convinced or if it would simply provide another point of information.

The problem being, of course, that it may not be just a point of information for some women. It may be that it creates an attachment, and therefore the outcome that people desire. But if it's across the board -- there may be many women for a variety of reasons for whom this emotional attachment would be more risky.

From a legal standpoint, I question whether this is necessary.

Most of the standards already involve getting counseling, getting information about the procedure -- and as red fox pointed out form her experience, most women are already agonizing over this experience.

It would be far more difficult for these women to go through the ultrasound as well -- having already agonized in the extreme (as would be the case for me, were I forced to come to it) -- and I don't think this would be necessary.

So, to answer the question directly. . .

I think women who see the baby on the ultrasound (in your center) usually do not have an abortion because the whole process has been designed to create that outcome, the ultrasound being that last element to create a whole attachment to the child, while also providing support to the mother so that she can maintain pregnancy.

In a situation of red fox's clinic, it seems that the result may not be the same, though it is possible that more women may form an attachment and reconsider, choosing services over abortion.

[Zoebird]

And the convo swings wildly...from abortion to politics to Catholics to Planned Parenthood to........strange things. The desperate attempts to call a baby a "zygote" and then when its obvious that fails, the insane idea that killing is ok, which i'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despites some totally absurd posts.......

Of course it does. there are many facets to the equation here, with each person working on different angles as they come into the fray. This isn't a simple issue, no matter how much you think it might be.

A baby is a zygote during a specific gestational phase (and in this phase, a bundle of basically undifferentiated cells). A baby is also an embryo, which is when the cells begin to differentiate. A baby is also a fetus, until it is born. None of these terms is at all problematic or stating that the baby isn't a baby or isn't human.

The question is about "personhood." You see personhood beginning at conception. Other people do not. Jane brought up the idea that personhood depends upon developing consciousness -- and so she assigns personhood in a different way than you.

That doesn't make her obtuse or immoral or whatever else. It just means that what she finds acceptable to do to a baby in a certain gestational phase you will not.

I don't get why people can't seem to get this.

The idea that killing is ok is not insane. There are many incidents in our lives when killing is ok -- which are also outlined in the catholic catechism which has a pretty hard core pro-life stance. The catechism asserts that just war, which involves killing, is ok. The catechism asserts that killing in defense of self/other is ok. The catechism asserts that the killing of animals for food -- with their best welfare taking into consideration in the process -- is ok.

Much of the law follows the catechism, because these ideas are not only housed within the catholic church. Much of our community -- catholic or not -- follows these ethical guidelines.

The catholic church also supported the death penalty for many years (killing the guilty), though JPII helped pass an amendment to the 1994 catechism that said that the death penalty is not a justified killing.

The catholic church asserts that life begins at conception, and unless there is extreme medical need (which includes psychiatric need), abortion is immoral. But, there are those caveats -- which means that killing is appropriate to save the mother.

The very idea that "killing is ok is insane" is simply not at all evidenced. There are many instances where killing is ok.

Also, as a note, I do not assume you are catholic. It's just that I'm familiar with the doctrine -- so it's a good starting point.

And then you say "which I'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despite absurd posts."

While I consider every killing act -- including killing for food, accidental killing of insects, the purposeful killing of mice and insects, etc -- to be a deep consideration, I do not necessarily find that it ultimately violates my consciousness.

And there's no absurdity here, unless you are honestly and truly talking about not killing anything ever (Jain ideology, btw). And if you are, I would *love* to hear about how you accomplish this.

[Zoebird]

Red fox,

What I would like is this:

1. a law liberal enough to allow for diversity of perspectives, while also honoring the life of both born and unborn;

2. broad-based, in-depth sex education and access to birth control for men and women (by access, I like the idea of these insurance companies providing it. i have no issue with it, nor do I think anyone overstepped any legal bounds);

3. (hope) That women who do become accidentally pregnant choose to continue their pregnancies and offer those children up for adoption (here in NZ, there are so few babies born and put up for adoption. there are unwanted pregnancies, but families usually handle that on their own -- even with grandparents or other families taking on the child. but, if you want to adopt here, it's a literal lottery with very few babies. And, there are parents who want children. I know this because we have been looking into it/talking about it ourselves.)

4. that all babies are wanted, that all parents are supported in some way so that they can adequately provide for their babies, and that things like parenting classes and other support are available to them (this is something that NZ also does very well -- mostly through volunteer organizations, some of which get government grants, too).

