Abortion Debate Forum - 100% pro-choice

Birch

replied on March 15th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

People interested in outlawing abortion are not doing it because they care about women's health. That is not a point you can take up with them. The number of abortions will go down if it is outlawed, and they are more concerned about that and would rather sweep away any realistic concerns under the rug.

|

lonestarguy

replied on March 15th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

There is no logical reason for abortion to be outlawed in the first place. But, pro-life supporters are less attentive to the needs of the women getting abortions than they are in bringing people to their side of the argument.

In their minds, women should have no choice over their body and whether to bring a baby into an unwelcome situation. They consider it to be a baby any time after a man ejaculates into the women and then they seek to make those women feel guilty for killing a baby for any decision to terminate.

The abortion discussion is a long, involved and complicated scenario of what ifs and never weres. Of course, it makes much more common sense to use real doctors, but somehow, the health of the woman never distracts the pro-lifers from their appointed rounds of thinking more about the health of a non-feeling, non-thinking and non-human tadpole.

|

yodavater

replied on March 16th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

Re: 100% pro-choice

nmangelfire wrote:

Whether by law abortion is prohibited, there will always be women getting them, no matter what.

No laws have even totally eliminated any criminal activity, like homicide for example. Should we consider that in deciding whether to keep homicide against the law?

nmangelfire wrote:

Abortion will go underground and will most likely be done by N.O.N professionals, therefore hundreds of women will die, whether from infection or during the procedure itself. .

And 100% of those illegal abortions will be done by prochoicers, will they not?

In what other area of public law do we put the interests of the perpetrator of violence ahead of the interests of the victims of that violence?

|

yodavater

replied on March 16th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

lonestarguy wrote:

There is no logical reason for abortion to be outlawed in the first place.

Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep it legal. It's not about logic, it's about values. Do you place a higher value the life of the baby, or the right of the mother to kill that baby?

lonestarguy wrote:

thinking more about the health of a non-feeling, non-thinking and non-human tadpole.

"Tadpoles"? You think we are "tadpoles" before birth? And you got your educatshun..... where?

|

Kypros

replied on March 16th, 2008

Experienced User

yodavater wrote:

lonestarguy wrote:

There is no logical reason for abortion to be outlawed in the first place.

Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep it legal. It's not about logic, it's about values. Do you place a higher value the life of the baby, or the right of the mother to kill that baby?

Like you, yodavater, I consider the language - its connotation and denotations - to be very important indeed with regard to the abortion debate. Therefore, I will pick up on this point in my quote.

Firstly, you say: "Nor is there any 'logical' reason to keep it [abortion] legal". This is a response to the statement "There is no logical reason to make abortion illegal". I notice here that you don't defend delegalising abortion as "logical", but rather it is illogical along with legalising abortion. You've just condemned your own stance and furthermore, put it in the same box as thview you ostensibly abhor.

Secondly, you claim that abortion is a matter of values, which clearly differ from individual to individual, and as you say everything depends on the crude question "Do you place a higher value on the life of the baby or te life o the mother?". I will show you now that you have just praised the very notion, the epicentre, and core initiative of the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice incentive is based on and revolves around the very concept of having the choice of who or what to place a value on. Some women have no problem whatsoever with those who consider the foetus more important or those favour their bodily autonomy. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, frantically push for the former and irrationally attack the latter.

So, is it not fair that every person be free to decide for him/herself what has a higher value and this be applied on the nearest personal level possible? I.e. x can be a Catholic and give birth to the baby she conceived after being raped because she personally values the life of the foetus more than her own, whereas person y, a 44-year old secular, career-orientated married mother of two can have an abortion because she only ever intended to have two kids so she could juggle her working life under a far balance and, moreover, because she personally values her own life more than an existence of something within her body?

Pro-choice isn't about liking abortion (I mean who does?). It's not even about being comfortable with it or ever having to opt for it. It's about not being so blindly fascistic that we are content with forcing every person under our Government to follow a rigid, dangerous dogma of force-feeding one single set of values. The only 'dogmatic value' I adhere to - and proudly so - is that of allowing every citizen to create their own dogmatic values that are of no concern to anyone - especially politicians - but themselves, their own lives, their own bodies. This is moral libertarianism at its very grandest.

