Abortion

[Obscure_Trash]

I said they may have reasons, but that I do not understand or agree with their reasons. My stand on the legality of it is the harm to human life that comes from abortion. I think in all honesty that "fetus" is a cop-out. It is the medical term, yes, but it is only used by pro-abortionists as a way to dehumanize the infant, and make it easier to stomach. It's similar to the way my people were called "savages" and "heathens" so it would be easy to convince people that it was okay to exterminate them and take away their land.

 

And while I know that it doesn't have rights until it's born that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Natives, Blacks, and women all had no rights at some time or another, but it wasn't right.

 

(PS: I'm not looking to argue. Just stating my opinions and what I think. It's legal in the US, likely will always be legal, and I don't vote for anyone or anything anyway so my opinion is just that. An opinion. It won't change anything.)

I think you missed this:

 

The argument isn't whether it's alive or not. The argument really isn't even personhood. The argument is bodily autonomy. You can't take someone's organs without their permission, not even if they are dead and if it would save lives. So why is it suddenly okay to control a pregnant person's body for the "benefit" of something growing inside of her? Benefit in quotation marks because just because a child is born doesn't mean it will have a good life.

 

Sure, we "pro-abortionists" (lol that's not even descriptive of the people you're trying to talk about nor is it a clever term for pro-choicers; in fact, it's just really, really inaccurate unless you're talking about one of the few people who actually thinks all pregnancies should end via abortion) use fetus to "make it easier to stomach". Just like we call it an appendectomy rather than the violent, bloody tearing out of your inflamed, swollen appendix with lots of shiny, sharp tools like scalpels in order to "make it easier to stomach".

 

Yes, fetus is the manipulative term here. I mean, calling what's scientifically known as a fetus a child in order to sentient-ize and personhood-ize it to guilt pregnant people out of an abortion is totally what's accurate.

 

I know you said you grew up on native land, so it sounds like you're native? (I'm not sure if you are US, though?) But as a woman who does a lot of social activism, I have to say I find your comparison of what women, black people, and native people have gone through (and continue to go through) to the abortion of cells which are not yet at a point where they can even feel pain rather offensive.

 

Ehh, well, it's an opinion, but when you want your opinion to be law, that's what I take offense to. Even if you don't believe it will happen, people with your same beliefs continue to strike big blows against reproductive rights every day, and it's terrifying.

 

Yes but person #1 cannot kill person #2 either. Human rights would change.

 

So how do you choose which life trumps which life? Because in denying pregnant people abortions, you are saying their life is not worth as much as what is growing inside of them.

 

A child in the womb has no "potential to become human" because it already is human.

 

I believe there's a rather late cut off in which a fetus can become a tumor or calcified mass, which is why some people tend to use potential human until that point has been passed. It is a human fetus, but it might not become a child.

 

Oh and if an unborn child does not become a baby until birth then that's the kind of slippery slope I'm talking about. What's to stop someone from passing a law to allow abortion up until the time of birth?

 

Slippery slopes really aren't a good argument, though.

 

If we tell children they can become anything, what's to stop me from becoming an alligator?

If we allow young adults, what's to stop us from allowing infants to vote?

If we allow soda machines in school, what's to stop us from allowing rat poison machines in school?

 

The answer to all of the above and to yours: all kinds of things.

 

~

 

At this point, I'll probably bow out of the conversation so you don't have 50 bazillion people to reply to, though. x3

 

EDIT: Saw:

 

It isn't so much that it should be illegal, it is more that people should not want to kill unborn children who have no say in the matter. It isn't a change in the law that needs to happen so much as a change in the people. It should never have become a societal normalcy for someone to abort an unborn child because it is an inconvenience to them.

 

So struck through that part of my post, although I entirely disagree with you since my morals care more about the living person with personhood more than the cells forming inside of them.

Edited November 14, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Brite]

Okay to clarify a re-word. It isn't so much that it should be illegal, it is more that people should not want to kill unborn children who have no say in the matter. It isn't a change in the law that needs to happen so much as a change in the people. It should never have become a societal normalcy for someone to abort an unborn child because it is an inconvenience to them.

 

I already clarified my definition of a living baby. Human life is defined in the medical community by a heartbeat and/or brain activity.