5. that people will respect that other people have different understandings about gestation and personhood, and can respect those differences and would be curious about them -- rather than accusatory around them (and I mean this in both directions, btw).

[JaneV2.0]

The best conversations often ramble far afield, IMO.

[Lainey]

That's one of the things I find fascinating about politics. During this campaign cycle, contraception has never been a part of the Republican party platform nor the platforms of the individual candidates.

It was brought up in a debate by a Democrat and then forced into the public sphere by an over-reaching Democrat administration, then suddenly there is a "republican war on women" which conveniently takes precedence over the real issues of the day.

I find it fascinating. Transparent, but fascinating none-the-less.

The Republican war on contraception: http://motherjones.com/politics/2012...-contraception

[poetry_writer]

Of course it does. there are many facets to the equation here, with each person working on different angles as they come into the fray. This isn't a simple issue, no matter how much you think it might be.

A baby is a zygote during a specific gestational phase (and in this phase, a bundle of basically undifferentiated cells). A baby is also an embryo, which is when the cells begin to differentiate. A baby is also a fetus, until it is born. None of these terms is at all problematic or stating that the baby isn't a baby or isn't human.

The question is about "personhood." You see personhood beginning at conception. Other people do not. Jane brought up the idea that personhood depends upon developing consciousness -- and so she assigns personhood in a different way than you.

That doesn't make her obtuse or immoral or whatever else. It just means that what she finds acceptable to do to a baby in a certain gestational phase you will not.

I don't get why people can't seem to get this.

The idea that killing is ok is not insane. There are many incidents in our lives when killing is ok -- which are also outlined in the catholic catechism which has a pretty hard core pro-life stance. The catechism asserts that just war, which involves killing, is ok. The catechism asserts that killing in defense of self/other is ok. The catechism asserts that the killing of animals for food -- with their best welfare taking into consideration in the process -- is ok.

Much of the law follows the catechism, because these ideas are not only housed within the catholic church. Much of our community -- catholic or not -- follows these ethical guidelines.

The catholic church also supported the death penalty for many years (killing the guilty), though JPII helped pass an amendment to the 1994 catechism that said that the death penalty is not a justified killing.

The catholic church asserts that life begins at conception, and unless there is extreme medical need (which includes psychiatric need), abortion is immoral. But, there are those caveats -- which means that killing is appropriate to save the mother.

The very idea that "killing is ok is insane" is simply not at all evidenced. There are many instances where killing is ok.

Also, as a note, I do not assume you are catholic. It's just that I'm familiar with the doctrine -- so it's a good starting point.

And then you say "which I'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despite absurd posts."

While I consider every killing act -- including killing for food, accidental killing of insects, the purposeful killing of mice and insects, etc -- to be a deep consideration, I do not necessarily find that it ultimately violates my consciousness.

And there's no absurdity here, unless you are honestly and truly talking about not killing anything ever (Jain ideology, btw). And if you are, I would *love* to hear about how you accomplish this.

Call me crazy. i find babies to be of more value than mice or insects. In fact, I just stepped on a bug. This comparison is, in my opinion, reaching desperately for something or anything to justify your position on the issue..

[poetry_writer]

Foremost, I cannot say that the aspect is absolute. That is to say "women who see the baby on an ultrasound do not usually have an abortion."

So far, we've only had your anecdotal evidence, and with this the assertion of the type of pregnancy center in which you work. It sounds to me very similar to the catholic centers where I volunteered as a teen. To contrast this, I have also worked in a clinic more akin to a Planned Parenthood as well (in a state where counseling prior to abortion was required).

In both instances, my volunteer work lasted only a single summer (12 weeks), but included training, meetings, and some sessions (sitting in as a matter of training), though I mostly filed and greeted people in both clinics.

I found my experience in these to have two contrasting experiences around counseling:

A. In the catholic clinic, the women who were coming in were often stating that they felt they had no other option than to have an abortion, that they 'wanted' one. But, through the counseling process, it was largely their fears about not being able to care for themselves in pregnancy or their child after -- and the catholic group would gently draw them into the space where they would keep their pregnancies and provide the services that the women needed (from medical to adoption to services for child care/rearing, housing, etc).

I would characterize this counseling as encouraging, gentle, loving, but with a clear sense of what they wanted for the woman and child -- largely because they didn't provide abortion services, nor would they help the woman if that was the decision she made. They encouraged towards their POV.

