Abortion Debate Forum - How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)? page 10


How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?

Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?

Author

Message

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 10-08-07 10:21am


I think most women on this forum would actually rather be dead than be considered marriage material for someone like you.

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Posted: 10-08-07 10:31am

futureshock wrote:

I think most women on this forum would actually rather be dead than be considered marriage material for someone like you.

An abortion debate message board is a funny place to be looking for love. Rolling Eyes

embarrassed40

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 323
Location: topeka, kansas

Posted: 10-08-07 10:36am

futureshock wrote:

I think most women on this forum would actually rather be dead than be considered marriage material for someone like you.

When you are an adult, I hold that suicide is permissable, but that is a little off-topic here.

Be that as it may, I shall be married once again prior to Christmas, so you needn't concern yourself about marrying me. Please put down the gun, breath deep and count to 10, I am not going to hunt you down and demand you marry me! Laughing

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-08-07 10:48am

Moo wrote:

The problem with this is rights conflict - how can the "right" of a non sentient z/e/f (remale or not) take precedence over that of a born person? It's impossible to legislate in the cases where women do not wish to be pregnant and this is why the "unborn" do not have such rights

It all comes down to whether you see all human life as equal. If we are all equal from conception to death....then no one humans life is more important than another. However....if you see only certain human life as having the right to "choice" and to live...then who next will no longer have the right to "choice" and life?

Moo wrote:

I support three choices for any women who is pregnant.
I do not wish to give a non sentient human a voice, no. Why? Because while she/he is living only through the use of someone elses body then the women supporting them takes priority.
z/e/f's aren't capable of making/understanding choices so the last point is irrelevant imo.

The key word here is living. Also...by your logic those that aren't capable of making/understanding choices covers a lot of human life. So are you saying that newborns, toddlers, people with brain injuries, and people with alzheimers are not worthy of life because they really have no voice....thus no choice?

Are we talking personhood here? Are those only able to recognize their own personhood worthy of life? That again would leave out newborn to 6 mo. olds, and some with brain injuries and alzheimers.

Or is your main issue that the fetus grows inside the womans womb....thus making it her body? If that is the case....how then can someone be tried for double homicide if the woman and her fetus die from someone shooting them? Oh wait....I have heard the answer to this one before. If the fetus was wanted by the mother....then the fetus was human life....therefore a seperate human life and the shooting resulting in the death of the fetus is wrong. However....if the mother does not want the fetus....then the fetus is part of her body and then through abortion the fetus also dies(in a much crueler way)....but the result is the same as the gunshot....but the end result in this case is okay. Does anyone else here see some creepy double standards going on?

Also let us talk viability here. If a baby is 24 weeks....in some states....it can still be aborted....and yet if it were born....it would have an 80-90% chance of survival....so we are talking about a human life that could (if allowed) live outside the womb.....so what is the justification here?

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1066
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:111

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 07:20am

trina1 wrote:

Moo wrote:

We are not all equal from conception to death. Do I think my foetus is equal to myself or my partner? No - and that's a wanted pregnancy! Born people have rights, a z/e/f has none as it is incapable of using them, it's not sentient, it is not independant. If you could remove one and it could live somewhere other than my uterus then great but I will not remain pregnant against my wishes because my birth control failed and every woman capable of making that choice should be able to legally.

Moo wrote:

trina1 wrote:

Are we talking personhood here? Are those only able to recognize their own personhood worthy of life?

Only born humans are people, whetehr or not an unborn human is born depends upon the woman carrying it - nothing to do with worth
That again would leave out newborn to 6 mo. olds, and some with brain injuries and alzheimers.

trina1 wrote:

Or is your main issue that the fetus grows inside the womans womb....thus making it her body?

I am aware it has separate DNA etc, it survives entirely off her body - different to what you're implying I think

trina1 wrote:

[If that is the case....how then can someone be tried for double homicide if the woman and her fetus die from someone shooting them?

Doesn't happen here but I disagree entirely with it.

trina1 wrote:

[Oh wait....I have heard the answer to this one before. If the fetus was wanted by the mother....then the fetus was human life....therefore a seperate human life and the shooting resulting in the death of the fetus is wrong.

Please don't assume you know what I think. A z/e/f is human regardless of being wanted or not.
Yes the death of the z/e/f should only be decided by the woman but I don't agree it's murrder otherwise

trina1 wrote:

[However....if the mother does not want the fetus....then the fetus is part of her body and then through abortion the fetus also dies(in a much crueler way)....but the result is the same as the gunshot....but the end result in this case is okay. Does anyone else here see some creepy double standards going on?

No double standards - please do not assume to nkow what my opinions are. As you will see above no double standards

trina1 wrote:

[Also let us talk viability here. If a baby is 24 weeks....in some states....it can still be aborted....and yet if it were born....it would have an 80-90% chance of survival....so we are talking about a human life that could (if allowed) live outside the womb.....so what is the justification here?

Here it is allowed up to and during week 24 and to birth for some reasons.
Viability isn't an issue for me, induce labour if that will make you feel better and get some pro-lifer to adopt it. Personally I wouldn't abort at that stage but I don't know anyone elses position as they didn't know mine when I aborted.

Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1180
Location: ,

Thanks: 23

Thanked:13

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)? Posted: 10-09-07 07:22am


[quote="trina1" Also let us talk viability here. If a baby is 24 weeks....in some states....it can still be aborted....and yet if it were born....it would have an 80-90% chance of survival....so we are talking about a human life that could (if allowed) live outside the womb.....so what is the justification here?[/quote] Actually I'd like to see your evidence here. If this were true we wouldn't need the rest of the months gestation for a viable fetus and could easily simply induce labor at this stage of developement. Proof please.

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1066
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:111

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 07:24am

Jincks013 wrote:

[quote="trina1"

Also let us talk viability here. If a baby is 24 weeks....in some states....it can still be aborted....and yet if it were born....it would have an 80-90% chance of survival....so we are talking about a human life that could (if allowed) live outside the womb.....so what is the justification here?

Actually I'd like to see your evidence here. If this were true we wouldn't need the rest of the months gestation for a viable fetus and could easily simply induce labor at this stage of developement.
Proof please.[/quote]
I am also interested in this, not sure that viability is anywhere near that high that early

(and sorry for rubbish quoting on my above post LOL)

Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1180
Location: ,

Thanks: 23

Thanked:13

Posted: 10-09-07 07:33am


I found a study on the issue seen Here and it does not support the 24 week 80 - 90 % survivability. everything I've seen puts those stats at 26 - 28 weeks.. Edit Also more info here which shows 24 weeks has a huge gap of between 40 to 70% survivability so I'd really like to know where this 89 - 90% survivability comes from for 24 weeks Trina.

embarrassed40

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 323
Location: topeka, kansas

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 08:30am

Moo wrote:

Jincks013 wrote:

I am also interested in this, not sure that viability is anywhere near that high that early

(and sorry for rubbish quoting on my above post LOL)[/quote]

What differance does it make if her percentages are off by a few points? Is that the difference between frivolously aborting or keeping the child? What will be the next excuse/reason?

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 10-09-07 10:11am


It seems the percentages were off by Dozens of points O.o. There's a huuuge difference between 40% and the 90% you were claiming!

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 13:25pm

Jincks013 wrote:

Actually I'd like to see your evidence here. If this were true we wouldn't need the rest of the months gestation for a viable fetus and could easily simply induce labor at this stage of developement.
Proof please.[/quote]

Go to any NICU in any state and you are going to see babies born anywhere from 22 weeks to 28 weeks in the NICU....most will survive and live perfectly normal lives. I know this because my son was born 7 years ago at 27 weeks. In the NICU they had babies brought in everyday at 24 weeks who did quite well. My son was there for 5 months because he caught a blood infection because the I.V.'s weren't pulled from his embilical cord soon enough.....but most of those babies didn't spend more than a month or so in the NICU and they all went home fine. Nature gives human gestation 9 months/40 weeks because optimally this is what is needed for a fetus to fully mature....but many, many babies are born and survive much earlier.

Here is just one example.....and if you surf the net....you will find many more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/art i...icc=picbox&ct=5

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 13:27pm

trina1 wrote:

Also let us talk viability here. If a baby is 24 weeks....in some states....it can still be aborted....and yet if it were born....it would have an 80-90% chance of survival....so we are talking about a human life that could (if allowed) live outside the womb.....so what is the justification here?

Jincks013 wrote:

Jinks and Moo.....Go to any NICU in any state and you are going to see babies born anywhere from 22 weeks to 28 weeks in the NICU....most will survive and live perfectly normal lives. I know this because my son was born 7 years ago at 27 weeks. In the NICU they had babies brought in everyday at 24 weeks who did quite well. My son was there for 5 months because he caught a blood infection because the I.V.'s weren't pulled from his embilical cord soon enough.....but most of those babies didn't spend more than a month or so in the NICU and they all went home fine. Nature gives human gestation 9 months/40 weeks because optimally this is what is needed for a fetus to fully mature....but many, many babies are born and survive much earlier.

Here is just one example.....and if you surf the net....you will find many more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/ live/arti...icc=picbox&ct=5[/quote]

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Posted: 10-09-07 13:31pm

Jincks013 wrote:

I found a study on the issue seen Here and it does not support the 24 week 80 - 90 % survivability. everything I've seen puts those stats at 26 - 28 weeks..

**Edit**
Also more info here which shows 24 weeks has a huge gap of between 40 to 70% survivability so I'd really like to know where this 89 - 90% survivability comes from for 24 weeks Trina.

You are right....I did have my numbers messed up. The fact though is....40-70% do survive. The average there is 50% and as you can see 26-28 weeks which is still a long way from full term move up to an average of 85%. So even though my numbers were off.....the point remains the same.

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 10-09-07 14:08pm

Eiri wrote:

It seems the percentages were off by Dozens of points O.o. There's a huuuge difference between 40% and the 90% you were claiming!

It's the difference between "less than half" and "almost all".

