Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Abortions are not taxpayer funded, and none of the federal monies given to Planned Parenthood are used to fund abortions, but that is not what the lawmakers who are against it want people to know.

But here is my issue with it--for all their saying "Unborn Lives Matter" , these are the same ones who want to take away Healthcare, support the death penalty, take away food stamps and financial aid.  

It is like they are saying "Carry the baby to term, after that, the hell with him/her"

Share this post


Link to post

I support a woman's right to choose what to do with their own bodies and don't judge them on their choices as I don't know their stories.  I could have been one of those woman to have to make that choice myself.  I lost my first child eight hours after his birth because he had so many defects that he had zero chance at life and had to make the choice to pull him off life support so that he would not have to suffer longer then what was necessary.  With my second child we would have both died if they would have even waited thirty minutes to do my C-section because my uterus was rupturing.  I was told that I will die if I have another pregnancy so I got my tubes tied but even that is not 100% effective.     

Share this post


Link to post

The only reason my sexual assault didn’t become a rape was because I was able to get away and run into my mom’s room and wake her up. Not everyone is lucky enough to be attacked in their own bedroom with a parent in the room across the hall, not everyone is lucky enough to get a chance to run away. Far too many people don’t seem to understand that even if it doesn’t make up the majority, it still happens too many times. I am utterly terrified that Trump and Pence will overturn Roe v Wade and get rid of planned parenthood. I’m terrified this country will take so many steps backwards that there will be a very noticeable rise in fatalities  and injuries to pregnant women and unborn children, an influx in children put into the foster care system. Even Ireland is taking the steps to make better abortion laws, but our idiotic president and vice jackass want to make women powerless so they can continue to harass and abuse them

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/3/2018 at 6:16 AM, Pyroik said:

"Before we even get started, general reminder that not everyone who can get pregnant is a woman"

 

no. no no no. If you are born a female, then you can have a child. there are only 2 genders, male and female, gender is not flexible, you cannot alter it. I am not against transgender, but it is annoying for people to make me alter basic biology for your self image. kek.

I am for abortion by the way. it's her body, she does what she wants to with it.

 

not attacking your opinions, just general fact, It would be attacking if I harassed you with my opinions and forced it down your throat with implied force/implied with action and or violence towards you and your statements including mass deletion or "hack" threats. god. you can believe whatever you want, and you can live in a bliss filled world with 78000 genders, but fact is reality, reality is fact. I only stated one opinion, for abortion. nothing else. ehck.

 

This is actually incorrect, especially if you're talking about gender (but I have a feeling you're using the term gender instead of biological sex). Gender is based in social/cultural understandings of roles, so it's entirely dependant on which culture you're born in - for example, there have been a variety of cultures which include a third gender or have people move between one gender and the other, because they're based in cultural understandings rather than anything concrete.

In terms of biological sex, there are people who are intersex as well as those who have chromosome balances which are different from the XX/XY idea. For example there can be a person who has chromosomes XXY, so doesn't fit under the 'female is XX and male is XY' understanding of chromosomes.

If you're interested in reading further on the gender side of things, I recommend Judith Butler's writing on the performance of gender.

 

On the subject of abortion, no one has the right to tell others what to do with something that is inside their body. People need to be able to choose and putting laws in place to try and stop that won't work. Like other people have said, there would be back alley abortions (potentially lethal) and people buying medication to cause a miscarriage which, if unregulated, could also be very harmful or even fatal to the individual. A lot of people aren't in a position to raise a child and, like people have said previously, many people will get pregnant through things like contraceptive failure or rape. I agree with increased sex education in schools, but that should happen with abortions still being legal because even if people know about contraceptives and are extremely careful, there's still a chance to get pregnant - and they shouldn't be forced to carry and give birth to a child (a process which can be extremely traumatic both physically and mentally) just because someone else wants them to or has an emotional attachment to the concept of an embryo that couldn't survive outside of the body to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, owlion said:

This is actually incorrect, especially if you're talking about gender (but I have a feeling you're using the term gender instead of biological sex). Gender is based in social/cultural understandings of roles, so it's entirely dependant on which culture you're born in - for example, there have been a variety of cultures which include a third gender or have people move between one gender and the other, because they're based in cultural understandings rather than anything concrete.

