Abortion Debate Forum - What drives me Crazy!

GuÂ£st

replied on September 26th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

i dont "get" the whole "hard cases" is acceptable either

|

NeutralUsername

replied on September 26th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

Re: What drives me Crazy!

toomuchfreetime wrote:

It drives me nuts to hear the anti-choicers say that rape or a physical risk to the mother during the birthing process is a different story when it comes to abortion.
If a pregnancy is an innocent child who is murdered by abortion and is paying for the crimes of the mother then how is rape or any other deemed "acceptable" reason by anti-choicers any different?

Newsflash, Its not people.

Devils advocate as I am pro-choice,
If abortion is going to be illegal and wrong then it's illegal and wrong for everyone and you can't pick and choose who it's right for.

A baby didn't choose to be the product of a rape, why is it okay for the mother to choose there emotions over the baby? If the woman is extremely traumatized and hates what is growing in her, she will probably try to either kill herself or the baby inside her. I am for abortions for the health of the mother. I count mental health, too.

A baby didn't choose to be born to someone who has a high risk of dying on the birthing table so why is it okay for the mother to choose the impotance of their life over that babies? I consider aborting to save your life a form of self-defense. It's natural to not want to die. But, of course it isn't the baby's fault. If the woman doesn't abort, BOTH may die.

A baby didn't choose to develop severe dissabilities so why should that innocent life be ended just because it would be born without the ability to ever live a normal life(not speaking about down syndrom but other more serious dissabilities) It depends on the disability. Some cause immediate death or a slow painful death. Some people even let their newborns die if they have to be hooked up to machines and they don't stand a chance. Some parents don't want to see their babies suffer.

If a pregnancy from contaception is supposed to be an innocent life who never asked to be born and it's immoral and wrong to abort at any stage then those rules would have to include everyone.
For the anti-choicers...unless nature concludes the pregnancy is unviable and miscarries naturally then obviously within the confins of the beliefs the reason for the pregnancy wouldn;t matter, all that would matter is that the pregnancy is followed through with.

Now I am obviously PRO choice and think that any woman is welcome to have their own beliefs and make their own decisions when it comes to what happens to their own body. But it really drives me crazy when someone says something is not okay and should be illegal but then goes on to give a BUT here and BUT there with all their backwards exceptions in between.

Or is that reasoning just incase they fall into the catagory of their own exception one day (God forbid) and their giving themselves an out for making it right?

megafon

This kind of thing also happens from the pro-choice side. Some pro-choicers are against abortion after a certain point because they say the fetus is viable and can live on its own. But, that fetus is STILL in the woman's body. You can't fight for a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body but then say she shouldnt abort a healthy viable fetus. It's still using her body. It's still IN HER.

|

GuÂ£st

replied on September 26th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

Thats a good point, never thought of that one.

|

oopoopoop

replied on September 26th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Re: What drives me Crazy!

NeutralUsername wrote:

This kind of thing also happens from the pro-choice side. Some pro-choicers are against abortion after a certain point because they say the fetus is viable and can live on its own. But, that fetus is STILL in the woman's body. You can't fight for a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body but then say she shouldnt abort a healthy viable fetus. It's still using her body. It's still IN HER.

Agreed. My view is that if, for any reason at any time, a woman does not want to be pregnant, then it is her right to have the fetus removed. If that is AFTER the point at which it could theoretically be viable (eg 23 weeks plus, currently), then it could be removed, ie induced and delivered. Obviously, the majority of very premature neonates will perish, and slightly later ones may have disabilities -- it would be up to whatever authorities to determine what resources should be allocated to life-support and medical intervention, just as with ordinary premature births.

However, it's really a virtually academic argument. There are only a handful of elective abortions carried out late term. Only a tiny number of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and those are almost uniformly due to the discovery of severe fetal abnormality or threats to maternal health. Even if it was not illegal to terminate at that stage, virtually no woman who had allowed a pregnancy to continue to that point would choose to abort at that point. Indeed, if abortions were more available early, even those carried out at 16 weeks would be drastically cut.

Certainly one could identify exceptions -- perhaps a young girl who was an incest victim and did not know she was pregnant or who was not in a position to seek medical attention? Perhaps a woman discovers that the man who had impregnated her is really her brother? Maybe if Elisabeth Fritzl, the Austrian girl who was imprisoned in the basement by her father for 24 years and kept as a sex slave, actually giving birth to seven of his children. Perhaps if at the time she was freed she had been 6 months pregnant, she would have liked to have aborted that one?

|

Users who thank oopoopoop for this post: aochriss

WhiteHairs

replied on September 26th, 2008

Experienced User

Re: What drives me Crazy!

