Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

The difference is that a fetus is still infringing on the rights of another while a born child is not, that's assuming the mother doesn't want it.

 

You will never be granted the right to use another person's body against their will to preserve your life, which is why a fetus should not be given that right either. It is not a 'basic human right', no one has this right.

This, so much.

 

Or should we make a law that will FORCE everybody to be registered for organ donation, and be drawn by lotto and forced to give up one of their organs--against their will--to save the life of a stranger--or, possibly, even somebody they can't stand and don't want to help at all, even if it would mean the other dying?

 

Because then the fetus would be granted the same rights as everybody else.

 

IIRC, you can't even take organs from the dead if they didn't express a desire to donate their organs. Which, in effect, would mean you want to give a fetus more rights than any other person--living or dead.

 

 

Besides, Phil, I thought you were for the government staying out of your personal business. Why is it wrong for the government to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights, but it's completely okay for the government to strip the autonomy of a pregnant female and reduce her to little more than a breathing incubator?

 

I'm not trying to attack you--I'm honestly trying to understand where your logic comes in that it's okay to be heavily restrictive with laws on the rights of a person in a position you literally will never be able to be in, but you don't like it when laws are talked about that would restrict your desired rights.

 

Actually, this is directed at all "pro-life" people who are also pro-gun. Since, to me, it seems kinda funny that you demand we protect unborn children but also demand the right to kill to defend yourselves if needed. It's something I've never understood, so if somebody can explain it I'd like that.

 

How is it somehow more acceptable to desire to be able to carry a device intended to end life than it is to assert my personhood and my established right to life over something that may not even last long enough to come into the world?

 

I could argue that abortion would be self-defense--I'm protecting my right to exist as a person, not an object, and my right to live, as well as my right to maintain my health. A pregnancy would compromise my health in a way that could potentially be psychologically irreversibly, and perhaps ultimately fatal. In that case, I'm striking first under the reasonable assumption that the fetus would jeopardize my health--much like you would shoot an intruder in your home if you could reasonably be certain they were armed and intended you harm.

 

To me, the fetus is the intruder and my body is my home. It's unwanted, it doesn't have permission to be there, it is potentially jeopardizing my health, and it is stealing my resources. So, if I should have the right to shoot another person who breaks into my home, why don't I have the right to kill a clump of cells that's invaded my body?

Edited by KageSora

Share this post


Link to post

So let me get this straight. You're saying there is no line that determines when life is worth protecting? It's a morally gray area that varies person to person? So it's perfectly acceptable for a mother to kill her 2 week old child? 2 month old child? Toddler? Or are you saying it's okay to terminate a pregnancy up until the minute of birth? I don't wish to assume anything, so I'll work from both options.

 

If the former, then it's perfectly acceptable to kill any child if it becomes an inconvenience? No matter the age?

 

If the latter, what is so different about the child in the hours before birth and the hours after birth that makes it deserving of human rights? When do I get basic human rights? You would say that I should not harm you, correct? That it would be wrong for me to physically harm you, rape you, or kill you? Because you have basic human rights? When does a child gain those same rights that you claim to have? If there is no "line" to be crossed that gives the child those rights, how can you claim to possess them?

And yet extremist pro-lifers believe that if they shoot an abortion care provider they are completely justified. Phil, from the link in your signature:

 

Illegalising it allows the authorities to prosecute (and hopefully swiftly execute) aborticians, such that there exist a deterrent effect.

 

I would personally be in favor of a swift and not-particularly-painless execution for these murderers, but not every abolitionist will agree.

 

Explain to me how that is pro-life.

Share this post


Link to post
Also, quick question for anti-choicers. How many kids have you personally adopted?

This would be liked by me a million times. I have wondered this myself. QFT

 

How many of these poor unwanted children have been adopted by the ones who insist it has to be carried through?

 

I hope they have plans to adopt a lot, to show the children that had to be adopted a good life, rather than one in an institution.

Share this post


Link to post

This would be liked by me a million times. I have wondered this myself. QFT

 

How many of these poor unwanted children have been adopted by the ones who insist it has to be carried through? 

 

I hope they have plans to adopt a lot, to show the children that had to be adopted a good life, rather than one in an institution.

Hate to play devil's advocate, but I find fault with this arguement.

