Abortion

[Fuzzbucket]

Not to mention that 99.9% of women do NOT go out there and say "oh rats, I'm pregnant - let's get rid". It is hard enough making that decision - trying to guilt her out is inexcusable (and yes, I do know this personally. And no, I do not in any way regret it.)

 

There are too many humans on this earth already. Forcing someone who doesn't want a child - and that is enough of a reason to be allowed an abortion, in my book - to bear it to term is not the way to go.

 

You (whoever you are in this thread with this POV) believe in Right to Life. abortion is murder and the rest - OK - go for it. Live YOUR life YOUR way. But don't try and force everyone else to feel the same way and act according to YOUR conscience. We all have the right to our own beliefs. I won't make you abort your foetus; don't you deny me the right to abort mine. (Yeah, at 67 and post hyster, I REALLY need that as a right - but you know what I mean !)

 

Typefail. Surprise

Edited February 10, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Princess Artemis]

And yet you claim that you're pro-choice, meaning the mother should be able to see both sides of the argument and decide for herself? Also, how does it create emotional distress? After all, if a fetus is really no more than a tumor than it should be no different then showing some one with cancer their tumors and saying that they're going to remove it.

Pro-choice is also, rightly, anti-force-women-to-do-anything. There is no medical need for it, so it should be optional.

 

I dunno about you, but I'd sure be distressed if someone forced me to look at a tumor before they would remove it.

[skinst]

And yet you claim that you're pro-choice, meaning the mother should be able to see both sides of the argument and decide for herself?

If you mean the Pro-Birth side, which largely consists of "ABORTION IS MURDER DON'T DO IT"? I think that if a woman was considering an abortion she should be left to make her own choices without guilt trips the size of a truck shoved down her throat by the likes of those kind of people.

 

There is no 'side' to the Pro-Birth arguement, only guilt trips and emotional war mongering. The Pro-Birth side has yet to produce any credible evidence that banning abortion would do the world any good.

 

Also, how does it create emotional distress? After all, if a fetus is really no more than a tumor than it should be no different then showing some one with cancer their tumors and saying that they're going to remove it.

 

Frankly if I had a tumor and someone showed it to me after removing it, I'd FREAK THE HELL OUT. I don't want to see the disgusting mess that comes out of my body no matter what it is.

 

And I bet a majority of people feel the same.

Edited February 10, 2012 by skinst

[Syaoransbear]

Showing a pregnant mother an ultrasound of her baby doesn't really address the main issues of abortion which are if it's murder or not, and if the life of a fetus is more important than a woman's right to control her body. All it does is invoke maternal emotions and appeal to the instinct to reproduce, and neither are good reasons to have a child. All of the well thought out reasons a woman had to abort can be totally pushed to the side with those feelings. But those reasons will still be there.

 

If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she shouldn't be guilted or emotionally blackmailed into it. Guilt won't make her change her mind about actually wanting to raise a child or give birth, it won't make her suddenly love children when before she passionately hated them, it doesn't change her financial situation, and it doesn't make her more prepared to be a mother.

[tyto_alba]

Showing a pregnant mother an ultrasound of her baby doesn't really address the main issues of abortion which are if it's murder or not, and if the life of a fetus is more important than a woman's right to control her body. All it does is invoke maternal emotions and appeal to the instinct to reproduce, and neither are good reasons to have a child. All of the well thought out reasons a woman had to abort can be totally pushed to the side with those feelings. But those reasons will still be there.

 

If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she shouldn't be guilted or emotionally blackmailed into it. Guilt won't make her change her mind about actually wanting to raise a child or give birth, it won't make her suddenly love children when before she passionately hated them, it doesn't change her financial situation, and it doesn't make her more prepared to be a mother.

^ This. Very much this.

 

I heard about the whole "showing the mother an ultra-sound" and "making her hear the heartbeat" and I literally went, "Ugh." in disgust at my computer.

[Zephyrgirl]

I still am wondering why it would create guilt if a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". Why would it stir up maternal feelings? Tumors sure wouldn't stir anything of the sort in me! I'm not saying it would change her mind and I'm not for loading guilt trips on women. If it is her choice, though, as you claim it is, then why not show her the whole picture? Why should she not see this parasitic clump of cells that is holding her in slavery?

