Pro or anti abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

i'm totally anti-abortion. but i'm totally pro-choice. if you want to abort, that's your business. plus, the right to abort ends when the fetus is able to express a desire to continue living, and does so when asked.

you sound like a schizoid guy I know. He has the same theories that you do. Thinks all women are out to get him and trap him.

Ok...


So does the early child.


So, may I ask, how can you be so sure about this? I justify my claim of consciousness from the fact fetus can actually learn, where is your claim of no consciousness coming from? Perhaps you think some super natural being infuses consciousness at the time the cord is cut... or perhaps you think it is a matter of brain development, then it should probably be all right to kill ~3 weeks olds, I doubt that under that definition those would have consciousness...


Untrue.



1. adoption.
2. Early 'abortion'.


I am missing the part in which these things justify killing of human beings, we should probably get poor children killed as they will lack resources all long their lives...



I don't care about that stuff, an early child cannot live without a source of milk, period. You keep saying something is not alive until it stops being dependent on its parents, this is still true for one year olds. Regardless of whatever biology definitions you make up.



All I see here is the fabrication of an arbitrary boundary between the living and the non-living with the purpose to justify a double standard.

---
Think about premature child, are they non-living beings, you could say they are living just because they are no longer attached to the umbilical cord, but they are still surviving using those machines... If you take a kid out of the cord you can actually keep him alive using our tech! So even if the wishful thinking definition of living and non-living was true, you would need to mandate abortion doctors to make sure to kill the fetus before cutting the cord... Else, if the 'knife' cut the cord accidentally instead of the child, he child would become an 'independent' human being that could be sustained by the use of a machine, just before getting killed - oh sorry, 'undone' .


---
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/fetuslearn.html

it was easy to get those from a google search, it should be possible to find better sources.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 05 Sep 2008, 8:07 am, edited 5 times in total.

I am assuming the brain is what defines humanity, so that's probably a good frontier.


Well, I disagree with those guys, life itself, besides sharing some DNA the mix between a sperm and an egg is just a small cell, just like thrillions of eggs and sperm get killed a day because so many people won't have sex often enough, it is not something I would worry about. Many people would think a soul joins the think, but really - assuming that whole soul stuff was true, how would a brainless bunch of cells sustain a soul? I would say this God would wait for a brain to form before sending in the soul.

I even think there should be a law to suministrate these pills to women reporting rape the very day they are doing the report, at least young women.



--

That's another thing I oppose, so...

^ garbage. foetus does not = living child.

I really wonder how many of you prolifers get out on the streets protesting against war, or protesting the lack of social services to help under privilaged kids. You lot claim to care about 'life' but when it comes to really helping kids and families you have bugger all to say about social welfare, You judge and meddle but do nothing constructive to help the living. Of course doing something constructive, without conditions and judgement is far too hard. Much easier to make offensive plackards and stand at clinics abusing women who are in a very fragile emotional state.

A foetus that is aborted simply ceases to exist and does not miss out on anything. This is very different to murder because murdered people generally have friends and family that will miss them, and they suffer long term distress.

If you really are pro-life do something for the living, not a bunch of cells that are not yet compatible for life.

You are just rationalizing the things here, if it is fair game to kill a seven months faetus it should be all right to do so on newly born, and viceversa, you guys keep saying things like the kid would live a terrible life, or that he will be unviable, the same could be true for many guys that according to your arbitrary definition are living, should we get rid of them as well?


I wonder how many of you guys will stop generalizing like heck. All I am saying is, abortion is murder, accept it, if you think murder is ok when the kid would not live a good life or when the mother does not want to keep the kid, go for it, but don't come with BS saying that it is wrong to kill a one week old while it is not wrong to kill a learning capable, living human fetus. Stop it with the double standards...