 

Lobbying for something does not mean you have to be funding it in order for your opinion to be valid. Adoption is a long process and the worth of people's arguements should not be weighed on wherether they plan to.

 

However if their arguement is that unwanted children should be adopted, but are against laws that fund adoption agencies or help mothers who have given their child up, then that is a problem. You don't have to do something in order to argue for it, but if you are against helping others do that....

 

I know this post may get a lot of hate and I am sorry for that. However I am still completely pro-choice for other reasons.

Edited by Snowytoshi

Share this post


Link to post

I'd also like to know how can they support picketing the abortion clinics, while some of the people coming in actually want to keep the baby, but can't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Hate to play devil's advocate, but I find fault with this arguement.

 

Lobbying for something does not mean you have to be funding it in order for your opinion to be valid. Adoption is a long process and the worth of people's arguements should not be weighed on wherether they plan to.

 

However if their arguement is that unwanted children should be adopted, but are against laws that fund adoption agencies or help mothers who have given their child up, then that is a problem. You don't have to do something in order to argue for it, but if you are against helping others do that....

 

I know this post may get a lot of hate and I am sorry for that. However I am still completely pro-choice for other reasons.

I'm sorry, but at least to an extent, I disagree. I am aware that adoption is a long tedious process (I was legally adopted as an adult because the process took so long, so trust me, I know, lol). But to tell people they should birth the thing and give it up for adoption, when there are already a ton of children who can't find homes for whatever reason, and then say "Oh, but not by me!" is kind of rubbish. It's about controlling others at this point, telling other people to give birth, telling other people to adopt, but not doing it for themselves. At this point, to me, it is not about the children.

 

I knew a girl who is vehemently anti-choice, but also doesn't want to adopt because she doesn't want second-hand children. (I know not everyone is like this, but that made my head explode.)

 

Of course, I'm also baffled by how many anti-choicers oppose funding for schools, or funding for WIC and low-income family programs, so hey.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a few things I want to say on this subject.

 

A. Although I am convinced that abortion is not something I would do (since I never faced certain situations, I could be wrong about that), I don't feel that I have the right to tell anyone else what to do.

B. Abortion laws often only forbid abortions to: the poor, lower middle class, or girls who can't take their problems to their parents. Typically even with the laws, when one has enough money, they can find a doctor willing to find a medical reason for an abortion, or just go somewhere the operation will be legal. To me, this makes these laws especially unfair to the very people who most need to have the choice. To force these people to try unsafe methods, questionable doctors, or otherwise risk their lives, because for whatever reason they do not want a child, seems to me to be the most unfair thing of all.

C. I feel that it is more important to supply food, clothing, a roof, and employment for each person that is here, than to worry about the rights of those who aren't.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
I'm sorry, but at least to an extent, I disagree. I am aware that adoption is a long tedious process (I was legally adopted as an adult because the process took so long, so trust me, I know, lol). But to tell people they should birth the thing and give it up for adoption, when there are already a ton of children who can't find homes for whatever reason, and then say "Oh, but not by me!" is kind of rubbish. It's about controlling others at this point, telling other people to give birth, telling other people to adopt, but not doing it for themselves. At this point, to me, it is not about the children.

 

I knew a girl who is vehemently anti-choice, but also doesn't want to adopt because she doesn't want second-hand children. (I know not everyone is like this, but that made my head explode.)

 

Of course, I'm also baffled by how many anti-choicers oppose funding for schools, or funding for WIC and low-income family programs, so hey.

I just don't believe that an opinion should be made less valid because they have not adopted.

 

However if someone is against adoption and pro-life, then I'm not really sure what to say to them.

Share this post


Link to post
I just don't believe that an opinion should be made less valid because they have not adopted.

 

However if someone is against adoption and pro-life, then I'm not really sure what to say to them.

Snow: Maybe ask how it feels to be a hippocrite?

 

Anyways, I'd love to adopt one day, but since close members of my family could be considered unstable (I don't interact with them anymore but the issue is probably genetic) I doubt I could get through all the red tape because I could later develop the same issue. Another reason I'm pro-choice.

Share this post


Link to post

So let me get this straight. You're saying there is no line that determines when life is worth protecting? It's a morally gray area that varies person to person? So it's perfectly acceptable for a mother to kill her 2 week old child? 2 month old child? Toddler? Or are you saying it's okay to terminate a pregnancy up until the minute of birth? I don't wish to assume anything, so I'll work from both options.