 

Twins in the womb don't knowingly and purposefully kill each other. And if it is a person then it's life trumps the woman's right to an empty womb for nine months. It doesn't trump her life. I've already said that in case of health problems abortion is understandable. The simple truth is that an abortion not because of health reasons or rape is simply for convenience. So yes, a child's life trumps the convenience of a selfish woman.

 

I did not say that they are a person I said they are human. There are severely mentally challenged people who were born with nearly no active brain activity or signs of actually being anything more than a shell, yet human rights still apply to them even though they are "not guaranteed to become a person.".

So if a fetus becomes a tumor with a heartbeat(which can and HAS happened) it still has rights? And how is the mother "selfish"? Abortion sometimes IS taking responsibility.

[sparkle10184]

A child in the womb has no "potential to become human" because it already is human. When a premature child is born, it is not considered inhuman because it did not reach 9 months gestation. I think a heartbeat and/or brain activity is a good measure of life since that is what doctors use to determine if someone is alive. In essence heartbeat+brain activity=life. In some cases, life doesn't even require a brain.

 

Oh and if an unborn child does not become a baby until birth then that's the kind of slippery slope I'm talking about. What's to stop someone from passing a law to allow abortion up until the time of birth?

A premature baby is considered a person because it is no longer sucking energy and life out of another human being. It is no longer in the womb.

And when that baby is born it can feel and think. It can feel pain. During the time frame when it is legal to abort, there is no person. It is a clump of cells that can't feel or think for itself.

 

What is stopping that kind of law from passing is the government and citizens. Someone can't just jump on a soap box, shout "It is now legal to abort up until the time of birth!", and suddenly that is the law. That is not the way the government works. Bills have to go through many people before they can be made law.

[unforgotten13]

I agree that you all do not seem to be pro-abortionists and I apologize for the incorrect term usage.

 

I think our fetus/baby argument will never be resolved, because you believe it should be called a fetus because of your belief that it is not a living human, and I believe it should be called a baby/unborn child because of my belief that it is alive and human from the point of heartbeat.

 

Again, I'm not saying the child's life trumps the woman's life. It is not either/or here. It is not the child dies or the mother dies (in those cases that are this situation I think abortion is acceptable) It is the child dies or the mother is somewhat inconvenienced for 9 months then moves on with her life.

 

Yes I am Native American, but I was fortunate enough not to grow up on the res. I cannot say the same for a lot of my family members though. One of my Irish/Scottish descent family members allowed my mom, dad, and I to live on her farm for most of my life. I did spend a lot of time there though.

 

It has nothing to do with taking responsibility. I am not looking to punish anyone. I am talking about protecting life.

 

The "when a child is born it's suddenly a person" argument is rather odd. If it can feel pain when it's born it can feel pain when it's in the womb right before that.

 

 

Edited to add a touch of humor:

(To the you can be anything/alligator argument)

Parent: You can be anything you want to be!

Child. I'm gonna be a tiger!

Edited November 14, 2013 by unforgotten13

[Dr. Paine]

I would like to ask, Unforgotten, what your stance on people who are honest-to-god terrified of pregnancy/children (but otherwise 'healthy') getting abortions would be? People who are on medications that would have to go off of said meds in order to sustain the pregnancy? People who just plain do not want or like kids, but due to the mentality of 'women might/will change their minds', are routinely denied sterilization procedures and would prefer not to send them off to the mess of an adoption system that exists (at least, in the US... I see Shiny around, I'll leave the box 'o statistics to her), or put themselves through the litany of physical/mental changes that accompany pregnancy, quite a few of which can be downright deadly? (Because hi, I fall into all but the medication issues there.)

 

Would it still be a matter of convenience, as you put it, then? (I do apologize if this sounds confrontational, I'm still only half-awake >.< I am genuinely curious here.)

Edited November 14, 2013 by Dr. Paine

[sparkle10184]

I agree that you all do not seem to be pro-abortionists and I apologize for the incorrect term usage.

 

I think our fetus/baby argument will never be resolved, because you believe it should be called a fetus because of your belief that it is not a living human, and I believe it should be called a baby/unborn child because of my belief that it is alive and human from the point of heartbeat.

