Abortion

[BlitzDrake]

 

By this logic it MUST be ethical for a mother to murder her son or daughter at any time, because she brought it into this world, so fittingly she should take it out if she chooses. That surely seems like the kind of thing society wants. Also, i find your "Not yet living" statement to be hilarious, really. It's alive, this is a fact. Whether it has rights isn't. (Sorry, I put the wrong quotes together, but it's fixed.)

 

..........That's so off. That would be infanticide or murder of something that already has begun a life with memories and such.

 

You said before if abortions were banned that's all the more "merrier" doesn't sound like you just want "slight" more protection for it.

[KageSora]

Thing is, I am staunchly PRO-CHOICE.  It was my mother's choice to abort or keep me, and I would never EVER take that decision away from her. Had I been aborted, the world would continue on, and perhaps I would find my life in some other person, some other time.

This is basically how I feel.

 

I know very little about my birth parents. Just that my mother was 19 and she and my father decided that they couldn't raise me. Hell even that might be me remembering wrong because it's been so long ago that I think i was told that, that I can't even remember how long ago it was.

 

But hey--if she'd aborted me then I wouldn't have even known. It's not like it's any big deal to me.

 

And, actually, I don't find the idea that I could have easily not existed scary, personally. I mean... Non-existence doesn't scare me, personally. Existing is far more terrifying.

 

Pulling out Fuzz's statement to add I was one of the crowd of young women when I was younger. It took me years to discover and understand the medical risks that could be dealt with by aborting. Even longer to understand why women would get an abortion in the first place.

I'll add myself to this crowd! Actually, to be totally honest, I didn't even start to change my views until I joined the forums here! A lot of the people I talked to and the arguments I saw and the statistics I saw are actually what opened my eyes and have made me staunchly pro-choice.

 

Also, is it just me or is the fact that I'm a man one of the main reasons I'm completely disagree with (a few exceptions)? It seems if I were a woman things would be different as it would be MY choice. Though, I would still choose life. Anyone else?

First of all, what part of "the system is garbage, you're very likely condemning that child to a life of emotional hell before they attempt to kill themselves" don't you understand?

 

Second of all... Nope! I argue just as much--if not more--with any female-bodied person who argues against abortion. I didn't even remember you have a male gender sign (which, mind you, doesn't actually mean you're physically male) until you pointed that out.

 

 

If you would CHOOSE life for YOU... Then that's great. That's what being pro-choice is all about. The ability to CHOOSE. Nobody should ever be forced to carry to term if they don't want to. (On the flip side, it's just as horrible to have somebody forced into an abortion when they wanted to carry to term)

 

 

No, but they are reliant for almost everything as a fetus would for survival too. So please answer the second question.

 

Edit: Good to know at least some people aren't sexually biased it means a lot.

Except unlike a fetus, they have even less potential to be human again.

 

I think you're mixing up being in a coma or something with being brain dead. If you're like, in a coma or something then there's a chance you'll come out of it.

 

If you're brain dead, you're a corpse. If they try to keep you alive, you'll still just be a corpse that's being sustained somewhat longer through artificial means. You CANNOT wake up from being brain dead.

 

 

"No, we disagree with you because we disagree with your view. This debate has nothing to do with your gender.

 

Your opinion should be weighed less in reality because you can never become pregnant and therefore the consequences of your actions do not, cannot, and will never affect you."

 

Nothing to do with my gender, however my gender causes my opinion to be weighed less... Hmmm...

Because you can't have a baby. The second you can get pregnant, you'll deserve equal voice.

 

Personally, I say infertile females should have as much voice as a male--neither can get pregnant.

 

Also, to finally answer this.

 

 

You say the child has rights... So, I'm guessing that you're okay with the idea of people being forcibly strapped down and having blood and stuff that they can live without harvested from their bodies against their will provided it will save a life, right? You're totally okay with that?