I guess those old cultures human sacrifice of new born babies does not classify as murder, it is simple like that, the baby would also cease to exist, people wouldn't miss them, they have no friends. You are just saying this:
- it is all right to stop someone's life when he will not be missed.
- It is all right to stop someone's life when he would suffer more in the long term, but you are the one who decides whether that is true or not.
- If the action to stop someone's life follows the afore mentioned rules, it is not murder.

Of course, those arguments don't apply to just abortion, damnit I can think of so many serial killers arguing that nobody would have missed their victims...



I figured you don't bother reading my posts, perhaps because I am an evil anti-abortion guy and all of us are the same bunch of ret*ds that want raped girls to marry the rapists and pursue the criminalization of menstruation ... which entitles you to call what I say garbage even though you didn't read it, Ok.

I take it you do so much stuff for the living (explicitly those who fit your arbitrary definition of living) so much that you can actually use the moral high ground of the "I do stuff for the living! You don't!" argument. I was not expecting to face such a charitable soul in a discussion about abortion, I understand this changes all things, since you are so good at helping 'the living' and we aren't all our arguments have become invalid.

---
Anyway, perhaps you are right, perhaps the world would be a better place if we began killing more children that would be living in too poor of a family/ country to correctly sustain their lives. These guys are inviable and the world is overpopulating, if humanity was cold and practical extermining them would actually be a good idea, and a convenient solution for all our problems.

Of course, we humans have not lost our humanity yet and cannot really accept such 'method' to save our kind by killing the less desirable ones. This is the reason I am opposing abortion and the reason you created the arbitrary limit between the living and the non-alive, we don't want that sort of cold logic to come to the world. Even if in the practical sense it would be a solution for a lot of problems we are having, it just doesn't seem right for most of us. Killing those we think are predestined to suffer... I understand why is it you don't want to accept fetus are human beings since in that case we would have to deal with so many moral questions that it is better to just assume only those who whether by time, luck or a surgery that was done to protect the mother since she is a special case and would be too risky not to rush the birth of the children got their cords cut are 'living' this helps us avoid all those questions I mentioned...

I am pro-choice.

A woman has the right to choose.

If a woman decides to have the baby but not
raise the child, the other alternative is to place the child up for adoption.

Right?

I am pro-choice.

Please don't kill me with a pitchfork.

No matter how much you like to think that a neonate is the same as a fetus, it is simply not biologically true. A neonate needs milk and support, true, but it is not physiologically dependent on a specific individual for every function of its body. Its own heart and lungs work. Its own liver and kidneys work. Its own digestive tract works. This is not true of a fetus. As a case in point, a friend of mine was killed in a car crash several years ago. Her 3-month-old baby was in a car seat in the back, and while she was killed instantly (head-on collision at freeway speeds from another car crossing the median), the baby was nearly unscathed. A group of five other local women who were also nursing at the time got together and pumped breast milk for the baby, and gave it to the dad who was now the sole caregiver. The baby survived just fine without its mother. The same cannot be said of a fetus.




Just because you think that abortion is murder does not make it so; no one is required to just 'accept it' because you say so. A fetus before Human EEGs and viability is not a person, and no hand-waving and wailing about 'human life' will make it so. An adult without human EEG readings is not considered alive; why should it be otherwise for a fetus?




He wasn't claiming the moral hight ground. He was calling you a hypocrite.
You do understand the difference, don't you?



"We"? what is this "We"? the whole point is that only the mother has the right to decide whether or not to bring a child into the world. Even if we accept your ridiculous premise that abortion = infanticide, only the mother would have a right to off her own kids.



I guess Iraqis don't count as humans, then.

Wow, you have been brainwashed good.

You don't think the mother bearing the child that has the abortion won't ever have nightmares of holding her baby and she will not wake up sad because she will never know what her child would have been like?

This sometimes continues for years. Imagine 5 years after having an abortion. You see another five year old and you get sad. It's called a trigger. There are actually support places for post abortion.

I've been saying liberals this and liberals that but I've come to realize something. Why have liberals claimed movements of all kinds as "theirs?"

