Questioning My Pro-choice Beliefs Posted: 11-14-07 17:37pm
I don't know why this has even happened to
me, but it most likely has to do with my
dabbling in religion (a couple of elderly
Jehovah's Witnesses have been coming to my
door every Saturday and we've been having
discussions. They are presumably hoping to
proselytise me, but it seems to have been
counter-productive as I am endeavouring to
convince them their New World Translation
is utter tosh, vis-à-vis the clear
evidence that the Bible writes of a Holy
Trinity et al. but that's another
issue...). Not that I am a believer of God
(I am a firm agnostic (simply don't know
if a deity exists) who happens to believe
that atheism is pointless and incredible
(God cannot be proven to not exist)). Nor
do I support a theocracy (religion should
be much more out of Government than it is
and reduced to personal faith and prayer
and nothing more). It's just that religion
clearly speaks in opposition to abortion
and the scientific pro-life view has
sprung to mind, particularly as I was
planning to write a lengthy pro-pro-choice
(the two pros are on purpose; I'm
sure you get the meaning) document to Alive and
Kicking or the Pro-Life
Alliance. Scientifically, the unborn
are irrefutably human beings, and many
pro-lifers argue that this factor alone
should give them the right to live.
Pro-choicers argue that foetuses are not
persons. OK, as a pro-choicer to all
others of my ilk out there who can
hopefully provide me some constructive
arguments, I ask a) what exactly is a
person then? As far as I have ever come
across in life and in the dictionary,
person and human
are not discriminated between. Please show
evidence that not all human being are
persons; b) even if a foetus is not a
person, how does this justify the
intentional killing of an innocent human?
I guess the thought that, if foetuses
deserve equal rights to born humans, a
mass butchering and infanticide has been
woefully and apathetically carried out for
absolutely years, and considering that
this may be true, I just got shocked.
Also, despite the fact that I admittedly
disregarded it previously, pro-lifers
argue fairly that born humans, by the same
logic that foetuses can be aborted due to
their parasitic nature, should not have
any rights if they are being kept alive
because of a life-support machine. As
pro-choicers, could you please point out
the dichotomy and why the latter is not
justified?
Why does the foetus's undeniable parasitic
status mean that it should be legally
terminated? It is still human regardless.
If foetuses, admittedly humans by
pro-choicers, can be aborted because they
are the result of a rape, then why should
born humans born of a rape have rights?
Please don't answer "just because they are
born". It's crucial to being a simple
operation every woman should be permitted
to choose or the violent, bloody, and
murderous discrimination just
for being unborn.
Please don't get me wrong. I have not
turned pro-life. I am simultaneously of
the belief that bigotry is
close-mindedness and that I can remain
very firm in my opinions, which I view as
correct, whilst being open-minded to the
idea that there may be something better
that could change them. If I were to ever
become a pro-lifer I wouldn't feel
hypocritical in the slightest as only a
bigot would say that one has to stick by
the same views when faced with something
more propitious. I just think that I have
accepted certain integral pro-choice
beliefs that were countering pro-life
beliefs, when in fact there are still
pro-life alternatives to attack those
attacks (do you get that
I've never been good at explaining) I
actively encourage all pro-choicers to
explain and answer my questions.
Some of these I may have kept secret, some
you may know of, but here is a list of...
COMMON
PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENTS I DON'T
SUPPORT
1. "Making
abortion illegal is wrong because women
are going to do it anyway, so it is better
that they have the legal, safe, and
healthy choice to do it"
OK, this is unadulterated rubbish. The
exact same logic means that murder (I'm
not saying this is what abortion is, just
for the record) should be legalised
because "killers are going to do it anyway
and should have a healthy, safe, and legal
right to do so in a building specialised
for that". It's just doesn't stick.