In terms of biological sex, there are people who are intersex as well as those who have chromosome balances which are different from the XX/XY idea. For example there can be a person who has chromosomes XXY, so doesn't fit under the 'female is XX and male is XY' understanding of chromosomes.

If you're interested in reading further on the gender side of things, I recommend Judith Butler's writing on the performance of gender.

 

On the subject of abortion, no one has the right to tell others what to do with something that is inside their body. People need to be able to choose and putting laws in place to try and stop that won't work. Like other people have said, there would be back alley abortions (potentially lethal) and people buying medication to cause a miscarriage which, if unregulated, could also be very harmful or even fatal to the individual. A lot of people aren't in a position to raise a child and, like people have said previously, many people will get pregnant through things like contraceptive failure or rape. I agree with increased sex education in schools, but that should happen with abortions still being legal because even if people know about contraceptives and are extremely careful, there's still a chance to get pregnant - and they shouldn't be forced to carry and give birth to a child (a process which can be extremely traumatic both physically and mentally) just because someone else wants them to or has an emotional attachment to the concept of an embryo that couldn't survive outside of the body to begin with.

Gender is not disconnected from sex. it is not a "social" thing. it's not in the mind, you're not a boy if you think you're a boy. a boy who thinks he is a girl is still biologically a male. and will always be a male.

Now no, I am not talking about gender as if it was a term disconnected from sex. the person states that not all women who can get pregnant are women. a transgender man is still a woman who can get pregnant, and should still take the proper precautions if "she" does not want a child.

Gender identity disorder is not what I'm talking about. I don't care about your 79+ genders, they don't exist, and are excuses for people to be special. there are 2 biological sexes/genders. gender is not nor will it ever be a "social" thing, its never going to be disconnected from sex. as far as your "culture" this is commonly used when a person does not want to accept that there are simply 2 genders, this cannot be altered. you are not a male if you think you are a male. you're just thinking you are. and that's fine, if you are a transgender person who reasonably passes, I will call you he/him. but that's just my general feelings. other than that I don't care about your self image and feelings.

as far as intersex people, I have nothing to argue. it's simply a person whose biological sex doesn't fit the norm.

I feel like I'm stating the same thing over and over again.

 

I will not use your zi/they/them pronouns, those are invalid. pick a sex and move on with your life, you can't be both. "The social construction of gender is a notion in feminism and sociology about the operation of gender and gender differences in societies. According to this view, society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behavior for a person of that specific sex." now this, your statement that tries to ruin your kid's minds and understanding of female and male, and when parents try to raise their kids inappropriately is something that ive seen happen often and is always going to lead to the fact that kids are never harmed by understanding that, girls may like girly toys, and boys may like to play with tools and mini cars. you won't see women going on to build huge buildings and working with huge machinery and lifting hundreds of pounds. now, I'm not saying this isn't impossible, but it's not very common. I can see why you may want to call it a "social construct" because gender stereotypes exist, but it doesn't change your biology.

 

I dont know what else to say about that, it confusses me. 

sorry for the late reply.

Share this post


Link to post

@Pyroik

 

I keep up with this thread very loosely and never really post but... you're using the urban legend playground version of biological gender. You do realize that if there were only two biological sexes, things like male calico cats wouldn't be able to exist. 

 

There are about 7? I believe 7 when the last time I was in a biology class (and yes, college biology! from ACTUAL biologists! amazing!) biological genders that have been seen in humans and other animals. For example, a biologically "male," calico cat is actually not XY - but XXY, or sometimes even XXYY. These are not male or female.

 

And what about chimeras? There are cases of animals - there are two particularly noticeable chickens I can think of right now - who are both hens and roosters at the same time. The last I saw was a bird who actually was one side hen, one side rooster - fully functioning physically (digestive, brain, etc), but different leg colors on either side, leg lengths, and the comb was altered slightly on either side. A chimera can be any combination - XX, XY, XXY, XXYY, XYY, etc. At the cellular level, any organism can be any biological sex. If there was leftover material from an embryo that started to form with you, and you absorbed it, there could be a cluster of your cells that's even female or non-binary. oh no! how does the two sex theory deal with this?? it doesn't because it's wrong.