I didn't know that Martin Luther King had a liberal agenda? Didn't know that belonged to liberals.

I didn't know that when women were fighting for their rights, they too had liberal agenda.

Now I'm wondering the same thing about autistic rights. Are liberals going to claim this movement as theirs too so that when they pervert it much like everything else, the liberals will be speaking for autistic rights?

Oh and liberals also own the gay rights movements

Why can't they claim Nambla too?

Because ultra-conservative Catholic priests already have.

I thought it was because gays kicked Nambla out of their group which is something that was necessary. It shows strong leadership as most groups are eventually infiltrated by people who claim to have the same goals but are there to twist up the movement to endorse their own movement.

Sorry, I have to interrupt here.

I'm going to tell you about my experience. Because yes, I've had one.

It was totally unplanned, obviously. Three forms of contraception failed somehow. I'll never forget the moment I saw that + on the test stick.

My partner and I - because yes, I have a long-term partner in a steady, stable relationship - discussed our options, and we both agreed that abortion was really the only viable option, for a number of reasons.

It was hell. Utter hell. You have this thing growing inside you wanting to turn into a person; the hormones totally take over. You have your body telling you to have a baby, and your mind saying no.

It's probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make in my life.

Anti-abortion a**holes made me so angry that I actually had to be escorted out of a building by my other half at one point because they were so vile. It pissed me off before; now it just makes me seeth with anger.

Because let's get something straight: Nobody wants to have an abortion. And nobody takes that decision lightly. You can't. It's gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, extraordinarily painful (though not physically). It's like being thrown head-first into a dark, black hole, and you can't see any light or any way out. It's not something I'd wish on my worst enemy.


But guess what?

I have no regrets. Sure, it took a week or so to get over the horror of the whole experience. But I never lost sleep over it. I don't beat myself up over something that happened so long ago now. I don't wonder what the child would have looked like or count birthdays or feel guilty for 'killing my child'. Because I didn't kill my child - I don't have any children and never have done! I stopped something growing inside me that had the potential to turn into a child had I let it keep growing. To be honest, I barely even think about it anymore, it just doesn't occur to me until I hear another a**hole ripping into a poor girl whose managed to find herself trapped in that same dark pit without any light.

To me, it's something that's in my past. I don't regret the abortion; I regret having to go through it in the first place. But such is life - nothing you can really do about it. I don't feel guilty, I don't feel sad in any way other than sad it couldn't have happened in a few years when I would have kept it. There's no point in dwelling on the past and beating oneself up - I did what I had to do at the time, it sucked, but in the long run there's no real harm done. If anything I now have an understanding of what others go through and can be more helpful if, heaven forbid, anyone else I know has to go through the same thing.

I'm no sociopath, and I certainly have a conscience; I'm just a girl who did what had to be done.

Lekiwi, I'm not meaning to make you feel bad personally. I've heard some comments regarding women expressing their pain after having abortions and the other side would come into talk about just how easy it was for them and didn't shed a tear. I was referring to that incident which I thought of as just mean and sociopathic.

The point is, it's not as easy as people make it out to be. It's not an easy decision and on top of that you get weeks to decide. I had a friend who didn't want to abort but her boyfriend was crying on the floor and she did it for him. It definetly wasn't all her and she was miserable over it.

He slept well at night meanwhile she was depressed. She had to experience some other things that I won't get into here because it is graphic.

If you must know, I am pro-choice as meaning this.

It's your call. It's your body, it's your life but also understand that it's not always as easy as people try to make it out to be.

There are people that pressure women into aborting and those people are not pro-choice. They are pro-abortion.

My friend's boyfriend was not pro-choice, he was pro-abortion.

I'm not very thrilled with these use of nice colorful phrases if people use it in a negative way or in a way it wasn't intended.

Such as someone else who has a very liberal dad but the dad tried to scare his son into thinking of abortion only and coercing his pregnant girlfriend at the time into doing it.

pro choice is not pro abortion