[Rosedamai]

I still am wondering why it would create guilt if a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". Why would it stir up maternal feelings? Tumors sure wouldn't stir anything of the sort in me! I'm not saying it would change her mind and I'm not for loading guilt trips on women. If it is her choice, though, as you claim it is, then why not show her the whole picture? Why should she not see this parasitic clump of cells that is holding her in slavery?

Why should she see it if she doesn't want to? I wouldn't have wanted to see what the inside of my stomach looked like when I had my appendicitis removed. *Shrug* nor do I really want to see what my wisdom teeth looked like when I had them pulled out. I looked at them and immediately regretted it. Fine, she can demand to see them if she wants to, but what you're suggesting is a mandatory "look at the fetus!" process, or at least that's what it seems to me.

 

And as I said, sex-selective abortions can happen from week 10, that's a bit before the first trimester ends. I'm concerned for that one rather than anything else, like guilt trips, etc. People just seem to skim over the issue entirely, but "gendercide" as some call it IS a huge issue, and creates many, many social problems. As abortion is a worldwide issue and not restricted to a specific location, that's why I'm dealing with it here. Unless you're going to come out and say something like, oh we're specifically talking about abortions in country X, which implies that you only care about the "rights of the unborn" that are from X, I say that we have to be aware of the global effects it can have.

 

Edit to add: To address the guilt issue, she may not feel that the fetus is an alive being, but the hospital may say something to change or influence that decision, which might sway her or put unnecessary guilt on herself. That's what I feel from my POV anyway. Not to mention that there are plenty of women who do not feel as strongly about the issue, and that they can be coaxed into giving birth, which they might regret later. Even if she changes her mind, the later you get an abortion, the higher the fees. Not only that, but it's the attitude behind the deed that I have problems with. "Oh we'll show her the fetus and demonstrate to her how it looks more like a human being and after that maybe she'll change her mind." Why should she be persuaded to change her mind? I think her mind would have been made up when she walked into the clinic, won't you? It would be like walking into an emergency room needing a blood transfusion and the doctor, being a Jehovah's witness, trying very earnestly to tell you that you can't get a blood transfusion.

 

 

Hope this has been clear enough

Edited February 11, 2012 by ylangylang

[skinst]

I still am wondering why it would create guilt if a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". Why would it stir up maternal feelings? Tumors sure wouldn't stir anything of the sort in me! I'm not saying it would change her mind and I'm not for loading guilt trips on women.

I am currently legitimately wondering if you are deliberately ignoring posts or if you are deliberately trying to feign knowledge. I think you know the answers to the questions you're asking. However, assuming I am mistaken;

 

Yes, the fetus is a clump of cells the same way a tumor is a clump of cells. However, it can be traumatising for woman to see things being taken out of their body, regardless of what it is, as I said in my previous post above yours. The Pro-Birth agenda however is to try and force woman to change their minds while seeing an ultrasound - which would likely cost them out of pocket - of the growing fetus.

 

Even if that fetus, logically, is a clump of cells that resembles the shape of a human being, it is traumatising. You are forgetting that emotions come into play here and not just logic. Logically, that image should have no affect on the woman if the woman knows it's just a clump of cells.

 

However, you are not taking into account the emotions of the woman in question when she goes in to have an abortion. From all of the abortion stories I have read, few of the woman who have abortions go in completely level headed and logical; most are pretty upset and then relieved after the procedure is over.

 

The entire idea behind an ultrasound and listening to a heartbeat is nothing more than to try and force a woman to change her mind by taking advantage of her vunerablilities, which is sickening.

 

If it is her choice, though, as you claim it is, then why not show her the whole picture? Why should she not see this parasitic clump of cells that is holding her in slavery?

Assume for a moment that you have had a massive headache and found out you had a giant tumor in your brain, which is operable. Right before you go into surgery, the surgeon tells you in all its explicit, gory details exactly what he is going to do to you while you are asleep.