 

lots of species don't even have two sexes - there are lizards who are all one sex (we call them "female," because they bear resemblance to our typical view of an XX organism), and let's not even go into the species like honey bees where haploids/diploids are different sexes. 

 

there are so many heckin' things in the world. genetics is a mess. nothing is perfect. everything is slightly different from everything else - humans tend to like to categorize, because our brains are poor at handling the concept of diversity. We like when things fit into groups. It's the same reason you'll see kids (and adults, haha) sorting M&Ms into colors. Our brain just likes to think that way. But every M&M is exactly the same. Your brain just has a hard time thinking that. 

 

like... you can have as many offensive opinions as you want, that's on you, but like... don't drag incorrect science into it and claim biologically something is true when you're obviously misinformed. science did nothing wrong and it doesn't deserve to be dragged like this-

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Pyroik said:

Gender is not disconnected from sex. it is not a "social" thing. it's not in the mind, you're not a boy if you think you're a boy. a boy who thinks he is a girl is still biologically a male. and will always be a male.

Now no, I am not talking about gender as if it was a term disconnected from sex. the person states that not all women who can get pregnant are women. a transgender man is still a woman who can get pregnant, and should still take the proper precautions if "she" does not want a child.

Gender identity disorder is not what I'm talking about. I don't care about your 79+ genders, they don't exist, and are excuses for people to be special. there are 2 biological sexes/genders. gender is not nor will it ever be a "social" thing, its never going to be disconnected from sex. as far as your "culture" this is commonly used when a person does not want to accept that there are simply 2 genders, this cannot be altered. you are not a male if you think you are a male. you're just thinking you are. and that's fine, if you are a transgender person who reasonably passes, I will call you he/him. but that's just my general feelings. other than that I don't care about your self image and feelings.

as far as intersex people, I have nothing to argue. it's simply a person whose biological sex doesn't fit the norm.

I feel like I'm stating the same thing over and over again.

 

I will not use your zi/they/them pronouns, those are invalid. pick a sex and move on with your life, you can't be both. "The social construction of gender is a notion in feminism and sociology about the operation of gender and gender differences in societies. According to this view, society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behavior for a person of that specific sex." now this, your statement that tries to ruin your kid's minds and understanding of female and male, and when parents try to raise their kids inappropriately is something that ive seen happen often and is always going to lead to the fact that kids are never harmed by understanding that, girls may like girly toys, and boys may like to play with tools and mini cars. you won't see women going on to build huge buildings and working with huge machinery and lifting hundreds of pounds. now, I'm not saying this isn't impossible, but it's not very common. I can see why you may want to call it a "social construct" because gender stereotypes exist, but it doesn't change your biology.

 

I dont know what else to say about that, it confusses me. 

sorry for the late reply.

I have no personal investment in the debate (I couldn't care less about gender or sex), but that doesn't change the fact that there has been a lot of research on this topic and, based on actual research, you're speaking incorrectly. I don't think there are 79 genders, but there are at least four that I'm aware of (and you can find the information with a quick google search - I recommend JSTOR). Biological sex is defined by chromosomes (XX/XY), but as I said there are people with variations of that as well as intersex people. That is biological fact. There are not two biological sexes, no matter how strongly you may wish to believe differently. 

Here's a generic definition from google on gender:
"the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

"traditional concepts of gender""

You can see through the usage it is intrinsically tied into social and cultural differences. Please, go and do a couple of google searched on cultures where two genders isn't the norm (and there are several historical examples in case you're thinking it's a modern phenomenon).

Small children like brightly-coloured toys - that's what the research says. Before they're socialised, they like bright colours and things that move, that's it. There's no intrinsic preference based on biological sex. Honestly, you can look this up. I've done research into it and it's very easy to find, especially if you have access to online academic journals.

I understand from your argument that you see it as people being 'special snowflakes', but the facts are against you. There are more transgender people today than there have been for a while because of raised awareness and acceptance which allows people to come forward about it. It's the issue with reported data: there will always be people missing from it, especially if something is treated negatively.

My last word on it (because this is off the main topic) is that there's a lot of good information out there which you can take advantage of if you so choose. I have no interest in making you.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Alrexwolf said:

@Pyroik

 

I keep up with this thread very loosely and never really post but... you're using the urban legend playground version of biological gender. You do realize that if there were only two biological sexes, things like male calico cats wouldn't be able to exist. 

