Do you think abortion is wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

I had an abortion. I'm of the very strong opinion that if you're not someone who has needed an abortion and will never need one then you're not in a position to have an opinion. Every woman is an individual, whose life circumstances, health and personal needs will be as individual as anything a man experiences. And you cannot presume to even know any one woman's situation in detail enough to pass judgement on her choice to get an abortion. That is why it's none of anyone else's business, except for that woman and anyone else *she* wishes to include in that choice, like her partner or her family.

Moreover, to say abortion is wrong except in cases where the woman might die is such bullcrap. The only reason anyone would think woman should not have abortion except when that she might die is because limiting access to abortion is ultimately about controlling the woman. That's the position of someone who thinks women need to be punished for being sexual persons, as nature made us, and for having sex, as is natural and normal. We hear the same nonsense with the case of rape. But since you didn't make that exception, I'm going to assume you're a classy dude who thinks women who are raped should be punished for it (because we all know rape is the victim's fault and not the rapist's).

But either way, if you make one exception for abortion than really, you're saying the medical procedure of abortion itself is OK. It's just you don't think women ourselves actually have the right to choose an abortion,and thus iltimately be able to make choices about our own lives and health. We need Very Moral Men like you to decide when it might be OK for us to have an abortion--like if we might die. How gracious of you! Buuuuuut giving that ANY pregnancy can be life-treatening because pregnancy is inherently a risky biological event, I wonder where we are suppose to draw the line? Any OB-Gyn will tell you you can't actually know when a woman "might die" from a pregancy until she actually has died, and then,whoops, it's a little too late your crusading moralizing! What a pickle!

In addition to the reality-defiant absurdity of all of this, your postion exposes how your baseline thinking towards women is that we're sluts and whores, and only a few of us can possibly be exempt from your judgement. Nevermind that the majority of women who seek abortions are already mothers with families and want an abortion because they cannot afford another child for one reason or another. Those whores!

But facts--eh. They mess with our BELIEFS. And we love believing women deserve to be controlled and punished, because we're such damned sluts. Nevermind if forcing women to carry an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy:

--keeps them and their children in poverty, or will force them into poverty
--forces them (and any children they may have) to stay with an abusive partner
--swamps them with medical bills for themselves or their child that are financially overwhelming
--costs them a job or an education which in turn limits their future ability to earn an income to support themselves and that child
--or if their pregnancy complicates a pre-existing health problem, like heart disease or depression, compromises their long-term health and ability to raise that child

Why should we let logic, facts, common decency and compassion over those very real issues that compel women to seek an abortion get in the way of our sanctimonous belief that women are just whores who need to be kept in their place? Why should we let women have any control over their bodies, their life choices and ultimately their quality of life and the quality of life of any child they may have? No. Can't have that. Too reasonable. Too compassionate. Too civilized. And that would be too much like treating women like they are human beings. The horror.

Look, let's get real: abortion has been a part of human culture as long as there has been human culture, because women, like or it not, have always made choices about when they should and should not be pregnant (actually a very common phenomenon in many species). For ages, we have trusted women to make this choice. It's only in recent centuries, thanks largely to patriarchial religions like Christianity, that society has stopped trusting women to make these choices about pregnancy and child-bearing that we have evolved to make. Yeah, that's why nature gave us the uterus and not you dudes. Sorry, but it's time to start trusting women again. Deal with it.

Someone's response about this on another forum was this

im a little confused. You just did exactly what he said liberals do and assumed his position was one of hate.

He said nothing about the morality of it, nothing about punishing them, he simply said that the decision had been made by having sex. It seems pretty clear to me.

its not an anti sex stance, its a take the way you deal with your life more seriously stance.

Pro-choice defenders need to stop attacking the pro-life supporters and actually defend their assertion that a zygote/fetus is part of a women's body, instead of ignoring the fact that people oppose abortion because they think it's murder, NOT because they want to control or demean women. Even if they're right that the fetus is part of a woman and she can do with it as she pleases, making attacks on the character of pro-life supporters is ignorant and overshadows the facts of their position (and the actual stance of the pro-life position).

Pro-choice defenders need to stop attacking the pro-life supporters and actually defend their assertion that a zygote/fetus is part of a women's body, instead of ignoring the fact that people oppose abortion because they think it's murder, NOT because they want to control or demean women.

Up to the point of viability, a zef will die if it is removed from the woman's body, just like any other body part would. Up to the point of birth, the zef is using the woman's body as life-support, straining her heart, her lungs, her kidneys, and everything else. It's basic biology.

They may not intend to control or demean women, but this is a consequence and cannot be ignored.

A born baby will die too if taken from it's mother.

A hospitalized adult human who has been severely hurt will die if taken off of life support systems. Being dependent doesn't mean it's not its own organism.

Pro-choice defenders need to stop attacking the pro-life supporters and actually defend their assertion that a zygote/fetus is part of a women's body, instead of ignoring the fact that people oppose abortion because they think it's murder, NOT because they want to control or demean women

Really? So how come so many people who identify as "pro-life" also actively object to funding government programs to help poor mothers raise those children it was so vital they didn't abort?

I would believe it wasn't about demeaning and controlling women if "pro-life" people were as concerned about BORN babies as they seem to be about fetuses.

That is not accurate. Babies are transferable from one adult to another; a father can support an infant just as well as a mother can, with a little help from a formula company, a goat, or other mothers willing to donate breast milk.

One of the men at my dojo raised a daughter by himself after his wife was killed in a car accident; the baby was three months old at the time, and the daughter is now in her mid teens. Other women in the dojo who had breast-fed children at the time donated milk for the baby.

It would not be entirely inaccurate to say that life support is an extension of the person, or vice-versa. Such a person is, effectively, a cyborg. In fact, we can and do remove adult humans from life support, which have no recognizably human brain function.

In addition, there's the extremely important point that the machine does not have anything else it wants to do with its existence other than provide life support, nor is it actively harmed (even in a healthy pregnancy) by the presence of the adult to which it is providing life support.

A born baby will die too if taken from it's mother.

Because many of them believe in a small government and want the government to stay out of people's personal lives.

Really? So how come so many people who identify as "pro-life" also actively object to funding government programs to help poor mothers raise those children it was so vital they didn't abort?

I would believe it wasn't about demeaning and controlling women if "pro-life" people were as concerned about BORN babies as they seem to be about fetuses.

I'm not against abortion, but I think there should be a legitimate and logical reason for doing so. (ex: rape, unplanned, etc.)