 

You would have to be very used to blood, gore and goodness knows what else to just shrug such an explanation off. The same thing applies here.

[Fuzzbucket]

I am currently legitimately wondering if you are deliberately ignoring posts or if you are deliberately trying to feign knowledge. I think you know the answers to the questions you're asking. However, assuming I am mistaken;

 

Yes, the fetus is a clump of cells the same way a tumor is a clump of cells. However, it can be traumatising for woman to see things being taken out of their body, regardless of what it is, as I said in my previous post above yours. The Pro-Birth agenda however is to try and force woman to change their minds while seeing an ultrasound - which would likely cost them out of pocket - of the growing fetus.

 

Even if that fetus, logically, is a clump of cells that resembles the shape of a human being, it is traumatising. You are forgetting that emotions come into play here and not just logic. Logically, that image should have no affect on the woman if the woman knows it's just a clump of cells.

 

However, you are not taking into account the emotions of the woman in question when she goes in to have an abortion. From all of the abortion stories I have read, few of the woman who have abortions go in completely level headed and logical; most are pretty upset and then relieved after the procedure is over.

 

The entire idea behind an ultrasound and listening to a heartbeat is nothing more than to try and force a woman to change her mind by taking advantage of her vunerablilities, which is sickening.

 

 

Assume for a moment that you have had a massive headache and found out you had a giant tumor in your brain, which is operable. Right before you go into surgery, the surgeon tells you in all its explicit, gory details exactly what he is going to do to you while you are asleep.

 

You would have to be very used to blood, gore and goodness knows what else to just shrug such an explanation off. The same thing applies here.

Right on, skinst. I accidentally saw some of the BONE taken out of my ear during surgery. I am TOTALLY not squeamish - I rather like blood and gore - but there is something about seeing bits of yourself in a kidney dish...

 

You really don't want to see this stuff. I've seen WILLING blood donors faint when they saw the bag of blood they have GIVEN.

 

Zephyrgirl, if you want to see the bits that are taken out of you - fine. It, like abortion, should be a CHOICE. But I think you are rather liking the idea of making women change their minds with a guilt trip. You come over very much as a Right to Birther. That is how your posts make you appear. Fine - don't ever have an abortion. But don't ever have a scan, either. You could find out your baby was anencephalic. And of course, if you feel the way your posts sound, you'd have to carry it to term.

 

 

[skinst]

Right on, skinst. I accidentally saw some of the BONE taken out of my ear during surgery. I am TOTALLY not squeamish - I rather like blood and gore - but there is something about seeing bits of yourself in a kidney dish...

 

You really don't want to see this stuff. I've seen WILLING blood donors faint when they saw the bag of blood they have GIVEN.

On one hand, I was amazed when I saw my wisdom teeth after they were removed (I had them taken out while awake) but on the other hand, I can't handle explicit detailed explanations about medical procedures anymore than I can stand looking at them. Everyone's different. :3

 

The same applies here; some woman would be fine, most wouldn't be.

[Rosedamai]

You really don't want to see this stuff. I've seen WILLING blood donors faint when they saw the bag of blood they have GIVEN.

....*bashfully raises hand* Guilty.

[Fuzzbucket]

....*bashfully raises hand* Guilty.

Thank you for giving your blood. It is appreciated

 

No but really - seeing it can be scary ! Remember Hancock ? "A pint ? A PINT ??? That's a quarter of the blood in my whole BODY...."

 

 

(not true, but it was a wonderful sketch.)

[elderberrysyrup]

....*bashfully raises hand* Guilty.

Oi, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I can't lookat the needle when I give blood.

[Fuzzbucket]

Oi, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I can't lookat the needle when I give blood.

Do these posts not make the point for you, Zephyrgirl ? Why SHOULD one have to look ?

 

Some day you or a member of your family may need blood. If blood donors who can't handle it were FORCED to look at the bag or the needle, maybe when that day comes - we will all have given up donating and there will be none available.

[skinst]

I physically cannot donate blood because it is far too traumatic for various reasons I won't go into here. Should I be forced to do so like a woman has to be forced to stay pregnant according to Pro-Birth beliefs?