 

There are about 7? I believe 7 when the last time I was in a biology class (and yes, college biology! from ACTUAL biologists! amazing!) biological genders that have been seen in humans and other animals. For example, a biologically "male," calico cat is actually not XY - but XXY, or sometimes even XXYY. These are not male or female.

 

And what about chimeras? There are cases of animals - there are two particularly noticeable chickens I can think of right now - who are both hens and roosters at the same time. The last I saw was a bird who actually was one side hen, one side rooster - fully functioning physically (digestive, brain, etc), but different leg colors on either side, leg lengths, and the comb was altered slightly on either side. A chimera can be any combination - XX, XY, XXY, XXYY, XYY, etc. At the cellular level, any organism can be any biological sex. If there was leftover material from an embryo that started to form with you, and you absorbed it, there could be a cluster of your cells that's even female or non-binary. oh no! how does the two sex theory deal with this?? it doesn't because it's wrong.

 

lots of species don't even have two sexes - there are lizards who are all one sex (we call them "female," because they bear resemblance to our typical view of an XX organism), and let's not even go into the species like honey bees where haploids/diploids are different sexes. 

 

there are so many heckin' things in the world. genetics is a mess. nothing is perfect. everything is slightly different from everything else - humans tend to like to categorize, because our brains are poor at handling the concept of diversity. We like when things fit into groups. It's the same reason you'll see kids (and adults, haha) sorting M&Ms into colors. Our brain just likes to think that way. But every M&M is exactly the same. Your brain just has a hard time thinking that. 

 

like... you can have as many offensive opinions as you want, that's on you, but like... don't drag incorrect science into it and claim biologically something is true when you're obviously misinformed. science did nothing wrong and it doesn't deserve to be dragged like this-

5

 

alright, I simply said there are 2 very clear genders, male and female. as far as how chromosomes go, there are many combinations, sure. those are sex genes, chromosomes, what make up a living thing, that carry genes, DNA. XY is known to carry dna which has male characterises, and XX is known to carry dna which has female characterises

now, what you're talking about is also Chromosomal Anomalies, I am aware of these, but since these syndromes are rare, and not found just every other day, but an unlucky deformity, something that went wrong, did evolution make these third genders for us? for our reproduction? no? cool. I didn't bring them up since they didn't really apply to what I was talking about. I was mainly talking about how not all people who can get pregnant are female, I may have read it wrong, because it is very vaguely true. the statement could be talking about intersex, who most likely have a womb, and don't fall into the category of male or female. defining something in a group makes it simple to understand and categorize. I read the statement as a person who identifies maybe as "non-binary" which isn't at all valid because it doesn't exist, it's artificial. now if it was talking about intersex people, I should correct myself, and say sure, maybe, but I'm not sure. and my statement about biologically not changing was trans men and women, who remain the sex they were born with for the rest of their lives unless you somehow morphed every single of their billions and billions of cells into male/female cells, which is impossible for a human to do, then it just wont happen. I was stating that it can't be changed. at least in humans, because now you're bringing animals into this mess, and you'd probably bring up sex changing planaria, then again they are hermaphrodites most of the time, like some starfish who can remove an arm and grow a new starfish. or frogs or maybe even asexual jellyfish. those are pretty cool I guess..

sex is a categorization, and that's why I put it in groups, like you said, now, putting something in a group make sit easy to identify and categorize."Gender is simply the categorization of an organism based upon its role in reproduction." some animals reproduce asexually, and some sexually. if some other gender exists, it's in the mind, a mental disorder. if some other sex exists (in humans, most animals, etc), it's a deformity, like down syndrome or something, why would nature create another unnecessary gender? for aesthetics? for fun? for survival? what's the point of it?

idk my last few replies weren't really right, this one is a lot better, who knows my judgment must be clouded because I wasn't agreeing with her/him (the op) statements i guess. lol

Share this post


Link to post

I won't really reply after this because it's not really necessary, but like... you realize that's not actually how "nature"/"evolution" or whatever weird scheme you want to think rules the genetic diversity of the universe works.