 

The fetus a no point in time harvests an entire organ, takes more blood than it needs or would kill the mother, and it obviously wasn't against your will, if you have sex a biproduct HAPPENS TO BE A CHILD! Also, when did I say that the woman had no rights? Because I just made a post that explains my position even more. There's your answer.

 

Sorry it's kinda blunt and offensive, I'm in a bad mood. Read my last post and you will see why.

...You DO realize the entire... EVERYTHING of a pregnancy is that the body is used by the fetus, no matter if it's willful or not on the part of the host, right? That your body suddenly become the incubator and you are suddenly restricted in what you can or cannot do and what you can and cannot eat and such, right? That you may actually have to make serious changes to your lifestyle to support it properly, right?

 

You might have missed the "that they can live without" part of that post.

 

You DO realize that you can give certain organs (kidney! I -think there's a handful more you can donate and survive, but I'm not 100% sure) and certain amounts of blood without it being harmful or fatal, right? That's the roughly equal to a pregnancy--the fetus is taking a survivable amount from you, making use of your body.

 

 

So, again. Do you or do you not accept the idea of strapping people down and taking blood (or maybe a kidney or something, or maybe bone marrow) against their will in order to save a life?

 

The "but the fetus won't kill them!" argument is invalid, because I specifically mentioned right there that the donor would survive.

 

 

 

Re: byproduct of sex:

 

Yeah, and generally unwanted or useless byproducts of various processes get thrown out.

 

 

 

 

(Ugh, excuse if there's some things that don't quite make sense up there--I had a bunch of tabs open to reply to each post I was trying to, and it's early in the morning and i'm not a morning person... Just point 'em out and I'll clarify)

[prpldrgnfr]

A Peaceful Death

Aborting my son was not about when life begins, but how to end it humanely. 

 

In medical school these days, a decent amount of time is devoted to the ethical issues around end-of-life care. I’m a hopeful future neonatologist, so the relevance of the topic to the perinatal period is abundantly clear. We can conjure up images of the 23-week micropreemie lying in an isolette, tiny chest jiggling on high-frequency mechanical ventilation, delicate features overwhelmed by lines and tubes, miniature wrinkled fingers stroked by parents’ gargantuan hands. We ask: What kind of suffering is this baby experiencing? What kind of quality of life will he or she have? But what we don’t talk about much in medical school, or anywhere else for that matter, is the idea of end-of-life care before independent life has even begun.

[eritated]

Also, dont get started on people with health issues: its a minority. Most abortions happen due to ew, baby, <enter fast reason here>

This... this angered me greatly, I even teared up a bit. Are you saying we [people with health issues] don't matter because "we're a minority"? Why does it even matter what a woman's reasoning is to get rid of the fetus?

 

Oh wait. It doesn't. Any one reason is just as valid as the rest.

 

/:<

[MokiHunter]

I, for one, am not for abortion (so to speak) but, rather, a woman's choice. It should be a woman's choice of whether to carry that child or not, because at the end of the day, it's their body and their life. Who are you to decide what's best for them? In cases of rape, especially, this needs to be seriously thought about. What were to happen, for example, if a rape victim becomes pregnant and is forced to carry that child until it is born? If they decide to keep it, they will live the rest of their lives constantly reminded of the day they were attacked and violated without consent.

 

A constant "solution" according to many pro-lifers to this argument is "Put it up for adoption!" But honestly, look at the statistics, they're even mentioned on the first post. What kind of life is that for a child? And even still, the mother will still have to endure the nine months it will take to actually give birth. The trauma involved after, in any scenario, is far more than anyone deserves. And it doesn't matter whether you're weak or strong, there'll always be that part of you. No one needs reminders of that to fester the already open wounds.

[Sadako]

You know, I think the men are on to something...

 

See, I personally believe that any male I choose should be required to donate sperm to myself and/or my friends whenever any of us see fit. Fortunately, I am the empress of a small island nation, so I can make that a law even though a lot of people, including the men in question, think it's a stupid and unjust idea.