2. "You
cannot enforce your beliefs on anyone
else's body but your own. Have your
personal views but stay out of my
vagina"
Firstly, as a libertarian, I believe that
one has the freedom to do whatever one
wants with one's body and property as long
as one doesn't interfere with the freedom
and rights of another person (which is why
I currently support voluntary euthanasia,
although I haven't studied it too in
depth), but this notion cannot be applied
to abortion, since foetuses scientifically
are
not the body of the woman.
They occupy it parasitically, but they are
not part of it. I currently remain
pro-choice and equally of this view.
Whether or not parasitic humans should be
able to be aborted is another issue I have
mentioned above, but they are not a part of
the woman's body. In fact, that fact could
even go against that libertarian
thought, as women are attacking the right
of someone/something else's body.
Secondly, if there is substantial evidence
or reason to prove that foetuses are human
beings frequently immorally and
unjustifiably murdered, then I think the Law
has every right to intervene, just as it
has the right to stop you from killing any
other human being. I am a
libertarian and feel that the Government
has no right to intervene in many things,
but the nature of the discussion and the
possibility that our country
faces infanticide is a totally different
issue.
3. "The
foetus has no rights whatsoever -
it is a parasitic entity occupying the
body of a born, sentient woman who has
rights. However, abortion is just
wrong in x circumstance"
OK, if there is scientific and
logical evidence to prove that the
pro-choice view is of worth to be
implemented as the Law, then the
popular saying on #2 can be applied.
Ostensibly, as pro-choicers, you believe
that the pro-choice arguments should be
legally binding. If this is the case, then
it is utterly nonsensical to oppose
abortion because of a "certain
circumstance" or gestational period. If
foetuses are rightless, then they
categorically should be allowed to be
aborted regardless
In such a case, the idea of "you cannot
place your
semi-pro-choice morals on my uterus" can
be applied, thus suggesting that there is
no LEGAL reason why
abortion should be restricted to certain
conditions. I am of the (rare) absolute
approach to abortion - it doesn't matter
how the foetus got there, whether it's
disabled or healthy, how old it is - it
either has legal rights to life or it
doesn't! If not, there is no logic behind
the opposition to a late-term abortion*
and the support of a first trimester
termination. Viability is so important to
many people, but to me it's as significant
as George Bush frying in a giant
Iraqi-made human pisspot - I
really don't care what the foetus COULD
POSSIBLY do outside of the womb;
the fact is that it IS STILL IN THE
WOMB and therefore remains rightless and parasitic (for those
skeptics, actually yes it is a
parasite because if the mother stop eating
it would die. Essentially, any foetus
requires feeding to survive - it is a
parasite).
*There was a documentary on here in
England a few weeks back discussing
abortion (pictures of terminated foetuses
were shown for the first time on British
TV. They were the "main ones you see on
pro-life websites". I think you'll have a
pretty good idea of which I mean). There
is no consensus for when foetuses feel
pain, however a few scientists said the
'movement' they make is supposedly just
reflexes and the nerve or whatever it is
(I was **** at science and I'm knackered)
in the brain only connects to the response
of pain at birth. If the most common view
is that foetuses are sentient at 20+
weeks, then to be on the 'safe side' I
feel that foetuses could be given numbing
anaesthetic before the abortion.
Please pro-choicers, answer my dilemmas!
The Pro-Life
Alliance's documents on abortion and
euthanasia
are really getting me thinking and
requiring just a refreshing thought -
just why
is pro-choice justified?.
Hopefully, my question can be adequately
answered and I can write a letter to
tackle the Pro-Life Alliance and show just
why choice is better .
Thanks.
From a confused, tired, sleepy, rambling
pro-choicer who needs re-assurance.
|
Gu£st
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Apr 2007 Posts: 767 Location: SUBMERGED IN TRUTH
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Parasite Posted: 11-14-07 19:05pm
I commend you on your honest and open
approach to the issue, your "Re-Think"
Personally I do believe that if you
consider the issue fairly you can only
make one logical conclusion, there are a
lot of things to consider so dont rush,
remain on the fence for as long as you
need, dont feel presured by either side, I
am sure you wont.