If a woman was particularly unclear about the nature of her pregnancy and the child, then they might use an ultrasound to help her "connect" emotionally.

I do not think that this process is "wrong" in any way. I'm just explaining what I experienced. I felt that women were often "walked through" the ideology and perspective, until they came to the conclusion that the crisis center wanted them to have. If the woman wanted to continue with abortion even after this, then they would (kindly) inform her that she needed to go elsewhere, but would not tell her where to go.

B. In the other clinic, the women who were coming in had similar trepidations, but also seemed more certain in their decisions. They were provided with counseling, but instead of one idea being lovingly and consistently unfolded before them (the idea that it is possible to maintain the pregnancy, that there are options for child care and/or adoption), i found that it was more informational rather than supportive in any one direction.

This clinic, by law, had to provide information on adoption services, welfare and related services, and also provided maternity care (for free), so it was passing along the exact same information as the catholic center where I'd volunteered before. But, whatever the woman's ultimate choice was, they would simply follow through and "support" her in her decision.

The people who worked in this community, like red fox, were very caring about these women and their families, wanting to provide their best support and care, but without convincing the woman one way or the other -- toward or away from abortion. I don't recall a woman ever being offered an ultrasound to see her baby (as would happen in the catholic clinic and I would be asked to prep the room for that when it happened, or book the appointment for it), but if a woman asked, she would be given one.

This is largely a difference in method, drawn out of a difference in perspective. In the first, the child holds greater importance to those who are helping, and in the second, the mother's choice (or you could say the mother) holds greater importance.

In both instances, I always felt that both parties were compassionate toward the mother and the child, though those on each side of the "sense" would see the other as not valuing the other (i.e., the catholic clinic would say the other one did not value the child enough; the other clinic would say that the catholic clinic did not value the mother enough).

On a personal note, I say that both cared for both "enough" -- but weighed one over the other in each case -- and provided services based on that perspective.

In regards to why women would be convinced, I am asserting two positions in this regard:

1. If you are working in a clinic similar to the catholic one, the intentional process in the counseling is to make certain that the woman sees the gestating infant as a child, a person, a baby. If it takes a ultrasound to get to that, then they'll use it. And, I found that -- in those clinics -- most women were deterred from having an abortion.

Was that due to the ultrasound? the counseling/education? where these women predisposed to it by choosing to come to this center first, as opposed to another center where they could -- more quickly -- walk in, get through the legal requirements, and get an abortion?

2. I believe that the intended process of this ultrasound is two-fold:

A. to provide more information for the woman;

B. to create an attachment for the gestating infant in the woman.

Part of what I am curious about is this.

In your clinic -- and based on how I see you expressing your experience, which mirrors my own experience in the catholic clinic -- you provide these ultrasounds and you get the result that you seek: women keeping their children. It might be what creates that attachment, as opposed to simply providing information. The reason I think this is because so much information was already provided to the woman in abstract ways (i.e., pictures, drawings, and descriptions of the gestational age of the child, plus things like "heart beat!" and "brain waves!" thrown into the mix as well. A lot of people focus on the Juno-aspect (from the film): finger nails! But no one gives a crap about finger nails. In our world, heart beats and brain waves mean life! And, so, the posters read "abortion stops a beating heart" doesn't it?

In the other clinic, if it is provided more dispassionate, informative way, the question remains as to whether the majority of women would be convinced or if it would simply provide another point of information.

The problem being, of course, that it may not be just a point of information for some women. It may be that it creates an attachment, and therefore the outcome that people desire. But if it's across the board -- there may be many women for a variety of reasons for whom this emotional attachment would be more risky.

From a legal standpoint, I question whether this is necessary.

Most of the standards already involve getting counseling, getting information about the procedure -- and as red fox pointed out form her experience, most women are already agonizing over this experience.

It would be far more difficult for these women to go through the ultrasound as well -- having already agonized in the extreme (as would be the case for me, were I forced to come to it) -- and I don't think this would be necessary.

So, to answer the question directly. . .

I think women who see the baby on the ultrasound (in your center) usually do not have an abortion because the whole process has been designed to create that outcome, the ultrasound being that last element to create a whole attachment to the child, while also providing support to the mother so that she can maintain pregnancy.

In a situation of red fox's clinic, it seems that the result may not be the same, though it is possible that more women may form an attachment and reconsider, choosing services over abortion.

No i'm not Catholic. The sickest part of your post was the smiley face after "it stops a beating heart"