NeutralUsername wrote:

toomuchfreetime wrote:

It drives me nuts to hear the anti-choicers say that rape or a physical risk to the mother during the birthing process is a different story when it comes to abortion.
If a pregnancy is an innocent child who is murdered by abortion and is paying for the crimes of the mother then how is rape or any other deemed "acceptable" reason by anti-choicers any different?

Newsflash, Its not people.

Devils advocate as I am pro-choice,
If abortion is going to be illegal and wrong then it's illegal and wrong for everyone and you can't pick and choose who it's right for.

A baby didn't choose to be the product of a rape, why is it okay for the mother to choose there emotions over the baby? If the woman is extremely traumatized and hates what is growing in her, she will probably try to either kill herself or the baby inside her. I am for abortions for the health of the mother. I count mental health, too.

A baby didn't choose to be born to someone who has a high risk of dying on the birthing table so why is it okay for the mother to choose the impotance of their life over that babies? I consider aborting to save your life a form of self-defense. It's natural to not want to die. But, of course it isn't the baby's fault. If the woman doesn't abort, BOTH may die.

A baby didn't choose to develop severe dissabilities so why should that innocent life be ended just because it would be born without the ability to ever live a normal life(not speaking about down syndrom but other more serious dissabilities) It depends on the disability. Some cause immediate death or a slow painful death. Some people even let their newborns die if they have to be hooked up to machines and they don't stand a chance. Some parents don't want to see their babies suffer.

If a pregnancy from contaception is supposed to be an innocent life who never asked to be born and it's immoral and wrong to abort at any stage then those rules would have to include everyone.
For the anti-choicers...unless nature concludes the pregnancy is unviable and miscarries naturally then obviously within the confins of the beliefs the reason for the pregnancy wouldn;t matter, all that would matter is that the pregnancy is followed through with.

Now I am obviously PRO choice and think that any woman is welcome to have their own beliefs and make their own decisions when it comes to what happens to their own body. But it really drives me crazy when someone says something is not okay and should be illegal but then goes on to give a BUT here and BUT there with all their backwards exceptions in between.

Or is that reasoning just incase they fall into the catagory of their own exception one day (God forbid) and their giving themselves an out for making it right?

megafon

This kind of thing also happens from the pro-choice side. Some pro-choicers are against abortion after a certain point because they say the fetus is viable and can live on its own. But, that fetus is STILL in the woman's body. You can't fight for a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body but then say she shouldnt abort a healthy viable fetus. It's still using her body. It's still IN HER.

are you suggesting that prostitution is legal that suicide is legal?

|

NeutralUsername

replied on September 26th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

Re: What drives me Crazy!

phlem wrote:

NeutralUsername wrote:

toomuchfreetime wrote:

It drives me nuts to hear the anti-choicers say that rape or a physical risk to the mother during the birthing process is a different story when it comes to abortion.
If a pregnancy is an innocent child who is murdered by abortion and is paying for the crimes of the mother then how is rape or any other deemed "acceptable" reason by anti-choicers any different?

Newsflash, Its not people.

Devils advocate as I am pro-choice,
If abortion is going to be illegal and wrong then it's illegal and wrong for everyone and you can't pick and choose who it's right for.

A baby didn't choose to be the product of a rape, why is it okay for the mother to choose there emotions over the baby? If the woman is extremely traumatized and hates what is growing in her, she will probably try to either kill herself or the baby inside her. I am for abortions for the health of the mother. I count mental health, too.

A baby didn't choose to be born to someone who has a high risk of dying on the birthing table so why is it okay for the mother to choose the impotance of their life over that babies? I consider aborting to save your life a form of self-defense. It's natural to not want to die. But, of course it isn't the baby's fault. If the woman doesn't abort, BOTH may die.

A baby didn't choose to develop severe dissabilities so why should that innocent life be ended just because it would be born without the ability to ever live a normal life(not speaking about down syndrom but other more serious dissabilities) It depends on the disability. Some cause immediate death or a slow painful death. Some people even let their newborns die if they have to be hooked up to machines and they don't stand a chance. Some parents don't want to see their babies suffer.

If a pregnancy from contaception is supposed to be an innocent life who never asked to be born and it's immoral and wrong to abort at any stage then those rules would have to include everyone.
For the anti-choicers...unless nature concludes the pregnancy is unviable and miscarries naturally then obviously within the confins of the beliefs the reason for the pregnancy wouldn;t matter, all that would matter is that the pregnancy is followed through with.

Now I am obviously PRO choice and think that any woman is welcome to have their own beliefs and make their own decisions when it comes to what happens to their own body. But it really drives me crazy when someone says something is not okay and should be illegal but then goes on to give a BUT here and BUT there with all their backwards exceptions in between.