I will not try to change what you believe,
I am not going to jump in and remind you
of all the pro life arguments, you know
most of them, and there are always the
many pro life posts on this site for you
to peruse at your own pace without any
pressure, maybe you may have over looked
some crucial points made in them because
of previous certitude regarding your pro
choice possition, perhaps now you are more
conciously open to the pro life possiton
those crucial points maybe more apparant.
I wont say much more since this is
addressed to the pro choice people, except
that your possition on the nature of the
unborn child (fetus) as being a parasite
or of a parasitic nature is incorrect
regarding dictionary deffinition of
scientific understanding. It can be used
in language for example we say a person
who lives off anothers kindness is a
parasite, but we dont mean that in the
actual scientific terms, what we are doing
when we say that is we are dehumanizing
that person for his/her premeditated or
ignorant behaviour, or rather pointing out
his or her own behaviour we regard as
unhuman or at least a bad human behaviour
we do not call a baby who is naturally
predisposed to recieve care either as a
new or pre born a parasite becuase it is
neither out of premetated exploitation or
willful ignorance, but of natural
disposition so what could be the possible
reason for wanting to dehumanize a human
being who is wholly innocent and naturally
predisposed to relly on help?
Scientifically a member of the same
species which is nourished both before and
after birth by the parent is called
"offspring" not a parasite.
|
Jude-Love
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Posts: 727 Location: Williamstown, Kentucky USA
Posted: 11-14-07 20:12pm
Kypros
wrote:
The exact same logic means
that homicide (I'm not saying this is what
abortion is, just for the record) should
be legalised because "killers are going to
do it anyway and should have a healthy,
safe, and legal right to do so in a
building specialised for that". It's just
doesn't
stick.
Um, no. Unless one thinks women who want
abortions are the same as murderers. Then
that kinda makes them a waste of time.
Kypros
wrote:
In fact, that fact could
even go against that libertarian thought,
as women are attacking the right of
someone/something else's
body.
To say that women are "attacking" embryos
is implying that they are malicious.
Which is outlandish.
|
Rodge
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 905 Location: , England, UK
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-14-07 21:27pm
What exactly do you want us to say?
Pro-choice is justified by believing that
women have a right to decide what happens
to their bodies, and that includes
carrying a baby or not. If you don't
believe that, then what's the point in
being pro-choice?
your possition on the nature
of the unborn child (fetus) as being a
parasite or of a parasitic nature is
incorrect regarding dictionary deffinition
of scientific
understanding.
I disagree with you also based on the dictionary's
definition of parasite:
"1. an organism that lives on or
in an organism of another species, known
as the host, from the body of which it
obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support,
advantage, or the like, from another or
others without giving any useful or proper
return, as one who lives on the
hospitality of others."
These obviously cover what you said about
it, but to support the reference to
foetuses as parasites:
"an animal or plant that lives in
or on a host (another animal or plant); it
obtains nourishment from the host without
benefiting or killing the host"
Pedanthood regarding whether the host is
the same organism as the parasite is not
really necessary. All foetuses are
parasitic - they live in and off, in order
to survive, another entity without
contributing to the host's survival.
Irrefutable scientific evidence is only
dehumanising if you blindly associate
parasites exclusively with non-humans.
Gu£st
wrote:
Scientifically a member of
the same species which is nourished both
before and after birth by the parent is
called "offspring" not a
parasite.
Foetuses are offspring and
parasites. Being the former does not mean
it cannot be the latter.
Jude-Love
wrote:
Um, no. Unless one thinks
women who want abortions are the same as
murderers. Then that kinda
makes them a waste of time.
As I said, I was not calling women who
abort murderers. The example does not
even have to be murder.
Let's generalise: I believe that the
notion of "x should legalised because
people are going to do it anyway" is just
nonsensical and does nothing for the
pro-choice argument. x here could be
murder, stealing, rape,
fighting et al.