 

If the former, then it's perfectly acceptable to kill any child if it becomes an inconvenience? No matter the age?

 

If the latter, what is so different about the child in the hours before birth and the hours after birth that makes it deserving of human rights? When do I get basic human rights? You would say that I should not harm you, correct? That it would be wrong for me to physically harm you, rape you, or kill you? Because you have basic human rights? When does a child gain those same rights that you claim to have? If there is no "line" to be crossed that gives the child those rights, how can you claim to possess them?

 

Phil, I find that a lot of your arguments hinge on the mother aborting at the last moment and then extending those conditions down the line (which doesn't work because the conditions aren't the same). Because if I didn't want to go through with having a child nor pregnancy I'd totally wait until the pregnancy was nearly over /sarcasm (and I don't mean this as an attack, sorry if it comes out that way, it's just an observation).

 

Even then, yes, it is a grey area and up to the mother. I'd say you'd be getting pretty close to black in the upcoming weeks preceding expectation, but again it's the mother's choice (hence pro-choice). Most people wouldn't abort that close to birth because they've already formed some sort of bond with their child and because they actually want it at that point.

The main situation in which this would happen if there were serious, serious health complications. Still, people die after giving birth.

 

Comparing a zygote/fetus/etc. to a toddler is comparing apples and oranges.

 

Hydrargyrum and Syaoransbear and the others covered the rest of your post, I believe.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

I recall when people were discussing the ultrasound bills a ways back, that the whole anti-abortion movement wasn't that bad because they'd never outlaw birth control. Well, they are trying, after all.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22...control-poison/

 

Jolley said the measure is the result of a request from a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, an Oklahoma City cardiologist who describes himself as a natural family planning medical consultant and women’s health researcher. [...]

 

    Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.

 

    “Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother,” Pedulla said. “They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.”

Share this post


Link to post

Vhale let us hope that OK calls for a referendum and then forces the two men who sponser this bill out of office.

 

 

If birth control becomes illegal in the states, I'm screwed, because while the doctor I first saw has told me not to try hormonal birth control (family history issues) laws like this would make it impossible for me to get some other birth control for myself (ie non-hormonal because I'm so young dry.gif )

Share this post


Link to post
I recall when people were discussing the ultrasound bills a ways back, that the whole anti-abortion movement wasn't that bad because they'd never outlaw birth control. Well, they are trying, after all.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22...control-poison/

 

O.O

 

No, I can tell you flat out that the potential to be a mother is no part of my identity. Nor does some man that has never met me have any idea of what my identity as a person is.

 

Although, I'm guessing, he doesn't actually view women as people.

 

Next thing you know they'll be trying to outlaw vasectomies and hysterectomies too.

Share this post


Link to post

Who is ASKING women to use contraception ? In my experience, women are DEMANDING it and not getting it. mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post

That just doesn't even make sense. If being a mother was part of my identity(it isn't, I'm married and it still isn't), then why would I ask for birth control? Clearly if I'm asking for birth control, being a mother or being a mother at this time is not part of my identity. Why would I ask for birth control pills if it went against who I am? It's not like they taste good.

Edited by Syaoransbear

Share this post


Link to post
I recall when people were discussing the ultrasound bills a ways back, that the whole anti-abortion movement wasn't that bad because they'd never outlaw birth control. Well, they are trying, after all.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22...control-poison/

 

...What the censorkip.gif

 

No. The potential to be a mother is not part of my identity. Or at least, not in a good way--if it is, it's part of my identity in the same way my depression is: something that isn't good for me, something I don't want, and something I am more than happy to take drugs to try and get rid of. :|

Share this post


Link to post

Being a mother may be a part of my identity in the future, but if I'm taking BC, then obviously it is not a part of my identity NOW. (Unless you count my precious kitty cats <3)

 

But of course, when have bills like that ever made any sense? rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

What the actual hell. Why, precisely, is a legislator-any legislator-listening to someone whose credentials to speak on the subject amount to bugger-all? What does "women's health researcher" even mean in relation to a cardiologist who thinks BC is icky? It can't possibly mean "I know what I am taking about", because he's totally clueless.