 

Now, the technology isn't great on my small island nation. The only way to harvest a citizen's sperm is a painful process that takes nine months of the man's life away and revokes his freedom of choosing what to eat, when to sleep, whether to work, etc., and also my (female) scientists have devised ways to make the process humiliating even though it doesn't need to be.

 

I'm going to send all the young boys in my small island nation to classes which teach them that donating sperm to your empress is the only right way to do things and anything else is morally wrong and will kill you. These are lies, but they're justified lies, because I really want to have control over these boys when they grow up.

 

There's a pill that doctors have invented that would allow a male to not donate sperm to his empress, but I'm going to make that really expensive and also I'm going to make a law that says it's okay to refuse to sell it, even though you can only get it in a few special places anyway. I'm also going to make sure that no one knows about any of the other medications or mechanisms that can prevent them from donating sperm to their empress by making it illegal to teach young boys about those options.

 

Of course, I don't want my subjects wasting their sperm on frivolous love affairs, so I think I'll start a bunch of propaganda campaigns so that my male subjects know that they're expected to act a certain way to protect their purity for when the empress demands their services. (I'll also launch some other propaganda campaigns that tell all the men that they all have to wax their chests, lose 40 lbs., and color their hair dark like that one actor I like, because I don't want to have to accept any sperm donations from any uggos. Good thing I'm the empress, so I totally have the right to tell people what I want them to look like.)

 

Oops, the men in my small island nation have to give up control over their own bodies and their own sexual freedom, but it's cool, because I, the empress, will totally be able to have some children! I can't take care of them all, so I'll just stick them in an institution where they'll be abused by underpaid workers--and half of them will grow up to be new sperm donors! Awesome, right?

 

(This has been a fairy-tale which contains much hyperbole and many logical fallacies in order to make a specific point. Please resume debate.)

[diannethegeek]

(snip) Most abortions happen due to ew, baby, <enter fast reason here>

Would you mind citing your source for that? I get the feeling that you might be making up your own statistics based on your personal experiences and biases. As I recall you're not in the US, so if you have statistics for your home country that disagree I'd love to see them. Here in the US, a majority of women seeking abortions have already given birth to at least one child (about 60%) and 66% plan to have children later in life, so I'm really not sure how you can say that most women who have abortions dislike babies. I'd love to see the numbers though.

 

My numbers come from the following:

 

Induced Abortion in the United States Fact Sheet

Trends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions, 1974-2004 (PDF)

Abortion in Women's Lives (PDF)

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Women Who Have Abortions (National Abortion Federation)

 

 

[King_Max_Cat]

The fact that you assume everyone who is pro life is religious is laughable. I mean really, did you base your entire stance on the fact that some of us happen to be religious? This is simply rediculous, try again.

No, I never assumed that everyone who is pro life is religious. I never said that. I even provided the reason "Because the fetus is more important that you as a person" - not religious. And I honestly don't believe it's ridiculous, as most (more than 80%) of pro-life people I've encountered have been religious. Just seems like there's a correlation there. *shrug*

So now we should go around "Aborting" brain-dead people because they can't think or feel? Is that morally right?

Uh, yeah because they're basically dead. They will NEVER EVER wake up, EVER. If I was in say a car accident and just living on tubes and machines like a vegtable; yeah, I'd want my heart to stop beating. There's no brain function anyway; that's why they're called Brain-DEAD.

Also, who gets to choose?

Well obviously not the brain-dead person in question, the one who is MOST AFFECTED! Seeing as even if you put in your will "please smother me if I'm ever brain dead", it's still illegal in today's society.

Can an orphanage just kill an orphan that relies on them for food, shelter, and life, because they don't want it anymore? I want an honest answer, can they?