Jude-Love
wrote:
To say that women are
"attacking" embryos is implying that they
are malicious. Which is
outlandish.
Unless there is a good argument to say why
a certain type of human (in this case an
unborn baby) should have no rights and be
allowed to be killed if desired, then
abortion is malicious and a lot
worse! Again, I must re-iterate that this
is not my current view (I am pro-choice),
but I am speaking from a scientific
pro-life platform.
Rodge
wrote:
What exactly do you want us
to say?
I want you to answer my questions.
Rodge
wrote:
Pro-choice is justified by
believing that women have a right to
decide what happens to their bodies, and
that includes carrying a baby or not. If
you don't believe that, then what's the
point in being
pro-choice?
It certainly is not justified if it cannot
constructively show why some humans can
have rights while others have none at all.
This would equate discrimination,
holocaust, and mass infanticide. Once
again, I am going to say to those who will
probably have read my earlier comments and
ignored them that I do not
believe that. I am speaking from a
pro-life viewpoint. I just
want to be refreshed by the cleverer minds
here why parasitic foetuses,
admittedly humans, can be terminated but
those in a coma, a vegetative state, or on
a life-support machine cannot, despite
their states being extremely similar, if
not identical.
Rodge, there is MUCH more to pro-choice than
believing "a woman should have the right
to control her body and whatever is inside
it", it is why she has that right.
It is complex and subtle yet equally clear
once understood. What I am having scruples
about is why should foetuses (humans) not
have rights? Why should being a parasite
mean you do not have rights? Why should
those alive by a machine not be killed on the same basis
that foetuses are aborted?
N.B. the meanings of human
and person:
Person = "1. a human
being, whether man, woman, or
child: The table seats four
persons.
2.
a human being as
distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being,
esp. with reference to his or her social
relationships and behavioral patterns as
conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or
rational being.
5. the actual self or individual
personality of a human being: You ought
not to generalize, but to consider the
person you are dealing with.
6.
the body of a living human
being, sometimes including
the clothes being worn: He had no money on
his person.
7. the body in its external aspect: an
attractive person to look at.
8. a character, part, or role, as in a
play or story.
9.
an individual of distinction or
importance.
10. a person not entitled to social
recognition or respect.
11. Law. a human being (natural person) or
a group of human beings, a corporation, a
partnership, an estate, or other legal
entity (artificial person or juristic
person) recognized by law as having rights
and duties.
12. Grammar. a category found in many
languages that is used to distinguish
between the speaker of an utterance and
those to or about whom he or she is
speaking. In English there are three
persons in the pronouns, the first
represented by I and we, the second by
you, and the third by he, she, it, and
they. Most verbs have distinct third
person singular forms in the present
tense, as writes; the verb be has, in
addition, a first person singular form am.
13. Theology. any of the three hypostases
or modes of being in the Trinity, namely
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Human being = "1. any
individual of the genus Homo, esp. a
member of the species Homo
sapiens. [size]2. a
person[/size], esp. as
distinguished from other animals or as
representing the human species: living
conditions not fit for human beings; a
very generous human being."
The terms person and human
being can both be used to describe
the foetus and are interchangeable in most
circumstances. Generally, I render human
being as a more scientific term and
person to refer in a more
everyday, mundane manner to express
individuality. The pro-choicers who argue
that a foetus is human but not a person
are either lying or ignorantly professing
something that it not true. The best
policy in the whole abortion debate is to
uphold integrity, honesty, and truth, not
creating discriminations that do not exist
to back their view.
I am particularly interesting in a
response from Cari, Eiri, Birch, Jules
etc. whom I have debated with more
extensively in my presence here .
Kypros.
|
Rodge
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 905 Location: , England, UK
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-15-07 14:13pm
It's not like someone being kept alive by
a machine, though. It's like someone being
kept alive solely by you giving them a
piggyback ride all day every day for nine
months.