 

I'm getting sick of this "women are walking uterii" crap. I am NOT my ability to squeeze out a kid. The potential to be a mother is NOT part of my identity. I don't like children. I don't want them. The only thoughts I have about them are along the lines of "Oh god no, get it away from me!", and this "women are supposed to be popping out teh babies and making sammiches" nineteenth-century nonsense is enough to make me want to lobotomize these numbskulls with a spoon. Women who don't want to be pregnant use birth control. Women who DO want to be pregnant don't. There's no actual problem there, because it's not as though anyone is holding people down pouring pills down their throats or shooting them full of Depo or anything.

 

But hey, at least there's some good news: an Indiana lawmaker is proposing that you only go through ONE transvaginal ultrasound before taking an abortion pill, ladies! It's only half as forced-penetration-and-unnecessary-medical-procedure-y as the previous version. Isn't that super-compassionate and caring of him?

 

Also, there's this:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/25...enthood-defund/

 

Because having the Hyde Amendment in place to make sure that no federal tax dollars go to funding abortions is just not enough for these guys. They just know that those wily folk at Planned Parenthood are somehow hiding that "over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does"* is abortions.

Apparently, "breast cancer screenings", "pap smears" and "preventative care" are code for "abortion" in their brains.

 

 

*Not intended to be a factual statement. </John Kyl>

Edited by LascielsShadow

Share this post


Link to post

That is utter censor kipz.

 

And why is it that only GUYS are pushing for anti-abortion movements? See any radical females pushing an anti-abortion bill through Congress? Are any of those people married? If they asked a bunch of women, would they say being walking baby production units is part of their identity? NOOOOOOO. A BIG. WHOPPING. NOOOOOOO.

Share this post


Link to post

See, it's a power thing. By reducing women to walking incubators, and doing so in such a way that they can pretend to be the good guys, they retain power over the women.

 

That's why they'll listen to people who have no credentials as long as it lines up with their view. That's why they'll ONLY ask women who they KNOW will give answers they want to give--either because those women have been brainwashed into it, they were tricked by confusing wording of the questions, or they ask questions like that it's totally fine for some people to answer truthfully like "is your potential to be a mom part of your identity".

 

I notice it's also a lot of OLDER men. They're trying to cling to power by keeping people who could oppose them down. If women are just makin' babies, then they can't be out doing things like running for jobs in politics and whatnot.

 

They're trying to cling to a time when men were superior to women, and these attempts--largely passed off as "save teh babbiz" to appeal to the very large pro-birth crown--are just a result of that.

 

Sure, some of them might HONESTLY feel that they're trying to save lives and whatnot. But I'd bet that's not the only, or even primary, reason behind the motive for these older men who want to pass laws on uterii.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the person with the double vaginal ultrasound bill is female. And I think there was one in Arizona that tried it too. So it's not an all male issue, it's also a far-right fundamentalist issue. After all, birth control is still against the Catholic Church. And where it is spreading in Asia and Africa, they discourage condoms too.

 

It's chilling honestly, with so many huge scandals of abuse and kidnappings in the church at very high levels, what are the chances it's all being repeated right now in those countries?

 

But I think what they are trying to do with birth control here is the same thing they are doing to Women's Health clinics. Put so many expensive and onerous regulations on them, that it may as well be illegal.

 

And I still say, any group this obsessed with sex is hiding up major skeletons of their own. See every new scandal about a hypocritical conservative.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, it's not ONLY a male issue. But, it seems to be LARGELY a male issue. MOST of those trying to pass such laws are men.

 

And I just... I cannot fathom how women can want to do that to other women. It just boggles my mind. They should know, most of all, that it's not right.

 

Though I definitely agree--they're disturbingly obsessed with what other people do behind closed doors.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll just toss out there that I think it's mostly a white male and white female thing. >_>

 

That garbage quote from that "doctor" is absolutely disgusting I don't even have words.

Share this post


Link to post

It's pretty much old white men and the women who share their ideals. They're losing their position of power and struggling to hold on in whatever ways they can.

 

I really can't wrap my head around the women who are proposing such legislation either. Does it not occur to them/do they not care that these laws will at some point affect people they know and care about? That it could someday affect them? There's definitely a lot of legislation being created specifically to obstruct access and discourage women from seeking abortions; the goal is to make abortion, and possibly BC, as difficult as possible to get so that they can restrict women's ability to access them while still being able to say that they are not technically illegal.

Edited by LascielsShadow

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.