Duh, no they can't. You're still not seeing the difference though; A grown child is NOT A FETUS. They are NOT THE SAME. That child is thinking, feeling, sentient, and has it's own wishes (wish to stay alive). However, if that orphanage closes down, the child can be sent to a different orphanage. Or a foster home. That orphanage actually has more choice that women do under anti-abortion laws! The orphanage can decide it's closed and cannot take care of children, and send the children away. However, you're proposing that a woman, once pregnant, cannot abort that fetus even if she doesn't want it! Even if she hates that fetus so much that she'll kill it as soon as it's born! You're really not looking forward here; imagine this; the woman doesn't want the child. She can't abort it. So she endures being turned into a walking incubator against her will. What happens when the baby is born, hm? Here's some scenarios;

 

1) The grown fetus (baby) is sent to an adoption agency. Someone else posted the numbers, hopefully you read them, but they are DISMAL. The child will likely be abused in more ways that 1 and have a miserable life, possibly killing itself because it's so miserable. Great, nice work.

2) The baby lives with the mother. The mother doesn't want the child/isn't ready so again, the child is going to have a fair-at-best quality of life. Also, how would you feel if your mother said to you "You were a mistake and I never wanted you, I was FORCED to have you"? Hm? Compare that to a mother who actually brings a child into this world and wants it. Personally, I would rather have not been born and have my parents have a happy life than have myself born and my parents reminding me "We never wanted you, you were forced upon us and we resent you". AKA I would rather not be around that be around and unwanted/resented by my parents.

 

You're relating fetuses to scabs, as if they were useless dead weights. Wow, you are the pinnacle of good aren't you?

Who cares if I'm the "pinnacle of good"? I don't have to prove myself to anybody, and just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm evil (which is what you're implying through your sarcasm). Just because I'm pro-choice (NOT PRO-ABORTION, the two are VERY different things FYI) does not make me evil or immoral.

Also, your scab or tonsil suddenly has the ability to form into a thinking, feeling, sentient creature if let grow? I was unaware of this. I was also unaware that your scab or tonsil had a soul. (subjective by religion or lack of.)

Technically, my tonsil *does* have the ability to form into a thinking, feeling, sentient human being. It contains all my DNA; all we'd have to do is perform the cloning process (like on Dolly the sheep) and basically put my DNA into a developing zygote, and boom! You'd get a baby version of me!

I too am unaware that scabs/tonsils had souls, I was just wondering that if a fetus has a soul, and a fetus is a clump of cells, and my tonsils are a clump of cells, then do my tonsils have a soul too? It was a question.

By this logic it MUST be ethical for a mother to murder her son or daughter at any time, because she brought it into this world, so fittingly she should take it out if she chooses. That surely seems like the kind of thing society wants. Also, i find your "Not yet living" statement to be hilarious, really. It's alive, this is a fact. Whether it has rights isn't. (Sorry, I put the wrong quotes together, but it's fixed.)

Uh, No. Again, you're not getting that child vs. fetus distinction. A child/baby is born. It is thinking, feeling, and sentient. A fetus is not sentient or thinking. A fetus is the POTENTIAL to become a human being. A child IS a human being. Thus, killing a child is killing a human being; obviously illegal and wrong. But a fetus is a potential; it is NOT A CHILD. They are 2 different things. And please, do tell, why is my argument "hilarious"?

Yes, a fetus is alive in the medical sense. Just as a brain-dead person on life support in a hospital is *alive*. But being alive is not the same as being human. A dog is alive. Is a dog human? No. Being alive is a requirement to being human, but it is not the ONLY requirement.

 

Also, consider chicken eggs. A chicken egg is much like a human egg; it is fertilized, incubated, and develops into a fetus which turns into a baby. When you take a fertilized chicken egg and crack it open, you just aborted a chicken fetus. It COULD have developed into a baby chicken, therefore cracking an egg is just like killing a chicken, right? (No). Just as the egg is not the same as a chick and we crack eggs ALL the time and don't feel the same way about it as we do if we killing a baby chick, a fetus is not the same as a baby.

a life that cannot control it's own existence nor can it do anything other than be, should be protected in some slight way. The woman can take care of herself (usually) the fetus can't. It needs more things than say the woman. You preach equality of life, I preach justice of life. Your point being it doesn't deserve to live because it requires me to sustain it, and going it more is unethical. My point being it needs more to live, so it deserves more to live. Both are worth a life, but one simply needs more. Not that it's worth more.