Sorry, I do not quite understand that
analogy. Could you explain in more depth?
|
Rodge
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 905 Location: , England, UK
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-15-07 14:28pm
Being on a ventilator isn't the same as
depending completely on another person's
body to give you life.
What are your pro-choice beliefs? I
know you say you're questioning them, but
honestly you're coming across as someone
trying to talk us into a corner. Your
questions basically boil down to 'So,
guys, remind me why we're okay with
KILLING INNOCENT BABIES. I'm totally a
pro-choicer, but I can't remember what
arguments we pro-choicers use to justify
all the KILLING. Also using women's rights
to justify abortion is like the
Holocaust.'
Well, well. Just as I thought, I have been
misunderstood. I made a conscious effort
more than once to get the point over that
I was
speaking from a pro-life
stance. Pedantically
speaking, abortions do kill (= take the life
of) innocent (= they are not guilty of
anything) babies (= young human beings),
although I did not mean it in the negative
stance you seem to think, nor did I
actually say it in that fashion.
I am pro-choice. I
do not really see the necessity for me to
go in any more depth than that as the
philosophy is self-explanatory. I support
the choice of a female to have an
abortion.
I have not forgot the reasons why we are
pro-choice, but I am awaiting a
constructive pro-choice response to the
questions I have asked. For example, many
pro-choicers will argue that foetuses, as
parasites, have no rights. I, from an
empathetic pro-life stance
(I hope that is unequivocal), am asking
why should parasites who
are human beings not have rights? How can
a pro-choicer use logic, reason, and
(scientific) fact to counter that
question?
I am sorry, but I cannot see the
difference in the state of foetuses and
that of those on a life-support machine by
the way you explained it (obviously the
host of foetuses is another human body and
for comatose individuals an electronic
machine, but the [u]logic and basis for
justifying abortion is the same for those
of justifying switching off a life-support
machine because the person it supports has
lost his/her rights to live due to its
lack of personhood (personhood by the way
some pro-choicers here seem to use it in a
more neologistic way)). The abortion
debate demands depth and I feel that, as a
pro-choicer, I should be able to recognise
the difference between the status of
somebody living off a life-support machine
and that of foetuses. I cannot, off my own
back, so I am asking other pro-choice
advocates to help me out and answer where
I am stuck. If I cannot get a decent
answer then I shall struggle in seeing the
logic of being pro-choice. I do not want
it to be that people on life-support have
no rights. This is the correlation to my
first post of the thread. All the
questions I asked there are integral, to
me, to being pro-choice. They need to be
answered.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2132 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 11-15-07 15:21pm
so you are not really questioning your
pro-life beliefs as your thread
says,(because you are pro-choice) but you
are just trying to get pro-choice to give
you answers to questions you have already
in the past felt ?
You want them "pro-choice" to answer you
like you are pro-life?
|
Rodge
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 905 Location: , England, UK
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-15-07 16:27pm
Okay, look. Life-support machine =
MACHINE. Machine = NOT ALIVE OR SENTIENT
IN ANY WAY. It doesn't care that there is
something depending on its internal
workings for life.
A woman is not a machine. A woman might
not want something dependent on her body,
something that gradually demands more and
more until it has to be painfully expelled
after nine months.
You do understand that, right? That women
are not life-support machines? It's not
hard.
Wait, I need to clarify something. Are
libertarians the ones who think we should
get rid of the NHS? Because if that's
where you're coming from, we're going to
have a very big disagreement.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Re: Questioning My Pro-choice Beliefs Posted: 11-15-07 20:24pm
First let me just say that I do not think
you have to be on board with any of these
reasons you've listed to justify your
prochoice position.
I am prochoice because I recognize that
there is a absolute need for safe
abortions in this society. If we lived in
a complete Utopia, I would think more
about becoming prolife.
Why I am prochoice:
*Birth control is not free, readily
available, healthy, and 100% effective
*Therefore, having sex does not mean you
are consenting to forced parturition.