Or is that reasoning just incase they fall into the catagory of their own exception one day (God forbid) and their giving themselves an out for making it right?

megafon

This kind of thing also happens from the pro-choice side. Some pro-choicers are against abortion after a certain point because they say the fetus is viable and can live on its own. But, that fetus is STILL in the woman's body. You can't fight for a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body but then say she shouldnt abort a healthy viable fetus. It's still using her body. It's still IN HER.

are you suggesting that prostitution is legal that suicide is legal?

I have no idea what your point of these questions are.

|

Darkmoon

replied on September 27th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

Prolifers really can't win on this one. If they make exceptions they are considered hypocritical, yet if they don't, they're considered evil. Personally the idea of forcing women to breed is evil enough by itself for me, but I must admit there's a greater level of evil involved in violating a female twice by forcing her to gestate and birth her rapist's spawn.

I can't say I envy prolifers on this particular subject, but contrary to some prochoicers, I have a bit of respect for the prolifers that at least show compassion for rape and incest victims.

|

Users who thank Darkmoon for this post: Lilly Ivy

WhiteHairs

replied on September 29th, 2008

Experienced User

Re: What drives me Crazy!

NeutralUsername wrote:

toomuchfreetime wrote:

It drives me nuts to hear the anti-choicers say that rape or a physical risk to the mother during the birthing process is a different story when it comes to abortion.
If a pregnancy is an innocent child who is murdered by abortion and is paying for the crimes of the mother then how is rape or any other deemed "acceptable" reason by anti-choicers any different?

Newsflash, Its not people.

Devils advocate as I am pro-choice,
If abortion is going to be illegal and wrong then it's illegal and wrong for everyone and you can't pick and choose who it's right for.

A baby didn't choose to be the product of a rape, why is it okay for the mother to choose there emotions over the baby? If the woman is extremely traumatized and hates what is growing in her, she will probably try to either kill herself or the baby inside her. I am for abortions for the health of the mother. I count mental health, too.

A baby didn't choose to be born to someone who has a high risk of dying on the birthing table so why is it okay for the mother to choose the impotance of their life over that babies? I consider aborting to save your life a form of self-defense. It's natural to not want to die. But, of course it isn't the baby's fault. If the woman doesn't abort, BOTH may die.

A baby didn't choose to develop severe dissabilities so why should that innocent life be ended just because it would be born without the ability to ever live a normal life(not speaking about down syndrom but other more serious dissabilities) It depends on the disability. Some cause immediate death or a slow painful death. Some people even let their newborns die if they have to be hooked up to machines and they don't stand a chance. Some parents don't want to see their babies suffer.

If a pregnancy from contaception is supposed to be an innocent life who never asked to be born and it's immoral and wrong to abort at any stage then those rules would have to include everyone.
For the anti-choicers...unless nature concludes the pregnancy is unviable and miscarries naturally then obviously within the confins of the beliefs the reason for the pregnancy wouldn;t matter, all that would matter is that the pregnancy is followed through with.

Now I am obviously PRO choice and think that any woman is welcome to have their own beliefs and make their own decisions when it comes to what happens to their own body. But it really drives me crazy when someone says something is not okay and should be illegal but then goes on to give a BUT here and BUT there with all their backwards exceptions in between.

Or is that reasoning just incase they fall into the catagory of their own exception one day (God forbid) and their giving themselves an out for making it right?

megafon

This kind of thing also happens from the pro-choice side. Some pro-choicers are against abortion after a certain point because they say the fetus is viable and can live on its own. But, that fetus is STILL in the woman's body. You can't fight for a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body but then say she shouldnt abort a healthy viable fetus. It's still using her body. It's still IN HER.

how can the term fetus which is a technical term for a stage of continuous human development be used if you are trying to justify abortion by saying humans do not have a continuous lifespan? the adult/adolescent is a container for the baby untill it is born. it is the babies choice to remain alive. you can't fight for the baby's choice to do whatever it wants but than say the baby wants someone to kill it with an abortion.

|

oopoopoop

replied on September 29th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Re: What drives me Crazy!

phlem wrote:

how can the term fetus which is a technical term for a stage of continuous human development be used if you are trying to justify abortion by saying humans do not have a continuous lifespan? the adult/adolescent is a container for the baby untill it is born. it is the babies choice to remain alive. you can't fight for the baby's choice to do whatever it wants but than say the baby wants someone to kill it with an abortion.

I think you are not reading others' posts correctly, as you keep claiming that something was said which was not -- or are you deliberately pretending to be obtuse as a cunning rhetorical play? Possibly not.