So because the fetus is a weakling and cannot take care of itself, the woman MUST take care of it? How about this; an elderly person needs more care than a normal person. So everyone MUST, MUST take care of their grandpa/grandma, no matter what. And moreover, you must be with your grandma/grandpa every minute of the day. People would be OUTRAGED. Why? Because they want to CHOOSE if they want to take care of their elderly. And if they don't want to, they don't have to. Seeing as caring for the elderly is even less invasive that caring for a fetus, I don't see why the freedom to choose to help the needy/elderly doesn't extend to fetuses.

Basically you're saying we should help the weak and ignore the strong because the weak need more help. You preach equality of outcome.

So, the fetus deserves more rights/help because it's more pathetic. Why? Just because?

we believe the killing of HUMAN fetuses is wrong, not for any specific reason (It varies by person), but simply because you are killing a human. Now, the term human is apparently subjective, so take it as you will, but to me, your right to LIVE begins at conception. Why anyone would say you have NO RIGHT TO LIVE because you lack cognitive function is horrible.

Ah, so I must be horrible then. So, I suppose you don't subscribe to the view that "I think, therefore I am"? So, now I truly do have a question I'm curious about; we all know a zygote (fertilized egg) comes about when a sperm and an ova fuse together. So, if I kill a sperm or an ova, is that just as bad as killing the zygote?

Because, like the zygote, the sperm and ova are *potential*. They have the potential DNA to become a human being. So, by your reasoning, I thiiink that killing a sperm or ova is just as bad as killing a fetus, because that sperm could've fused with a zygote and become a fetus which could have become a baby, but I killed it so now it never will have that *chance*.

 

Also, you too believe that animals (humans are animals) have NO RIGHT TO LIVE because they lack cognitive function. How? Well, cows, like humans, are animals. However, we kill them all the time to make delicious beef burgers. How could we do such a thing? Because cows lack cognitive function.

 

 

By the way, news on the brain-dead pregnant Texas woman:

http://news.yahoo.com/family-brain-dead-te...-191249555.html

Did you know, Htt71, that she was being kept on life support against the wishes of her family?

So to answer your question,

can a hospital go against the wishes of the person or family because it's the hospital's patient, and the patient is simply reliant on them

the answer is no. Her family chose to "abort" her, to use your terminology.

 

That woman, however, is not a fetus. She is not using anyone's body to sustain herself. She is not putting burden on the hospital, as her care is being paid for (to compensate taking care of her). However, her family did not want her rotting away in that hospital bed, and chose to take her off life support. That's basically what an abortion is; it's not really *killing*, it's the taking of the baby off life support. That family can choose to take that woman off life support; a woman should be able to choose to take *her* baby off 'life support'.

 

*whew* sorry for the long post but I felt a bit obligated to defend my position.

[KageSora]

1) The grown fetus (baby) is sent to an adoption agency. Someone else posted the numbers, hopefully you read them, but they are DISMAL. The child will likely be abused in more ways that 1 and have a miserable life, possibly killing itself because it's so miserable. Great, nice work.

Keep in mind, too, that even being adopted by a family that can take care of you and does care about you is no guarantee of a good life.

 

Plenty of people kill themselves because they hate themselves and their lives even when they have a stable, loving, supportive family.

 

 

So, if even the "adoption success stories" aren't guaranteed a happy ending, what's that say about the ones that don't have a happy adoption?

[whitebaron]

Would you mind citing your source for that? I get the feeling that you might be making up your own statistics based on your personal experiences and biases. As I recall you're not in the US, so if you have statistics for your home country that disagree I'd love to see them. Here in the US, a majority of women seeking abortions have already given birth to at least one child (about 60%) and 66% plan to have children later in life, so I'm really not sure how you can say that most women who have abortions dislike babies. I'd love to see the numbers though.