*I do not recognize conception as being a
singular, miraculous event; therefore, I
do not view a fetus or embryo as nothing
much than a biological organ with
potential, but not there yet
*Our society is not (in a nutshell)
friendly economically or psychosocially
towards women, especially single mothers,
especially the impoverished
Now towards your particular questions, and
forgive me if I miss any but your post is
lengthy and my attention span is not.
Kypros
wrote:
Pro-choicers argue that foetuses are not
persons. OK, as a pro-choicer to all
others of my ilk out there who can
hopefully provide me some constructive
arguments, I ask a) what exactly is a
person then? As far as I have ever come
across in life and in the dictionary,
person and human
are not discriminated between. Please show
evidence that not all human being are
persons; b) even if a foetus is not a
person, how does this justify the
intentional killing of an innocent
human?
It doesn't matter to me personally if it's
a person or not, a label does not change
what it is. I simply do not view a fetus,
which I do recognize as a human being, as
anything of extrodinary value- only
something of great potential but isn't
there yet.
Kypros
wrote:
Also, despite the fact that I admittedly
disregarded it previously, pro-lifers
argue fairly that born humans, by the same
logic that foetuses can be aborted due to
their parasitic nature, should not have
any rights if they are being kept alive
because of a life-support machine. As
pro-choicers, could you please point out
the dichotomy and why the latter is not
justified?
Although this is not one of my 'reasons' I
think the dichotomy lies within the
concept of an involuntary versus voluntary
life support system which consists of a
person, not a machine.
Kypros
wrote:
If foetuses, admittedly humans by
pro-choicers, can be aborted because they
are the result of a rape, then why should
born humans born of a rape have rights?
Please don't answer "just because they are
born". It's crucial to being a simple
operation every woman should be permitted
to choose or the violent, bloody, and
murderous discrimination just
for being
unborn.
I am not sure I understand your question.
Are you asking that if a person is born of
rape, is their right to life forfeit
because of the circumstances of their
conception?
I think to answer that, I would have to
defer to a prolife advocate who is prolife
except for circumstances of rape. I have
never understood how to a prolife person a
fetus conceived of rape has any less
"value" to them. This seems clear to me
an issue of mother's consent versus
preserving life.
I think I've answered what I can. I have
not responded to the reasons you have
listed because I can't really rebutt them
because I generally agree with you. I
would also add to your list The Psychic
Hotline theory; the one that the kids born
will have a miserable life in an orphanage
and grow up never knowing the taste of
love or whatever.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 11-15-07 20:27pm
Oh, and, I think humans are an alien
infestation causing considerable and
irrevocable harm to planet Earth. But
that's kind of "harsh" and "out there" and
not generally appreciated.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-16-07 00:56am
Here is why I am pro-choice, and anyone
who isn't hates women, in my opinion:
No matter how many arguments and
rationalizations there are, no matter how
many threats, no matter how hard it is to
obtain,
throughout all of history
in every single society
in every country
there have always been and always will be
women who seek abortions.
Making it illegal just makes it more
dangerous.
It does not save any embryos.
It only harms women.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1180 Location: ,
Thanks: 23
Thanked:13
Posted: 11-16-07 07:50am
Why I think your arguements are rubbish
Kypros: Roe Vs Wade was passed To Save The
Lives of Women not for any
other reason. There are reams of proof
used in the decision clearly showing women
were having abortions anyway: Here is the
article http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/ab
ortion.global.ap/index.html
Basically, it says that the rate of
abortions is about the same regardless of
legality and safeness. Something like
70,000
women die in the world every year due to
unsafe abortions and that another 5
million women suffer temporary or
permanant injury. It goes on to point out
that most unsafe abortions occur in the
poorest countries and those where it is
illegal.