 

The reason that third and beyond genders and sexes exist is because nature doesn't freakin' care what mutations an animal gets! Everything is a deformity! Horns, teeth, claws, eyes, backbones - all of these started out as deformities. But you wouldn't say that horns or teeth aren't natural or are unnecessary. Nature doesn't just say, hey, ancestor of the tigers, you know what would be cool? You should get stripes. And ear spots that kinda look like eyes. Also get buff. And roar, stop all this purring stuff. 

 

A tiger-like animal with stripes happened to be born; the genes were helpful, so that animal reproduced. Nature doesn't create anything. Things happen by chance, and if they turn out to be beneficial in an environment, they usually stay or increase in a population. It's not because they're ~necessary~ or whatever other word you want to put on it; it's just because they help the animal not die long enough to pass on its genes.

 

I would point to certain species of fish, where those who carry sperm come in two very unique types. One is very female like, while the other is a brute who creates a harem. The female-like males sneak into the harem and add their genetics to the pool. However, the brutes also get to mate. Because nature doesn't care. Nature doesn't care what kind of gender or sex or whatever you are. Nature doesn't do anything except exist in a time and a place and things mold into what also exists in that time and place.

 

Do you think all those vestigial things that exist in organisms are always beneficial? Horses are sometimes born with canine teeth, called "wolf teeth," why would nature let a herbivore have teeth that they can't use and can actually be harmful to their health? Wolf teeth can tear up and injure their mouths. Obviously, it wasn't a benefit. But it still happens. Because nature doesn't just up and decide one day, ok, enough of that gene never again!

 

Life is an experiment onto itself. Genes are always mutating. Something doesn't have to be necessary for it to exist, to be real, and to be scientifically valid. We all started out as little blobs of cells. Every single thing is a deformity. Sexes themselves are a deformity - you don't need any sexes to reproduce. Plenty of things reproduce asexually, or with only one gender. Sex itself is an unnecessary feature. Ironically enough, the reason it exists is to GIVE genetic diversity - biological sex literally exists TO CREATE other sexes/features/deformities in offspring! its the whole reason it's beneficial. 

 

you can't just take people and be like "we're people and they're animals so our biology is different." I mean, you can, but it's so inaccurate it hurts. If it exists in other animals, it could theoretically have existed in us if we were in the right place at the right time in the right stage of our development. And who's to say what conditions create third sexes or extreme dimorphism within a sex or anything else? How do you know that, even if you don't believe they existed prior, they couldn't evolve to exist later on in our evolutionary cycle? 

 

unless every single person is going to get every single section of their body DNA tested, we will never know how common the sexes 3-7? actually are. There are cases where people can lead completely normal lives and never know - sometimes they turn up infertile, or some other weird thing happens for them to find out. You can't say something is uncommon when no study has ever been done (at least to my knowledge). You're just saying that based on your own experiences - of which you use your own brain to force people into two categories. You're using confirmation bias and ignoring the possibilities that exist.

 

The only studies I've ever read about intersex (NOT necessarily third or beyond sex, perhaps chimeras, or a number of other things) show them being just about as common as redheads at birth. I'm fairly certain you know a few redheads. Are you going to go and tell them they're rare, don't exist, and that you need them to dye their hair blonde, brunette, or black so they fit into the other three categories so your brain doesn't have to make another for them because there's not enough of them?

 

that would be stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/3/2018 at 7:54 AM, 49ER said:

Abortions are not taxpayer funded, and none of the federal monies given to Planned Parenthood are used to fund abortions, but that is not what the lawmakers who are against it want people to know.

But here is my issue with it--for all their saying "Unborn Lives Matter" , these are the same ones who want to take away Healthcare, support the death penalty, take away food stamps and financial aid.  

It is like they are saying "Carry the baby to term, after that, the hell with him/her"

Exactly. These people make my blood boil. If you (general you) genuinely care about the lives of children and stopping abortions, why not donate to orphanages/foster children/adopt abandoned babies? Why expect these women to carry to full term but do nothing to support them or the child after birth? The same goes for disabled/elderly/poor people who will be losing several government-funded programs that keep them afloat. Why fight so hard for something and call yourself a good person with so many suffering? Just my thoughts. I'm sure there are good pro-life people out there, but the group I described above is truly horrible. And, unfortunately, they seem to be the majority.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I used to be pro-life, only because it is not something I would personally do.  But as I got older and wiser, I realized it is not for me to judge what others decide is best for them.  And pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion.  I do not know anybody who is "pro-abortion", although that is what they always call someone who supports a right to choose.