 

Again, I'm not saying the child's life trumps the woman's life. It is not either/or here. It is not the child dies or the mother dies (in those cases that are this situation I think abortion is acceptable) It is the child dies or the mother is somewhat inconvenienced for 9 months then moves on with her life.

 

The "when a child is born it's suddenly a person" argument is rather odd. If it can feel pain when it's born it can feel pain when it's in the womb right before that.

 

You still do not seem to understand this: we're not saying a fetus is not human. We are saying it is not a person. Human and person are to completely different terms.

 

"Moves on with her life"? Seriously? That's not the way it works. You can't just have a baby then move on. You have to figure out what you're going to do with the baby, how you'll care for it, money, and of course there is the fact that after having a child your life is changed forever.

 

As I said before, yes. It can feel pain right before it is born. That is why aborting that late in pregnancy is illegal.

[Shienvien]

Some very premature babies actually are unable to properly process pain, because their nervous systems are not developed enough... And some of the higher thinking processes will not become possible until long after birth even in case of timely births. Humans are not born identical to their adult selves - there is still a lot of developing to do at the point of birth.

 

In any case, during the first trimester there is nothing to make an embryo a person. It doesn't think or have opinions or feelings. And the rights of a person should always come before the non-person.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Shienvien

[unforgotten13]

Well I am enjoying this hearty debate but I'm sorry, I have to go. My husband is home and my daughter wants dinner. Must cook chicken and dumplings. Thank you all for the discussion. No hard feelings leave this board please? I really have no qualms against you. Talk to you all later. Night.

[HeatherMarie]

Again, I'm not saying the child's life trumps the woman's life. It is not either/or here. It is not the child dies or the mother dies (in those cases that are this situation I think abortion is acceptable) It is the child dies or the mother is somewhat inconvenienced for 9 months then moves on with her life.

Except it's not that simple. AT ALL.

 

A pregnant woman is, automatically, at risk for MANY medical illnesses, including iron deficiency, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, etc, many of which are because of the simple fact that *the embryo/fetus inside her* is draining a lot of her own nutrients.

 

People with depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, and a whole range of other mental illnesses may be *UNABLE* to cope with 9 months of instability because of said nutrient draining. Those people may end up in mental institutions or commit suicide.

 

And did you honestly say the woman just "moves on with her life" after giving birth? Uh.... what about the baby? You know, the baby that she DIDN'T WANT, that she now either has to DEVOTE HER LIFE TO for 18 years, or throw into a horrible foster system that often results in children who *wish* they would've been aborted (yes, that actually happens).

[ShinyTomato]

because of my belief that it is alive and human from the point of heartbeat.

 

Which raises the question of what happens if a fetus becomes a tumor after the heart starts beating? Is it still a human to you, even though it can't become a person?

 

I was supposed to be a twin. The would-be twin became a parasitic mass. It was not a person, and had my mother aborted me and had it removed, she wouldn't have died some years later.

 

It is the child dies or the mother is somewhat inconvenienced for 9 months then moves on with her life.

 

You're assuming that they can. The amount of women who commit suicide after birth, commit suicide while pregnant, and feel that dangerous chemical or herbal abortifacents are viable options because they cannot get abortions are growing. kill, neglect, or abuse children because they felt forced through a pregnancy is growing by leaps and bound every year. Meanwhile, the cost to give a child up for adoption is skyrocketing, and the amount of children being adopted is plummeting.

 

I see Shiny around, I'll leave the box 'o statistics to her)

 

I see the Box O' Statistics is still infamous.

 

So, here we go.

 

Only 1-2% of children who are given up to the state for adoption are being adopted.

 

In children who are not adopted, 73% will state that they wish they had been aborted.

 

61% will state that their parents were selfish for not aborting them.

 

1 in 5 under twelve will attempt suicide before the year is out.

 

1 in 3 will tell a social worker that they wish they were never born.

 

The average age of social workers placing children on suicide watch nationwide has dropped from fourteen to 12.

 

In states where abortion rights have been restricted since 2010, the incidence in abuse and neglect of infants has risen 45% (with a 2% margin of error.)

 

Suicides of pregnant women are up 31% (4% margin of error as knowledge is hard to determine.)

 

The average cost for giving a child up for adoption, after medical bills and care, has risen an average of $3,525 in the continental US.