[Princess Artemis]

Honest question here: When did right to life change to right to birth and pro-life to pro-birth?

 

Who assigned the terms?

 

It's striking me as a really bizarre thing to call one 'side' of the debate, as if one who calls another Pro-Birth means the one calling them that are, well, not pro-birth. I know some people wish births would stop happening, but I cannot imagine the side which purports to desire the greatest freedom of choice really wants to minimize or eradicate birth. Although, to be honest, the way some people talk about it in this thread, it really does come across that way sometimes, that birth is the worst human plague that ever did visit us.

 

Or is it (extremely likely) an attempt to minimize a side into nothing but "let's force people to give birth because BIRTH IS AWESOME!!!! Nothing else matters!" rather than what it really is, a side which feels very strongly that even the unborn are human and should be treated as such?

 

I do not believe pro-choice people like the appellation pro-abortion because "ABORTION IS THE BEST!!!!!" is not what they are.

[Brite]

When did right to life change to right to birth and pro-life to pro-birth?

 

Really? My aunt is an example of a REAL pro-lifer. She cares about the woman in the situation just as much as the unborn. Pro-birthers demonize the woman, calling her *, , evil. Wanting her to give birth no matter what the exuse, even if it kills her. That clearly isn't pro-life, but pro-BIRTH. Then they don't care what happens to the child once it's born. They're only cared about when they're in a womb.

[Princess Artemis]

Really?

Yes, really. Hence "Honest question". Extremists do have a habit of making people look bad, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm honestly curious about when this changed.

 

ETA: Or are there actually more 'sides'? Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion, and pro-birth?

Edited February 11, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[St. Jimmy]

I physically cannot donate blood because it is far too traumatic for various reasons I won't go into here. Should I be forced to do so like a woman has to be forced to stay pregnant according to Pro-Birth beliefs?

Very much this. I am anemic and giving blood probably wouldn't be too good for my health. It's the same way with pregnancy. Should I be forced to give blood or carry to term despite the negative effects it would have on my health?

[Alpha1]

Yes, really.  Hence "Honest question".  Extremists do have a habit of making people look bad, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm honestly curious about when this changed.

 

ETA: Or are there actually more 'sides'?  Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion, and pro-birth?

 

I'm pro-choice and pro-abortion. Why? They're the same.

 

For the ones who are pro-life, many want women to give birth, but those women are on their own afterwards. Many Republicans want to get rid of ALL the social programs. Food stamps, HUD, etc.

 

Ironically, a lot of the senior Republicans think they hit the jackpot at 65 and should receive more than their fair share in medical treatment and SS benefits.

 

 

[Princess Artemis]

I'm pro-choice and pro-abortion. Why? They're the same.

 

For the ones who are pro-life, many want women to give birth, but those women are on their own afterwards. Many Republicans want to get rid of ALL the social programs. Food stamps, HUD, etc.

 

Ironically, a lot of the senior Republicans think they hit the jackpot at 65 and should receive more than their fair share in medical treatment and SS benefits.

Pro-choice is...pro-choice. It's supportive of...choice. That's not the same as supporting abortion though the two do quite frequently coincide.

 

I am not a Republican, but the best I can gather, what those cuts in social spending are about is attempting to reduce the amount of mandatory spending the US does. That isn't exactly equal to not caring what happens to people after they are born.

 

Is the question I asked a really hard one to answer? I'm asking it mostly of the people who use the words because they are the ones who use the words, but maybe they don't know the source of them and I need to look elsewhere for an answer.

[Fuzzbucket]

I'm pro-choice and pro-abortion. Why? They're the same.

 

For the ones who are pro-life, many want women to give birth, but those women are on their own afterwards. Many Republicans want to get rid of ALL the social programs. Food stamps, HUD, etc.

 

Ironically, a lot of the senior Republicans think they hit the jackpot at 65 and should receive more than their fair share in medical treatment and SS benefits.

I'm pro-choice. There is no need to be pro-abortion as well, therefore - if you see what I mean.

 

Pro-life vs pro-birth - well, most people are pro life on a way - so some pro-choice people don't like it being assumed that they are OK with killing people, the death penalty etc. They just want woman to have the right to choose abortion if that is what they want.