|
Gu£st
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Apr 2007 Posts: 767 Location: SUBMERGED IN TRUTH
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-16-07 09:17am
I think it is interesting that pro choice
people are so intensely focused on the
woman they completely miss the child. I
dont think the pro choice movement is
going to do anything constructive for
equal rights. If anything pro choice
advocates that one human being has
superior rights over another human being,
at one end of the spectrum feminists are
fighting for equal rights with men and at
the other end superior rights over unborn
human beings, yet denying men equal rights
regarding the child, this seems very odd,
I have equal rights to you, superior
rights over our child and you have no
rights at all regarding our child except
those I choose to give to you.... does
this sound fair?
does anyone who disagree with women
wanting this, hate women?
because if so, then I hate women and will
work tirelessly to destroy the laws that
support such madness.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-16-07 11:42am
I do not "completely miss the child".
Anyone who knows anything about my
pro-choice stance knows that I am against
abortions past 27-ish weeks BECAUSE of the
unborn. At that age, it can survive
outside of the womb and that makes it
worthy of life in my opinion. The only
acceptable reasons for an abortion at that
stage in my mind are maternal danger or
fetal deformity.
I am pro-choice because I biologically
know the young embryo/fetus is not an
independent being from the mother.
It is connected to her in the tightest
parasitic connection you can get. It even
has to secrete hormones all 9 months to
prevent the mother's body from rejecting
it.
Because the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside
of the mother's body, her right to remove
it results in its death. This is not just
about a woman's right to kill unborn
babies. It is about her right to not be
pregnant. Initially, that was my sole
belief. I have since come into the belief
that abortion is also merciful, by
preventing a life in the adoption tract or
a life of abuse. So now, abortion is about
the woman's right to end the embryo/fetus'
life before it is grown and can feel pain,
and it is also about her right to not be
pregnant.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:111
Posted: 11-16-07 12:13pm
Gu£st
wrote:
I think it is interesting
that pro choice people are so intensely
focused on the woman they completely miss
the child.
Not completely "miss" it but it's
secondary, yes
Gu£st
wrote:
I dont think the pro choice
movement is going to do anything
constructive for equal
rights.
It's impossible to create equal rights for
the woman and foetus because of the nature
of the relationship in an unwanted
pregnancy. This is why men legally have no
say too, it'd be impossible to legislate
without one persons rights being
superceeded.
As for the difference between a person and
a human being it's as simple as a human
isn't legally a person until birth,
therefore it doesn't have the rights
conferred to people by the law imo. It's
not the main point of my beliefs though
I just wanted to add there's nothing wrong
with questioning your beliefs on anything
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-16-07 13:06pm
Quote:
I think it is
interesting that pro choice people are so
intensely focused on the woman they
completely miss the
child.
That's because there is no child - there's
a woman and a fetus. No children are
involved in abortions. And if fetuses can
have rights, perhaps all growths that ever
can occur in a woman's body should have
rights too. Malignant lump in her breast?
It has a right to life! Ovarian cancer,
and the woman needs surgery to remove the
offending organs? How dare you take away
that organism's right to grow and live on!
Ingrown hair? Oh holy hell, they're people
too! I bet your mother had an ingrown hair
when she was pregnant with you! What if
your mother did to that hair what you did
to your hair? You wouldn't be here, that's
what! Don't be a m*rderer - support life,
and let cancer grow happily and
undisturbed in your body. It's God's way,
don't you know? Support life - happy happy
happy!
(sarcasm off)
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2132 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 11-16-07 13:12pm
Now we are back to the point of comparing
an ingrown hair to a fetus developing into
a human being.( I think it was compared to
a tonsil or something strange like that
last time.) Sorry guys, I see a big diff!
Sad you don't. And sad you can so easily
JOKE about it..
I've never been good at explaining) 
I
actively encourage all pro-choicers to
explain and answer my questions.
and I'm knackered)
in the brain only connects to the response
of pain at birth. If the most common view
is that foetuses are sentient at 20+
weeks, then to be on the 'safe side' I
feel that foetuses could be given numbing
anaesthetic before the abortion.
.
.