But here is my philosophy:  If you don't believe in pro-choice then don't get an abortion.  If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.  Simple.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, 49ER said:

Well, I used to be pro-life, only because it is not something I would personally do.  But as I got older and wiser, I realized it is not for me to judge what others decide is best for them.  And pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion.  I do not know anybody who is "pro-abortion", although that is what they always call someone who supports a right to choose.

But here is my philosophy:  If you don't believe in pro-choice then don't get an abortion.  If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.  Simple.  

 

I actually have a friend who genuinely believed that 'pro-choice' people were actually literally pro-abortion, and *wanted* tons of women to get abortions. That was an interesting conversation, and a long one, but thankfully it was more a case of simply not knowing better rather then adamantly insisting that's how it was. She seemed to be very open to my explanations, thank goodness.

Share this post


Link to post

 

10 hours ago, 49ER said:

Well, I used to be pro-life, only because it is not something I would personally do.  But as I got older and wiser, I realized it is not for me to judge what others decide is best for them.

 

What is it about abortion in particular that puts it in the category of "right to choose" for you? Would deciding whether to let newborns live in a civilization where abortion was impossible fall under the same umbrella?

 

I read a take the other day to the effect that abortion is okay, but infanticide is not, simply because fetuses rely on the body of the mother and it's up to the mother to decide what to do with her body. But the distinction between born/unborn always seemed kinda arbitrary to me, especially relative to the difference between allowing an entire person to come into existence and not, and the effect that has on everyones' lives - including the parents'. The reason I'm OK with abortion is that as far as I can tell, neither fetuses nor very young infants have strong models of the world or senses of personal identity, and so aren't quite to the "people" stage yet. If presented with strong evidence suggesting otherwise I would reconsider, and if I valued fetuses of a certain age much more highly than I do now, I'd throw the mother's right to choose out the window.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I see a huge distinction in 'born' and 'unborn', and that's one of the reasons I have no problem with abortion. Infants, even just-born ones, are living breathing feeling beings, and even an infant just a few hours old has had legit real-world 'experiences', at least to the extent that any baby can. Fetuses, on the other hand, don't have those things... Fetuses are more *potential* beings, in my eyes, because they are not born yet and there is every chance that they might not actually be born alive in the first place. And the fact that a very large percentage of abortions happen before the fetus is even viable outside the womb, before it can even possibly live outside the mother, there is a different to me there as well. Also, for as much as infants need someone else to feed them and take care of them, they are not literally absorbing nutrients from someone else's body and putting someone else's body in real danger. Fetuses are. 

Share this post


Link to post

If abortion were as easy as it should be (so that late abortions were never necessary except in desperately rare cases) this could never have happened. Irish abortion laws do create this kind of situation - woman have to go to such lengths to get abortions that it take far longer than it should. That's why there is a campaign to change them. Did YOU all read about the Irish 12 y/o who was raped and denied an abortion in Ireland ?

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/gardaí-investigate-12-year-old-s-abortion-in-britain-1.3431941

 

Not to mention Savita Halappanava who died as a direct result of Irish abortion law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

In her case the baby was already dead - and even then they coudn't carry out the abortion needed to save her life.

 

As for that article talking about the live baby - it loses all its credibility by headlining it all with the image of a living baby in a crib. The nurse attending - and I am very sorry for her, sure, but medical staff see horrible things every single day - can say the baby was perfect - it very likely looked that way - but there was a chromosomal abnormality. We have no idea what its life would have been, had it survived (whether born full term or not.)

 

For some stories from the other side: https://shoutyourabortion.com/

 

We need GOOD sex education - far better than most countries offer just now - easily available free contraception, and the woman's right to choose. Or we get legislators like this guy:

 

https://theslot.jezebel.com/scott-lloyds-law-school-essay-on-abortion-was-so-extrem-1828518715

 

Choose to have an abortion or not for yourself; don't force others to have one, or deprive them of the right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

As for that article talking about the live baby - it loses all its credibility by headlining it all with the image of a living baby in a crib. The nurse attending - and I am very sorry for her, sure, but medical staff see horrible things every single day - can say the baby was perfect - it very likely looked that way - but there was a chromosomal abnormality. We have no idea what its life would have been, had it survived (whether born full term or not.)