 

Pro-birthers just want women who are carrying a foetus to be FORCED to give birth to it, and no options but birth. Compulsory birth for the pregnant, rather than life vs death.

 

I think ?

 

Maybe ??

 

OOH found this on line:

 

First off, none of them are pro-life; they are pro-birth. "Pro-life" suggests that not only will they fight for their right to be born, but also they will fight for a higher quality of life all through their childhood; that they have a pro-education sign right next to their sign with a dead fetus on it. But once the child is born it becomes a moot point to them. "Another baby in the world...on to the next helpless fetus!" As far as I know, the people who dedicate their lives to the pro-life agenda don't bother themselves with other issues such as welfare, education or health care. I don't blame them. The pro-life agenda is a demanding issue that requires quite a bit of dedication.

 

This is actually spot in, in my experience. Once the child is born they lose interest. No nonsense about supporting the mother with a child she didn't want. Just back to trying to put another woman in that horrible position of having to give birth to an unwanted child.

[Princess Artemis]

OOH found this on line:

 

 

 

This is actually spot in, in my experience. Once the child is born they lose interest. No nonsense about supporting the mother with a child she didn't want. Just back to trying to put another woman in that horrible position of having to give birth to an unwanted child.

This is why I ask...my experience (admittedly limited) is that the quote mainly refers to the loud, obnoxious abortion-clinic-bombers, while quite a lot of people getting caught in this are people who are actually more along the lines of "Abortion really sits bad with me, I think it's generally a terrible idea, and here's why" who also have foster children or help raise their grandchildren or do other personally significant things to support the children who would otherwise have been aborted.

 

I would say that helping to raise one's grandchildren is a pretty damned significant amount of support given to children who otherwise wouldn't exist.

 

If it's just the abortion clinic bomber types, rather than, say, Republicans, being called pro-birth, then OK, it's being used to refer to a specific icky subset and that makes sense.

 

(Though that quote really does a disservice to people--it makes the assumption that someone cannot care about two things at once, and that just because someone who is at such a rally with their signs means that they cannot ever ever ever possibly evaaaaaar do anything EVAR that doesn't make it into headlines that is pro-education or something. But then, what people think of as pro-education are very different as well, aren't they?)

Edited February 11, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Fuzzbucket]

This is why I ask...my experience (admittedly limited) is that the quote mainly refers to the loud, obnoxious abortion-clinic-bombers, while quite a lot of people getting caught in this are people who are actually more along the lines of "Abortion really sits bad with me, I think it's generally a terrible idea, and here's why" who also have foster children or help raise their grandchildren or do other personally significant things to support the children who would otherwise have been aborted.

 

I would say that helping to raise one's grandchildren is a pretty damned significant amount of support given to children who otherwise wouldn't exist.

 

If it's just the abortion clinic bomber types, rather than, say, Republicans, being called pro-birth, then OK, it's being used to refer to a specific icky subset and that makes sense.

That is the way I read it. Pro forcing a birth and then leaving the kid and its mother to fend for themselves.

 

And WHY I feel that in my gut is because of people who have charged ME with being anti-LIFE and pro-murder - which I certainly am not.

 

If someone cannot bring themselves to have an abortion - they shouldn't have to. If you (generic) hate the idea and are doing things to support the children that that "policy" beings into the world - good for you. But I still feel very strongly that choice is essential. So I have no sympathy at all for people who picket clinics and the rest - and as for the VILE billboards showing ickle foetuses sucking their ickle thumbs....

Edited February 11, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Shienvien]

If it's just the abortion clinic bomber types, rather than, say, Republicans, being called pro-birth, then OK, it's being used to refer to a specific icky subset and that makes sense.

I've always been seeing 'pro-life' as the more generic term, and 'pro-birth' as a very specific subcategory.

The first includes everyone who say that abortion should not exist because it eliminates the potential life, the second focuses on the much narrower group amongst them which only focuses on making a woman give birth no matter what the consequences to the woman would be ... and then loses all interest in the child's and mother's wellbeing alike.