But if you really do see women as "containers" for fetuses, your problems are much deeper than can be dealt with by the kind-hearted posters on this forum.

|

Users who thank oopoopoop for this post: aochriss

AyaMiyaki

replied on September 29th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

An unborn child, or even a newborn child, is not capable of choice. It does not yet have the mental capacity to decide anything. To say that it's his/her choice to remain alive is like saying it's his/her choice as to what colors the nursery walls should be.

|

WhiteHairs

replied on September 29th, 2008

Experienced User

AyaMiyaki wrote:

An unborn child, or even a newborn child, is not capable of choice. It does not yet have the mental capacity to decide anything. To say that it's his/her choice to remain alive is like saying it's his/her choice as to what colors the nursery walls should be.

unlike you i did not magically appear as an adult. i started out as a baby just like everyone else did. and that is how i know that babies prefer staying alive to being killed with abortions.

|

nightangel73

replied on September 29th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

AyaMiyaki wrote:

An unborn child, or even a newborn child, is not capable of choice. It does not yet have the mental capacity to decide anything. To say that it's his/her choice to remain alive is like saying it's his/her choice as to what colors the nursery walls should be.

Aya unborn and newborn child respond to threath of pain and death. Try to kill a newborn you will see it will try to do what he/she can to remain alive. It is human instict to remain alive. They sure can't express it in words but you can clearly see it in the reactions. Birthing is actually a good example. Why is it that babies inmediatly cry when born? Because when you cut the umbilical cord the baby feels asfixiated and that's how they begin breathing as an instict to survive. So clearly babies want to remain alive. They are just totally defendless and fragile.

|

AyaMiyaki

replied on September 30th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

Nightangel: Instinct, yes. Choice, no.

phlem wrote:

]unlike you i did not magically appear as an adult. i started out as a baby just like everyone else did. and that is how i know that babies prefer staying alive to being killed with abortions.

Babies don't know what abortions are and do not have the capacity for choosing life over a medical procedure they know nothing about. They behave purely on instinct - this is not choice. And while you were once a baby and think that defines your expertise, I have HAD a baby (and am having another one) and have first-hand experience with newborns. They are not rational-thinking beings - they are not developed enough. Their actions are defined by their instincts, which have been honed by evolution - NOT by choice.

|

aochriss

replied on September 30th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

phlem wrote:

AyaMiyaki wrote:

An unborn child, or even a newborn child, is not capable of choice. It does not yet have the mental capacity to decide anything. To say that it's his/her choice to remain alive is like saying it's his/her choice as to what colors the nursery walls should be.

unlike you i did not magically appear as an adult. i started out as a baby just like everyone else did. and that is how i know that babies prefer staying alive to being killed with abortions.

Back when I was an egg I didn't want to be killed through menstruation.

|

aochriss

replied on September 30th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Re: What drives me Crazy!

phlem wrote:

are you suggesting that prostitution is legal that suicide is legal?

Yes.

|

aochriss

replied on September 30th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

nightangel73 wrote:

Aya unborn and newborn child respond to threath of pain and death. Try to kill a newborn you will see it will try to do what he/she can to remain alive.

What exactly does an embryo, which is what we are talking about in the abortion debate, do when threatened with pain and death?

|

Birch

replied on September 30th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Darkmoon wrote:

Prolifers really can't win on this one. If they make exceptions they are considered hypocritical, yet if they don't, they're considered evil. Personally the idea of forcing women to breed is evil enough by itself for me, but I must admit there's a greater level of evil involved in violating a female twice by forcing her to gestate and birth her rapist's spawn.

That hypocrisy is another reason why the prolifers viewpoint is wrong. If you can't win no matter how you do it, there is something wrong with the reasoning.

|

WhiteHairs

replied on September 30th, 2008

Experienced User

aochriss wrote:

nightangel73 wrote:

Aya unborn and newborn child respond to threath of pain and death. Try to kill a newborn you will see it will try to do what he/she can to remain alive.

What exactly does an embryo, which is what we are talking about in the abortion debate, do when threatened with pain and death?

are you suggesting that if a person is not aware of their killer(s) it is ok to kill him?

|

aochriss

replied on September 30th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

phlem wrote:

aochriss wrote:

nightangel73 wrote:

Aya unborn and newborn child respond to threath of pain and death. Try to kill a newborn you will see it will try to do what he/she can to remain alive.

What exactly does an embryo, which is what we are talking about in the abortion debate, do when threatened with pain and death?

are you suggesting that if a person is not aware of their killer(s) it is ok to kill him?

That wasn't the question. nice try, though.

|