Can you justify your position? Can you justify your desire to enforce oppressive values (which you have previously conceded are subjective ideas) onto everybody in your country via the law? Why shouldn't women who place a higher value on terminating their pregnancy be allowed to exact their own values in the same way pro-life women have the right to squeeze out as many welfare-drainers* as they want? I'll give you your chance to shine now. Until you can justify your position, you are a mere hypocrite. Or perhaps you would like to make a confession of totalitarianism?

*I used that for effect; don't take it personally. See, I used semantic hyperbole because its nuances were appropriate for me, as the author of this post, at this moment in time. The joys of being pompously pedantic, eh Razz

.

|

nmangelfire

replied on March 16th, 2008

New User

Kypros wrote:

yodavater wrote:

lonestarguy wrote:

There is no logical reason for abortion to be outlawed in the first place.

Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep it legal. It's not about logic, it's about values. Do you place a higher value the life of the baby, or the right of the mother to kill that baby?

Like you, yodavater, I consider the language - its connotation and denotations - to be very important indeed with regard to the abortion debate. Therefore, I will pick up on this point in my quote.

Firstly, you say: "Nor is there any 'logical' reason to keep it [abortion] legal". This is a response to the statement "There is no logical reason to make abortion illegal". I notice here that you don't defend delegalising abortion as "logical", but rather it is illogical along with legalising abortion. You've just condemned your own stance and furthermore, put it in the same box as thview you ostensibly abhor.

Secondly, you claim that abortion is a matter of values, which clearly differ from individual to individual, and as you say everything depends on the crude question "Do you place a higher value on the life of the baby or te life o the mother?". I will show you now that you have just praised the very notion, the epicentre, and core initiative of the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice incentive is based on and revolves around the very concept of having the choice of who or what to place a value on. Some women have no problem whatsoever with those who consider the foetus more important or those favour their bodily autonomy. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, frantically push for the former and irrationally attack the latter.

So, is it not fair that every person be free to decide for him/herself what has a higher value and this be applied on the nearest personal level possible? I.e. x can be a Catholic and give birth to the baby she conceived after being raped because she personally values the life of the foetus more than her own, whereas person y, a 44-year old secular, career-orientated married mother of two can have an abortion because she only ever intended to have two kids so she could juggle her working life under a far balance and, moreover, because she personally values her own life more than an existence of something within her body?

Pro-choice isn't about liking abortion (I mean who does?). It's not even about being comfortable with it or ever having to opt for it. It's about not being so blindly fascistic that we are content with forcing every person under our Government to follow a rigid, dangerous dogma of force-feeding one single set of values. The only 'dogmatic value' I adhere to - and proudly so - is that of allowing every citizen to create their own dogmatic values that are of no concern to anyone - especially politicians - but themselves, their own lives, their own bodies. This is moral libertarianism at its very grandest.

Can you justify your position? Can you justify your desire to enforce oppressive values (which you have previously conceded are subjective ideas) onto everybody in your country via the law? Why shouldn't women who place a higher value on terminating their pregnancy be allowed to exact their own values in the same way pro-life women have the right to squeeze out as many welfare-drainers* as they want? I'll give you your chance to shine now. Until you can justify your position, you are a mere hypocrite. Or perhaps you would like to make a confession of totalitarianism?

*I used that for effect; don't take it personally. See, I used semantic hyperbole because its nuances were appropriate for me, as the author of this post, at this moment in time. The joys of being pompously pedantic, eh Razz

.

I love you Smile

|

Kypros

replied on March 16th, 2008

Experienced User

nmangelfire wrote:

Kypros wrote:

yodavater wrote:

lonestarguy wrote:

There is no logical reason for abortion to be outlawed in the first place.

Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep it legal. It's not about logic, it's about values. Do you place a higher value the life of the baby, or the right of the mother to kill that baby?

Like you, yodavater, I consider the language - its connotation and denotations - to be very important indeed with regard to the abortion debate. Therefore, I will pick up on this point in my quote.

Firstly, you say: "Nor is there any 'logical' reason to keep it [abortion] legal". This is a response to the statement "There is no logical reason to make abortion illegal". I notice here that you don't defend delegalising abortion as "logical", but rather it is illogical along with legalising abortion. You've just condemned your own stance and furthermore, put it in the same box as thview you ostensibly abhor.