 

My numbers come from the following:

 

Induced Abortion in the United States Fact Sheet

Trends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions, 1974-2004 (PDF)

Abortion in Women's Lives (PDF)

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Women Who Have Abortions (National Abortion Federation)

You misinterpreted my words. Since it was not clear: I meant that by the way people argue here, it is clear to me that most of you (generic you) would abort a baby without giving it further thought, basically making a quick decision immediately upon knowledge of the pregnancy.

 

@eri: again, misinterpretation, I did not say that minorities or people with medical issues dont count, but that they make a BAD argument- You cant base generic arguments on exceptions, or else it is just a fallacy.

[pudding]

"This. Much of this debate, I find, is 2 framings of the same issue; the pro-"life" people saying that if you abort the fetus, you "murder" it. They're assuming the fetus has a right to live. I, naturally, disagree. A fetus is a clump of cells, much like a tonsil or a scab. Does my scab, or my tonsil, have a soul? Is it "murder" to remove and thus kill a tonsil? No."

 

You're relating fetuses to scabs, as if they were useless dead weights. Wow, you are the pinnacle of good aren't you? Also, your scab or tonsil suddenly has the ability to form into a thinking, feeling, sentient creature if let grow? I was unaware of this. I was also unaware that your scab or tonsil had a soul. (subjective by religion or lack of.)

Well actually, life is not determined by heartbeat. If it was, brain dead would not be a legalized death. Instead, life is determined by EEG. Your tonsils, scabs and fetuses before 12 weeks do not have EEG. By that standard, they are not living until after the 12th week (Most abortions are preformed before that time). So, by that standard, fetuses before the 12th week are not alive and cannot be murdered, only disposed of. Just like tonsils, just like scabs.

 

I am staunchly pro choice. It's my body and just like what I do in private, my body should not concern anyone except myself. That includes possibly being an incubator for a fetus. If I want to get rid of it, it is entirely my choice to do so. If you don't like abortions, don't have one! But don't subject me to morals that we probably don't share, especially about my offspring and my future. So yes, I probably would abort a child because I am not ready for it. A baby comes when I am ready and not an instant before. And I probably wouldn't give it much thought afterwards except for all the shaming that tends to occur.

[KageSora]

You misinterpreted my words. Since it was not clear: I meant that by the way people argue here, it is clear to me that most of you (generic you) would abort a baby without giving it further thought, basically making a quick decision immediately upon knowledge of the pregnancy.

...Did it ever occur to you that many of us may have, in fact, already considered our current circumstances and thus already know that given our current situation that abortion would be the best option for us?

[High Lord November]

You misinterpreted my words. Since it was not clear: I meant that by the way people argue here, it is clear to me that most of you (generic you) would abort a baby without giving it further thought, basically making a quick decision immediately upon knowledge of the pregnancy.

 

@eri: again, misinterpretation, I did not say that minorities or people with medical issues dont count, but that they make a BAD argument- You cant base generic arguments on exceptions, or else it is just a fallacy.

Yes, and that's because the "you" you are referring to don't actually want a baby. We aren't misinformed, we haven't been fed mindless propaganda, we are aware of the consequences of pregnancy and what the child would go through if we decided to throw it in the adoption system. We are making a fully informed decision, and we are adamant on our position. We have already made the decision. We have already thought. We don't want a baby, so we aren't going to have one. Simple. Saying that we're acting without thought and therefore need someone to absolutely make sure it's the decision we want is baseless and sort of insulting, especially based on the pages and pages of discussion we've gone through.

 

So no, thank you very much, I don't need some more restrictions on my abortion, or for someone to ask "are you really sure?" People already do that, and it's called guilt-tripping and forcing a second-guess.

 

The best thing is to give a complete, factual, neutral list of options available to anyone and everyone, which is what Planned Parenthood already does, and let the mother decide. No one should be forced into aborting something they want, and no one should be forced to keep something they don't. That way, it helps those who've been taught that abortion is either the only thing to do or the one thing never to do.