 

If it can feel pain when it's born it can feel pain when it's in the womb right before that.

 

Plants can feel pain. Just saying.

 

The "when a child is born it's suddenly a person" argument is rather odd.

 

People have different opinions. Nascha made me sleep on the couch a lot during her pregnancy because I couldn't call it a 'baby.' (Weirdly, Nascha is fairly devoutly Jewish. Ensoulment occurs after birth, so for her to be mad at me is strange.) To me, a fetus can only be a "person" when there is no chance of it becoming something else. I never had a sister, because the fetus never became a person.

 

 

 

 

[BlitzDrake]

I said they may have reasons, but that I do not understand or agree with their reasons. My stand on the legality of it is the harm to human life that comes from abortion. I think in all honesty that "fetus" is a cop-out. It is the medical term, yes, but it is only used by pro-abortionists

 

pro-abortionists well that term is quite offensive. First off, being pro-CHOICE means allowing a person to CHOSE whether to keep the thing or not, we do NOT tell you what to do, do what makes YOU happy. That's like calling your side PRO-forced BIRTH

[High Lord November]

Unforgotton, I'm going to try and cover the 'slippery slope' aspect of your post.

 

The thing is, this is really a gradient of good/bad. There is no specific point where white suddenly becomes black, but there are points where you can say that it has become too dark. It is a gradient for each individual. Pro-abortionsists (do they even exist?) would see the whole gradient in white, while anit-abortionsists see it all in black. But nothing is just white and black. That's the point of confusion, yeah?

 

Well, my logic goes like this: those who don't want to go through pregnancy or parenthood would most likely abort early, when it is still a zygote or a fetus, i.e. is not sentient nor close to being fully developed, nor can it survive outside the womb (statistics support this as well). Condom broke and I'm in the smack dab of the most busiest, exciting part of my life? Don't want to go through pregnancy? Hate children? Literally any reason at all? I'll take the morning after pill, and if that doesn't work, I'll abort. We are going into the grey area, but we are still not in the black, when it would be killing an individual human being.

 

The further time progresses, the more sure we can be that the person does indeed want to keep the baby. The tendency to abort lessens and lessens (I don't have a source right now but I'm pretty sure abortion grows more and more risky as time goes on as well.) The further time goes along, the more likely that the fetus can survive outside the womb, so that's always an alternative to abortion if you would like to terminate the pregnancy early, for whatever reason. However I'd think that that would be fairly rare. The closer you get to birth, the more options are available to you in order to save the fetus, and assuming you get that far, you'd want to actually keep it.

 

The thing is, by people preventing good, easy access to abortion clinics, the longer it will take to get an abortion and the further along it'll be pushed into the grey area. Not to mention, the more pain and worry you cause to those who want or need an abortion. We don't want to allow on-the-spot abortion three weeks before birth (the fetus can be removed then as well, so if there is any case in which you would need to get it out of you, you have that option); we want to allow the option of terminating pregnancy to whoever needs it, regardless of situation or circumstances.

Edited November 15, 2013 by High Lord November

[Pokemonfan13]

What I find sickening is how many forced-birthers [refuse to call them "pro-life"] don't care about the kid the moment it is out of the mother's womb. They say "just put it up for adoption" when the adoption/foster system is HORRIBLE [pokes Shiny's statistics]. And for those who do keep the kid, it is most likely growing up in a home where it is unwanted and knows it, possibly beaten or otherwise mistreated. Overall rather likely to kill itself in either situation.

 

Honestly, if a woman does not want a kid it is best for both her and the kid to abort. The world needs less suffering, not more.

[Cecona]

I know that one person that posted in this thread said his stepmother (pretty sure it was stepmother) didn't want to be pregnant, and now she is very unloving towards the child. The person that posted was in fact pro-life despite having personal experience in what happens when an woman is forced to keep an unwanted pregnancy.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Cecona

[Brite]

I know that one person that posted in this thread said his stepmother (pretty sure it was stepmother) didn't want to be pregnant, and now she is very unloving towards the child. The person that posted was in fact pro-life despite having personal experience in what happens when an woman is forced to keep an unwanted pregnancy.

That's a bit shocking, depending if they were prolife or pro birth, since there is a difference.

[KageSora]

It is the child dies or the mother is somewhat inconvenienced for 9 months then moves on with her life.