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 14:09pm

Moo wrote:

The problem actually is....that whether born or unborn....we are all human life.....and the unborn are merely a stage of human life not unlike a toddler, a teen, or the elderly. Not all stages of human life are equal in ability to recognize personhood, think, reason, or even to be able to voice an opinion or choice....BUT all stages are equal in the fact that they are human life and therefore should not be destroyed because one stage of human life is deemed more important than another.

Moo wrote:

I know a z/e/f is living.
A z/e/f/ cannot make a choice because it is a growing, non sentient human who lives primarily off my body as opposed to an incapacitated born human. You were making the point of "If they could choose" but the fact is they can't.

A newborn can't choose either does that is why someone (the parent) gives that newborn a voice. Common sense tells us that no one would choose to be disected in the womb....so that is why these fetuses(human lives) need a voice to stand up and say....."you wouldn't want to die that way...so what makes you think we would?" So disregarding a human life because he/she can't speak for itself is a rather poor excuse for supporting "choice" IMHO.

quote="Jincks013"]Only born humans are people, whetehr or not an unborn human is born depends upon the woman carrying it - nothing to do with worth.[/quote]

Born or in the womb....we are all human life...just different stages....and because of that...we all deserve our life to be both protected and respected. It has everything to do with worth.....a woman who "chooses" to keep her fetus finds that human life "worthy" of life. On the other hand....a woman who "chooses" to abort....finds that human life "unworthy" of life....therefore...the "worth" of human life plays a huge part in abortion.

quote="Jincks013"]I am aware it has separate DNA etc, it survives entirely off her body - different to what you're implying I think.[/quote]

No...I think we are talking about the same thing. The fetus is a seperate human life that grows inside the mother for 9 months....but because at least until 24 weeks on... it would not likely be viable outside the mothers womb....you therefore consider it a part of the mothers body and thus she has the "right" to allow that fetus to live or die. Am I right?

Jincks013 wrote:

Doesn't happen here but I disagree entirely with it.

It does happen. Here is a case that happened a while back and the law that insued from the death of the both the mother and the unborn child.

https://www. kansashouse.org/republican-caucus/caucus-p ress/alexa2019s-law-passes-legislature/

Jincks013 wrote:

Please don't assume you know what I think. A z/e/f is human regardless of being wanted or not.
Yes the death of the z/e/f should only be decided by the woman but I don't agree it's murrder otherwise

My apologies...I was not meaning to assume your personal response...just the patent pc response.
You say "A z/e/f is human regardless of being wanted or not.
Yes the death of the z/e/f should only be decided by the woman but I don't agree it's murrder otherwise"....may I ask if it is a deliberate act in which human life is life is destroyed....if it is not murrder....then what is it?

[quote="Jincks013"]No double standards - please do not assume to nkow what my opinions are. As you will see above no double standards[/quote}

Again I apologize for assuming you would give the patent pc answers. But I must say....you have shown me that no double standards apply. Quite to the contrary....you have shown me that unborn human life is only worthy if the mother says it is....and THAT is a double standard.

Jincks013 wrote:

If you ever want to induce labor and are looking for someone to adopt....please let me know. I would be there in a heart beat.

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Posted: 10-09-07 14:11pm

futureshock wrote:

Eiri wrote:

It seems the percentages were off by Dozens of points O.o. There's a huuuge difference between 40% and the 90% you were claiming!

It's the difference between "less than half" and "almost all".

And I admitted my mistake...and thank you for correcting it...but the fact remains....if even "only" 40% survived...that is quite a few.

Georgia59

Supporter

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5557
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA

Thanks: 90

Thanked:32

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 15:42pm

Moo wrote:

Jincks013 wrote:

I am also interested in this, not sure that viability is anywhere near that high that early

(and sorry for rubbish quoting on my above post LOL)[/quote]

Proof? I was born at 6 months.

Sorry to burst your bubble lol- but I was perfectly healthy. I stayed in the hospital for a night like most babies.

My mom thinks the docs got the date wrong, though.

trina1

Active User, Really EHEALTHy

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 528
Location: , Lost in Oz.

Re: How Can Women Be Anti-choice (a.k.a. Pro-life)?
Posted: 10-09-07 16:29pm

Georgia59 wrote:

Proof? I was born at 6 months.

That is about the same time my son was born. Do you know how big you were? My son was 2#'s then dropped down to 1# 15 oz. He was 13 inches long. I had never seen a baby that small.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 10-09-07 19:22pm

futureshock wrote:

Eiri wrote:

It seems the percentages were off by Dozens of points O.o. There's a huuuge difference between 40% and the 90% you were claiming!

It's the difference between "less than half" and "almost all".

No, it's a huge difference. If I had to go in for an operation and there was a 90% chance I'd survive, I would do it. If there was only a 40% chance, I'd reconsider. 90% is almost an absolute. 40% is not.

embarrassed40

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 323
Location: topeka, kansas

Posted: 10-09-07 19:55pm

Eiri wrote:

futureshock wrote:

Eiri wrote:

It seems the percentages were off by Dozens of points O.o. There's a huuuge difference between 40% and the 90% you were claiming!

It's the difference between "less than half" and "almost all".

Comparing apples to oranges once again, only to make a point and "Win" an argument! Rolling Eyes