 

Personally, that article loses all credibility for me with this:

 

Quote

the reality of legal abortion is that doctors and nurses are thrust into situations in which a child’s life is ended violently and they cannot intervene to care for the child.

 

This insinuates that a doctor's responsibility should first and foremost be to that unborn child and *not* to the health of the mother. It speaks to the many cases in which doctors have refused to allow an abortion even when the mother's *life* was in danger, because of their personal beliefs about a not-born possible-life. It says that doctors should be free to put their personal feelings about the fetus above the health and well-being of the woman carrying it. That's when I can no longer take the article seriously.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

No matter how people feel about all this stilll it is a human life these women an doctors are taking. people can not face the truth really that is all that it boils down to for.

 

Indeed, abortion is the brutal ending of a preborn human being’s life, no matter the stage:

 

The reality of abortion, the ending of a human life, cuts through the pro-choice rhetoric and shows the violence for what it is. The eyewitness accounts of nurses like Rita show the humanity of the preborn and the injustice of abortion.

 

 

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

That still does not mean that the life of the mother becomes less than that of which she is carrying. If she cannot handle the child herself, if she cannot support her family financially, emotionally or the baby cannot live it's life comfortably, they should have all the right in the world on how they handle the situation. A doctor or nurse is there simply to provide whatever aid to a person they can, they cannot and should not be allowed to have their personal feelings on the matter interfere, if they do they should not be in that profession. I understand caring for them but you cannot put your personal feelings above that of a patients simply because you disagree. Not everyone is cut out to be a mother or a father, they should not be forced into it. Let them decide, let them choose what happens to their family and future, let them deal with the outcome of that decision.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, demonicvampiregirl said:

That still does not mean that the life of the mother becomes less than that of which she is carrying. If she cannot handle the child herself, if she cannot support her family financially, emotionally or the baby cannot live it's life comfortably, they should have all the right in the world on how they handle the situation. A doctor or nurse is there simply to provide whatever aid to a person they can, they cannot and should not be allowed to have their personal feelings on the matter interfere, if they do they should not be in that profession. I understand caring for them but you cannot put your personal feelings above that of a patients simply because you disagree. Not everyone is cut out to be a mother or a father, they should not be forced into it. Let them decide, let them choose what happens to their family and future, let them deal with the outcome of that decision.

 

Exactly.

 

If you are in the profession of medically helping people, you need to put that *person's* health and well-being above your own personal feelings about a subject. I would be fired if I let my personal feelings interfere with my job, as would a lot of people. They act like this is different because it's a 'human life' at stake, but what about the mother's life? Does that not count as a human life? What it boils down to is it *doesn't matter* what a doctor or nurse *personally* feels, they need to put their patient's health first. And yes, sometimes that does mean allowing an abortion. If they can't bear to do it themselves they can at least *allow* someone else to do it. Letting a woman *die* because of their own personal feelings is simply not acceptable. (And that is what will happen, and has happened, if an abortion isn't allowed when there are already complications.)

Edited by HeatherMarie

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Laryal said:

No matter how people feel about all this stilll it is a human life these women an doctors are taking. people can not face the truth really that is all that it boils down to for.

 

Indeed, abortion is the brutal ending of a preborn human being’s life, no matter the stage:

The reality of abortion, the ending of a human life, cuts through the pro-choice rhetoric and shows the violence for what it is. The eyewitness accounts of nurses like Rita show the humanity of the preborn and the injustice of abortion.

 

 

 

This is not a  human.  580x413xpregnancy-week-2-fertilization.j In no way is it "unjust" to have it removed from my womb.