So being mentally broken--potentially beyond repair--by being forced to carry a parasite I don't want to raise inside of me on top of my incredibly fragile emotional health that's put at decent risk every time I have a period much less baby hormones screwing with my body is... An inconvenience?

 

 

Massive physical changes to the body--sometimes causing permanent damage--that can result from pregnancy are inconveniences?

 

Potentially going into debt as a result of the medical expenses that you can rack up during pregnancy (especially considering you'll potentially have to take time off from your job which, depending on where you live, you may not get paid for thus meaning less income) is an inconvenience?

 

Then having to devote either a large chunk of money or 18 years of my life + my energy + a ton of money is a mere inconvenience then moving on with my life?

 

Well okay then. I'd hate to see your idea of a traumatic ordeal.

[prairiecrow]

Pregnancy isn't just something you go through for nine months and "get on with your life". Pregnancy can be three-quarters of a year of emotional and physical Hell. It can wreck your health, it can upset your mental and emotional processes to a dramatic degree... and there's the matter of A BABY AT THE END OF IT.

 

In our society, nobody can be compelled to donate an organ to help out someone else who's organs are failing. Even corpses are protected in this regard. Anyone who claims that a person with a uterus MUST carry a child if they become pregnant is, in my opinion, asserting that people with uteruses, by virtue of having uteruses, automatically possess less rights than a corpse.

[Fuzzbucket]

unforgotten13 - have you never heard of puerperal psychosis ? PND ? bi-polar triggered by pregnancy ?

 

 

[igloo9201]

My opinion is this.

 

I do believe it's a human life. BUT, as much as I feel abortion is wrong, it...should be legal. Wether it's legal or not, people are gling to get abortions. Better to do it safely so that only one person, the one with no thought process, is killed.

 

My church supports a pregnancy center where they help each individual with what they're going to do. They refuse to help anyone who won't look at an ultrasound of their baby. They try to do everything in their power to save the baby and the mother. I actually donated to them. I donated to humans...that's pretty huge for me.

 

But not many places like that exist. So, for those who can't get such good help, abortion should be legal. I have no problem with people who've gotten abortions feeling bad. They just need to be able to put it behind them. If they can't, too bad. I would still be friends with someone who had an abortion. But I wouldn't tell them that they're an aweful person, or that they did the right thing. If they felt really bad, I would tell them that they should be. But I would also tell them that I don't hold it against them because, since they were sorry, I would forgive them. Then we could get on with our lives.

 

Also, like most pro-"choice" people mention, there are babies who would have terrible, terrible lives. Maybe it's best to put them out of their misery before it even starts.

[prairiecrow]

Also, like most pro-"choice" people mention, there are babies who would have terrible, terrible lives. Maybe it's best to put them out of their misery before it even starts.

What's with the quotation marks, now? That's rather insulting.

[Cecona]

My opinion is this.

 

I do believe it's a human life. BUT, as much as I feel abortion is wrong, it...should be legal. Wether it's legal or not, people are gling to get abortions. Better to do it safely so that only one person, the one with no thought process, is killed.

 

My church supports a pregnancy center where they help each individual with what they're going to do. They refuse to help anyone who won't look at an ultrasound of their baby. They try to do everything in their power to save the baby and the mother. I actually donated to them. I donated to humans...that's pretty huge for me.

 

But not many places like that exist. So, for those who can't get such good help, abortion should be legal. I have no problem with people who've gotten abortions feeling bad. They just need to be able to put it behind them. If they can't, too bad. I would still be friends with someone who had an abortion. But I wouldn't tell them that they're an aweful person, or that they did the right thing. If they felt really bad, I would tell them that they should be. But I would also tell them that I don't hold it against them because, since they were sorry, I would forgive them. Then we could get on with our lives.

 

Also, like most pro-"choice" people mention, there are babies who would have terrible, terrible lives. Maybe it's best to put them out of their misery before it even starts.

So the center your church supports won't help anyone that doesn't want to look at the ultra sound? Usually those are people that don't want the fetus and are looking for abortions. So basically it only helps women who want to keep the baby and actually be a mother? Do they at least refer women who want abortions to a place they can get them? Or do they "persuade" the women not to have abortions.

