More than half the 112 anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn't even vote Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3938928/More-ha

[yuna628 9,712]

I think you misunderstand me. I meant that if I didn't want the kid, and was willing to abort it, then I wouldn't care if they took it to use it for science or to help someone else. IOW, I would not say NO to them wanting to use it, provided I didn't want the child myself. I guess there may be some who would say no for some reason, but to me, that would be selfish, though still a choice of the woman aborting.

I, too, have been an organ donor, ever since I was legal to be one. I would MUCH rather someone get use out of some part of me after the whole was no longer working. If I could save 5 lives with 5 viable organs, I cannot imagine a much better service to humanity.

Where did you get the impression that "I wouldn't"???

Never said she did.

Hard to see how to take this any other way...

But do you really think a woman who is lying on her bed, about to abort the baby within, she really cares about what she is signing? I suspect she just wants to get it over. I am fairly certain if I didn't want a baby, I wouldn't care what they did with the remains after they were out of me. But maybe I am insensitive.

It implies that not only would the woman not really care what she is signing (and I beg to differ), but that since she just wants to get it over with, that you, not wanting the fetus in question wouldn't really care what was done with the remains. I am saying that's not how most women would approach that subject, nor would I. I WOULD care what was done with the remains actually. I WOULD care to understand and read what I was signing. As I said to have an abortion is a difficult choice for any woman to make, what happens with the fetus afterwards is also a choice (for donation) I hope any provider offers if possible.

[Ban Hammer 13,534]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

That's a pretty far reach, even for you. Nowhere did I say anything to this effect.

[quote name="smilesammich" post="8384131" timestamp="147942

right, but what lfehfn is saying, or what it sounds like, is that he doesn't trust a woman to make an informed decision without some outside party determining if she's telling the truth or capable of being informed. as in, she may say she is making an informed decision, but lfehfn wants further proof she isn't just saying that (which is impossible) in order to get her birth control fix.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Ok, perhaps "wouldn't care" is a bad way to put it. What I meant was that if I didn't want to keep the child, hence the abortion, then I wouldn't have a problem with signing over the fetal remains for... Whatever they wanted to use it for. I would not say NO to them, since I was already willing to abort, why would I NOT want to give up the remains for a better purpose?

IOW... I (as a man, mind ye) would willingly sign over the fetal remains. Doing otherwise would seem... Selfish? Unreasonable? I mean, why wouldn't one wish to donate the fetus if one didn't want a child?

Hard to see how to take this any other way...

It implies that not only would the woman not really care what she is signing (and I beg to differ), but that since she just wants to get it over with, that you, not wanting the fetus in question wouldn't really care what was done with the remains. I am saying that's not how most women would approach that subject, nor would I. I WOULD care what was done with the remains actually. I WOULD care to understand and read what I was signing. As I said to have an abortion is a difficult choice for any woman to make, what happens with the fetus afterwards is also a choice (for donation) I hope any provider offers if possible.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It's not that a woman can't be trusted to make the decision. I am not saying that, and I am 99% certain backing is not either. It's just a fact of medical care. A patient is required by law (or a guardian if underage) to sign that they understand the risks associated and the possible outcomes of the procedure. No difference between an abortion and a colonoscopy. It's simply a way to protect the caregivers. Probably an insurance requirement, but cannot say for sure.

this. i don't see where this is any different than any other life threatening/major medical decision. and yet with this particular decision, somehow, women can't be trusted to make it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

If it were ONLY for the reasons of harvest, I would agree with you. In the example I gave, the baby would not have lived long after birth. The mother chose to carry to full term only to offer the viable organs to potential candidates, as opposed to aborting early on and the fetus giving life to no one else. A tough decision to make, for sure. Brave, at a minimum.

I have more ethical concerns over the decision to bring a life to full term for the purposes of harvesting those organs for the lives of others than I do over a first trimester abortion, but maybe that is me.