Edited February 6, 2014 by High Lord November

[Shienvien]

That's the thing - people aren't pausing for two minutes and deciding that if they were to get pregnant now, they would abort. The majority of them have thought about it for many hours before reaching that conclusion - when they think of their future, when they think of their health problems, when they think of their current financial situation, when they are together with their other halves or buying contraceptives, when they have a dream wherein they are pregnant - for those who are phobic of pregnancy - and then spend half of the next day curled up and having panic attacks... People think of those kinds of things all the time, women who are in relationships especially.

[Fuzzbucket]

You misinterpreted my words. Since it was not clear: I meant that by the way people argue here, it is clear to me that most of you (generic you) would abort a baby without giving it further thought, basically making a quick decision immediately upon knowledge of the pregnancy.

I can't speak for anyone else, but even thought I knew absolutely that having that baby would have been catastrophic, both for me and for a child born to me at that time, I did nothing about it for a while, while I thought it over, believe me.

 

But if I knew myself well enough to know that I was actually phobic - yes; just as I would start antibiotics the instant I knew I had pneumonia. Some things can't wait.

Edited February 6, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[whitebaron]

The brains of US citizens gets checked into the nearest trash can when the word "abortion" is even hinted at.

 

thank you so much for explaining many things to me. i now know what the problems here are.

[Fuzzbucket]

The brains of US citizens gets checked into the nearest trash can when the word "abortion" is even hinted at.

 

thank you so much for explaining many things to me. i now know what the problems here are.

Well, I'm not in the US, so it doesn't count My brains are just where they should be and working fine.

[sparkle10184]

*checks head* Yup, my brain's still there and I live in the US.

[pudding]

The brains of US citizens gets checked into the nearest trash can when the word "abortion" is even hinted at.

 

thank you so much for explaining many things to me. i now know what the problems here are.

 

Yes, this is a problem. The fact that the rights of women who are pregnant and their choice to possibly terminate a pregnancy occurring in their own body are even QUESTIONED is completely ridiculous. There must be so many brains in trash cans for such a ridiculous line of thinking. You can control someone else's body and decisions regarding private matters? Completely idiotic!

Edited February 6, 2014 by pudding

[Obscure_Trash]

So no, thank you very much, I don't need some more restrictions on my abortion, or for someone to ask "are you really sure?" People already do that, and it's called guilt-tripping and forcing a second-guess.

I'm just gonna pop in here and call it what is is: emotional manipulation/abuse.

[whitebaron]

I'm just gonna pop in here and call it what is is: emotional manipulation/abuse.

its only that, if you make it that, or want to see it as that.

 

 

[pudding]

its only that, if you make it that, or want to see it as that.

No, it is.

 

What if you were taking a math test and you handed the paper in to your teacher. And he (or she) looked back at you and went, "Are you REALLY sure you're done?" It doesn't matter how confident you were in your answers, that all suddenly comes crashing down and you start second-guessing yourself. Even if you knew they were all right. Even if you knew, you would still guess wrong and try to fix a nonexistent error. It's instilling doubt and anxiety no matter how sure you are. And it's abusive and manipulative only a thousand times worse than any math test.

[Obscure_Trash]

its only that, if you make it that, or want to see it as that.

Just because an abuser does not want to call their abuse abuse does not make it not abuse.

[sparkle10184]

its only that, if you make it that, or want to see it as that.

It is abuse. Even if a rapist doesn't see their manipulating as rape, it's still rape right? Or if someone bullied someone but they don't see it as bullying, is it not considered bullying just because the bully doesn't want it to be?

[prairiecrow]

Just because an abuser does not want to call their abuse abuse does not make it not abuse.

And there are a lot of abusers out there who have a lot invested in gaslighting their victims.

 

Telling someone that being offended when they've been attacked/oppressed is THEIR fault is typical behaviour from people who want to get away with the attacking and oppressing. It's a blatant silencing technique, which completely invalidates the pain or upset of the person who's been hurt.