Secondly, you claim that abortion is a matter of values, which clearly differ from individual to individual, and as you say everything depends on the crude question "Do you place a higher value on the life of the baby or te life o the mother?". I will show you now that you have just praised the very notion, the epicentre, and core initiative of the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice incentive is based on and revolves around the very concept of having the choice of who or what to place a value on. Some women have no problem whatsoever with those who consider the foetus more important or those favour their bodily autonomy. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, frantically push for the former and irrationally attack the latter.

So, is it not fair that every person be free to decide for him/herself what has a higher value and this be applied on the nearest personal level possible? I.e. x can be a Catholic and give birth to the baby she conceived after being raped because she personally values the life of the foetus more than her own, whereas person y, a 44-year old secular, career-orientated married mother of two can have an abortion because she only ever intended to have two kids so she could juggle her working life under a far balance and, moreover, because she personally values her own life more than an existence of something within her body?

Pro-choice isn't about liking abortion (I mean who does?). It's not even about being comfortable with it or ever having to opt for it. It's about not being so blindly fascistic that we are content with forcing every person under our Government to follow a rigid, dangerous dogma of force-feeding one single set of values. The only 'dogmatic value' I adhere to - and proudly so - is that of allowing every citizen to create their own dogmatic values that are of no concern to anyone - especially politicians - but themselves, their own lives, their own bodies. This is moral libertarianism at its very grandest.

Can you justify your position? Can you justify your desire to enforce oppressive values (which you have previously conceded are subjective ideas) onto everybody in your country via the law? Why shouldn't women who place a higher value on terminating their pregnancy be allowed to exact their own values in the same way pro-life women have the right to squeeze out as many welfare-drainers* as they want? I'll give you your chance to shine now. Until you can justify your position, you are a mere hypocrite. Or perhaps you would like to make a confession of totalitarianism?

*I used that for effect; don't take it personally. See, I used semantic hyperbole because its nuances were appropriate for me, as the author of this post, at this moment in time. The joys of being pompously pedantic, eh Razz

.

I love you Smile

I love you, too Very Happy

. I feel a need to return the feeling yes

.

|

Moo

replied on March 18th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

yodavater wrote:

Do you place a higher value the life of the baby, or the right of the mother to kill that baby?

The right of the woman to choose whether or not to carry the z/e/f (or baby if you must), obviously. You?

|

Tylanas

replied on March 18th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

I'm going to have to say I'm 90% pro-choice, because I approve of 90% of abortions. It's probably higher than that even, since even in the case of a late-term abortion, it is most likely done for a medical reason.

|

Lilly Ivy

replied on March 18th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

what I don't understand is the fact that even once the baby is born, the mother still makes EVERY decision for that baby, especially medical wise. So why shouldn't she make the choice BEFORE it's a newborn baby? She nourishes it, so she chooses what nutrients it gets. Why not choose to keep it or not?

|

oopoopoop

replied on March 19th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

I'm going to have to say I'm 90% pro-choice, because I approve of 90% of abortions. It's probably higher than that even, since even in the case of a late-term abortion, it is most likely done for a medical reason.

Your rationale makes me uncomfortable. It is possible to disapprove of 100% of abortions, but still be pro-choice. Otherwise you are "pro-whatever-Eiri-decides-is-acceptable" , not pro-choice.

|

Tylanas

replied on March 19th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

As I have stated on other topics, I do not believe the labels are as black and white as everyone wants them to be. A lot more pro-choicers would be willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't like abortion for this reason or at this time" if they weren't scared of people screaming at them and calling them anti-choice.

|

oopoopoop

replied on March 19th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

As I have stated on other topics, I do not believe the labels are as black and white as everyone wants them to be. A lot more pro-choicers would be willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't like abortion for this reason or at this time" if they weren't scared of people screaming at them and calling them anti-choice.