 

And until you can show me that this is can survive on its own, nor is this. pregnancy-week-5-amniotic-sac_4x3.jpg

 

3 hours ago, demonicvampiregirl said:

That still does not mean that the life of the mother becomes less than that of which she is carrying. If she cannot handle the child herself, if she cannot support her family financially, emotionally or the baby cannot live it's life comfortably, they should have all the right in the world on how they handle the situation. A doctor or nurse is there simply to provide whatever aid to a person they can, they cannot and should not be allowed to have their personal feelings on the matter interfere, if they do they should not be in that profession. I understand caring for them but you cannot put your personal feelings above that of a patients simply because you disagree. Not everyone is cut out to be a mother or a father, they should not be forced into it. Let them decide, let them choose what happens to their family and future, let them deal with the outcome of that decision.

 

2 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

Exactly.

 

If you are in the profession of medically helping people, you need to put that *person's* health and well-being above your own personal feelings about a subject. I would be fired if I let my personal feelings interfere with my job, as would a lot of people. They act like this is different because it's a 'human life' at stake, but what about the mother's life? Does that not count as a human life? What it boils down to is it *doesn't matter* what a doctor or nurse *personally* feels, they need to put their patient's health first. And yes, sometimes that does mean allowing an abortion. If they can't bear to do it themselves they can at least *allow* someone else to do it. Letting a woman *die* because of their own personal feelings is simply not acceptable. (And that is what will happen, and has happened, if an abortion isn't allowed when there are already complications.)

 

Absolutely. The mother's life is just as important as the clump of cells she carries, even up to the point that it is recognisably human.

 

@Laryal I assume you will be happy to adopt and raise every last unwanted baby there is, if we are forced to carry them all to term by Right to Lifers ? There are already far too many people in this world anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Hello yes from a biological standpoint, abortion is a necessity. I can’t even recall the number of times I’ve seen and even handled dead animal foetuses. I own a preserved dog foetus from a late-term abortion, performed for the female’s health after she escaped and bred. Without it, she and all her puppies would surely have died. In regards to natural abortion, the most fascinating example I’ve handled was one tiny dolphin washed unceremoniously to shore. In nature’s terms, it’s literally to ensure the foetus becomes a healthy baby with a chance, a chance, to live, and even then infanticide is not uncommon. Sad in our eyes, but nature cares not. Nature has no moral compass, an entirely subjective human concept.

 

In that regard, humans are lucky as hell to be able to consciously make a controlled abortion as early as possible. And it’s not like it’s looked upon lightly in most cases. It causes heartbreak for many. Good for you if you want to risk death because you love your child so much, or go out of your way to raise a child stuck in a permanent vegetative state until they die at 20. I’ll respect that. But if ever got pregnant (and as a complete asexual, I can think of only one way that’d happen), you can bet I’ll be removing that thing ASAP, and I don’t know if I’m actually physically capable of carrying a child. I weight 50 kilos and border underweight. And if abortion’s made illegal in my country? I’ll take the coathanger route, thanks. Your personal feelings, whether you’re a nurse, family member or protestor, have no stand in my decision. There’s too many people and too many facets and variables to life for any one person’s opinions and morals to justly cover. Morality shmorality.

 

I won’t even get started on those mentally incapable of raising a child (also me), a foetus that’s shown to have life-threatening deformities, cases of rape, so on and so forth. Let alone the absolute travesty that is the adoption system. 

 

I know I’m coming off as short here, tired, boring day. I don’t intend to offend, just clearly state my stance. I speak lightly of none of this.

 

Edited by RWyvern
technical term for a female dog just doesn’t fly

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

About 20% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) - so Mother Nature seems OK with it. And that is a percentage of KNOWN pregnancies; there are many many more spontaneous abortions not recorded as such because the women had no idea they were pregnant. According to wiki, that percentage is between 30 and 50%.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

My philosophy is this....

 

If you don't like it, then don't have one. But your choice isn't a reason to deny another the right to choose differently. Period.

Share this post


Link to post

if it is not your body, it is not your decision to make. and that's that.

 

personally, i believe abortions should be illegal once a fetus could be viable outside the womb. (given that it is relatively safe for the mother to carry, and given that the fetus is a healthy and normal fetus).

i think most pro-life people stand under the umbrella belief that women who choose to abort are killing a baby that would otherwise be able to live outside its mothers body, and this is often not the case.  i'm fairly sure this isn't allowed anyways -- nobody just "decides" that they don't want a child at 7-8 months unless there is an obvious risk to either the child/mother's health

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   1 member