 

And how dare you say you would actually tell a woman that she should feel bad for having an abortion! You may not see it but that right there is a form of shaming. By saying that, you are shaming a woman for having a very serious procedure which she thought long and hard about before even doing it. If she feels bad, how in the world is making her feel even worse going to help? If anything it will be even MORE damaging and cause her to become even more depressed than she already is. Women don't need to be told what they did was wrong or right, they need to be told that everything will be okay, and that you will be there to support them through a difficult time. You are no friend if you feel the best thing to do is shame a woman for having an abortion. And even if you wouldn't say it directly, saying she should feel bad is basically the same as telling her she is a bad person for going through with it. If they can't put it behind them you don't just go "too bad" a REAL friend would try and help!

[prairiecrow]

I have no problem with people who've gotten abortions feeling bad. They just need to be able to put it behind them. If they can't, too bad. I would still be friends with someone who had an abortion. But I wouldn't tell them that they're an aweful person, or that they did the right thing. If they felt really bad, I would tell them that they should be. But I would also tell them that I don't hold it against them because, since they were sorry, I would forgive them. Then we could get on with our lives.

Whoa, I missed this on the first go-round.

 

That's about as far from a helpful attitude as I can conceive. The decision to have an abortion is (in my experience) never easy or casual. The last thing people with uteruses need is some "friend" making a difficult process even worse by cheerfully saying "Yeah, you messed up, and it's a GOOD thing that you're suffering! Now let's go get waffles!"

[igloo9201]

So the center your church supports won't help anyone that doesn't want to look at the ultra sound? Usually those are people that don't want the fetus and are looking for abortions. So basically it only helps women who want to keep the baby and actually be a mother? Do they at least refer women who want abortions to a place they can get them? Or do they "persuade" the women not to have abortions.

 

And how dare you say you would actually tell a woman that she should feel bad for having an abortion! You may not see it but that right there is a form of shaming. By saying that, you are shaming a woman for having a very serious procedure which she thought long and hard about before even doing it. If she feels bad, how in the world is making her feel even worse going to help? If anything it will be even MORE damaging and cause her to become even more depressed than she already is. Women don't need to be told what they did was wrong or right, they need to be told that everything will be okay, and that you will be there to support them through a difficult time. You are no friend if you feel the best thing to do is shame a woman for having an abortion. And even if you wouldn't say it directly, saying she should feel bad is basically the same as telling her she is a bad person for going through with it. If they can't put it behind them you don't just go "too bad" a REAL friend would try and help!

They refuse abortion. They totally oppose it. They help the person either find out how to keep it or put it up for adoption.

 

And I dare because that's the way I have been taught to think about such matters.

[Obscure_Trash]

And I dare because that's the way I have been taught to think about such matters.

At some wonderful point in our lives, we begin to blossom and we start thinking for ourselves rather than believing the lie that we must think as authority tells us to.

 

~

 

I think people have a hard time understanding what it means to be a friend sometimes. When you think that your friends actions will mean their eternal suffering and when you support that, when you decide to take it upon yourself to righteously judge them and even guilt them or act coldly towards them instead of trying to understand them and supporting them, you are not being a friend. You're being a judgmental jerk who needs to remove yourself from their life. If you so totally disagree with someone that it's ruined your view of them, then you can't be their friend, and you should do what's best for them out of respect for your past friendship, and let them go on to greener pastures.

 

Mental health is a huge deal and if you can't respect your friend's mental health and insist on making it worse, you're no friend.

 

My church supports a pregnancy center where they help each individual with what they're going to do. They refuse to help anyone who won't look at an ultrasound of their baby. They try to do everything in their power to save the baby and the mother. I actually donated to them. I donated to humans...that's pretty huge for me.

 

But not many places like that exist. So, for those who can't get such good help,

 

Neither harassment nor emotional manipulation and abuse are "good help".

[Cecona]

They refuse abortion. They totally oppose it. They help the person either find out how to keep it or put it up for adoption.

 

And I dare because that's the way I have been taught to think about such matters.

I was taught to oppose abortion as well, but I looked up actual facts and true stories and saw just how utterly damaging it is to refuse a woman an abortion if she desires one. Now I'm pro-choice. Instead of someone else teaching you how to think about something, try thinking for yourself.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Cecona