It is possible to not like abortion for this reason or that reason, but still accept that it is a CHOICE that someone may make. It is possible to not approve of or like any reason at all for an abortion, but accept that it is the choice of the woman and no one else to make the decision.

|

Kypros

replied on March 19th, 2008

Experienced User

poopoopoo wrote:

Eiri wrote:

As I have stated on other topics, I do not believe the labels are as black and white as everyone wants them to be. A lot more pro-choicers would be willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't like abortion for this reason or at this time" if they weren't scared of people screaming at them and calling them anti-choice.

It is possible to not like abortion for this reason or that reason, but still accept that it is a CHOICE that someone may make. It is possible to not approve of or like any reason at all for an abortion, but accept that it is the choice of the woman and no one else to make the decision.

Fully agree with poopoopoo. I don't LIKE any abortion, but I support the right of every woman, regardless of what other, unrelated people think, to choose. I'm 100% pro-choice. I don't feel like an extremist, just a proponent of basic human rights.

|

Tylanas

replied on March 19th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

Just like I don't think people should have the choice to murder other born people, I feel they should not have the choice to murder a viable fetus. It's too damn late. Unless there is a medical reason, you should not have the right to whimsically kill the late-term unborn.

Thankfully the law agrees with me on this. It just ruffles my feathers when extreme pro-choicers say they approve of the murder of nearly-born babies.

|

Kypros

replied on March 19th, 2008

Experienced User

Eiri wrote:

Just like I don't think people should have the choice to murder other born people, I feel they should not have the choice to murder a viable fetus. It's too damn late. Unless there is a medical reason, you should not have the right to whimsically kill the late-term unborn.

Thankfully the law agrees with me on this. It just ruffles my feathers when extreme pro-choicers say they approve of the murder of nearly-born babies.

I won't write an essay, but let me just point out one thing to you: you are (generally) opposed to late-term abortion, but you make an exception for medical reasons. You also say that late-term foetuses are the same as neonates. If this is the case, then surely neonates can be murdered if they're medically ill? Or not? If not why? Because neonates and late-term foetuses are not the same.

|

Tylanas

replied on March 19th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

They are not IDENTICAL and I have never claimed such. However, despite your verbal wriggling, I can still say this with strength: They ARE different from early-term fetuses. They ARE viable. This viability gives them MORE of a life-to-right than an early-term fetus because quite simply, it is capable of being INDEPENDENT.

|

meblonde01

replied on March 19th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

They are not IDENTICAL and I have never claimed such. However, despite your verbal wriggling, I can still say this with strength: They ARE different from early-term fetuses. They ARE viable. This viability gives them MORE of a life-to-right than an early-term fetus because quite simply, it is capable of being INDEPENDENT.

I agree with you Eiri.. and I know what you mean. But tell me how is it more independent because it is visiable then when it is not. It is still living off from the mother.. Right? It isn't even independent when it is born. Someone need to take care of it.

|

Tylanas

replied on March 19th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

meblonde01 wrote:

Eiri wrote:

They are not IDENTICAL and I have never claimed such. However, despite your verbal wriggling, I can still say this with strength: They ARE different from early-term fetuses. They ARE viable. This viability gives them MORE of a life-to-right than an early-term fetus because quite simply, it is capable of being INDEPENDENT.

I agree with you Eiri.. and I know what you mean. But tell me how is it more independent because it is visiable then when it is not. It is still living off from the mother.. Right? It isn't even independent when it is born. Someone need to take care of it.

Viable. And it is more independent because the Point Of Viability is the age at which the fetus is capable of being removed from the womb and surviving independently.

By independent, I mean that it is not physically attached to someone's body. Not the mother's, not the father's. If newborns were NOT independent in this sense, then the only person that could care for them would be the birth mother, and they would still be attached to her via the umbilical cord. This is not how humans reproduce. After birth, the baby is literally independent from the mother's body.

One of the major tenants of the pro-choice movement is that the unborn does not have a right to live over that of the mother because it is incapable of being alive independently from her body. If you remove a 10 week fetus from the mother, it will not survive, even if you remove it in one piece. A 30 week fetus will. Thus, it is CAPABLE of independence.

Another tenant of pro-choice thought is that you cannot give rights to what MIGHT become capable of independence or what MIGHT become a baby. A viable fetus IS capable of independence, right now. You remove it and it lives. That has to count for something!!

|

12 3 4 5 6 7 >>