Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

It IS a baby plain and simple. (Page 2)


April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
cmyked wrote:

A premie born at this stage will be fought for night and day. How can you say it is ok to abort a perfectly healthy fetus from a healthy mom at this stage? You can't, unless you are shallowly trying to defend killing.


I don't think many of us would say that. You didn't actually quote any post that said that either. Wonder where you're getting this from.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
cmyked wrote:

I already have lurked, for several days.


Excellent. Then you would have read my posts in the past about not caring what you call it, it's all the same. However, you cannot deny that education is important. I'm glad we understand each other.


jujujellybean wrote:
Birch wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:
think on this: if a woman has an abortion, she will go through life without that child. IF she doesn't have an abortion, in nine months there will be a child there. In seven years, she will have a seven year old. In fifty, her child will be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is no child. How can you say that is right and just?


Because she doesn't want a child? Confused Is that hard to fathom?


No, but terribly terribly sad that because of what she WANTS a life and beating heart should have to be ended.


I could equally say that it's terribly terribly sad that because of what you WANT a woman is forced to give birth.

No one wins the abortion debate, juju, and no one denies that it is a sad issue. I wish that birth control was 100% free, effective, and realistic.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
Reptar wrote:
cmyked wrote:

A premie born at this stage will be fought for night and day. How can you say it is ok to abort a perfectly healthy fetus from a healthy mom at this stage? You can't, unless you are shallowly trying to defend killing.


I don't think many of us would say that. You didn't actually quote any post that said that either. Wonder where you're getting this from.

I didn't quote it because there was nothing to quote, you're very right; however I have heard pro-choicers attempt to say such.

It brings up a point, however. If people think abortion is all about the woman's right to her body, then why do you in particular think it's not ok to abort a late-term fetus (if that is how you feel)?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
Birch wrote:
cmyked wrote:

I already have lurked, for several days.


Excellent. Then you would have read my posts in the past about not caring what you call it, it's all the same. However, you cannot deny that education is important. I'm glad we understand each other.


jujujellybean wrote:
Birch wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:
think on this: if a woman has an abortion, she will go through life without that child. IF she doesn't have an abortion, in nine months there will be a child there. In seven years, she will have a seven year old. In fifty, her child will be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is no child. How can you say that is right and just?


Because she doesn't want a child? Confused Is that hard to fathom?


No, but terribly terribly sad that because of what she WANTS a life and beating heart should have to be ended.


I could equally say that it's terribly terribly sad that because of what you WANT a woman is forced to give birth.

No one wins the abortion debate, juju, and no one denies that it is a sad issue. I wish that birth control was 100% free, effective, and realistic.


I have to agree that forced birth when an early solution of abortion could be available is indeed terrible. If birth control were 100% effective, I wonder if this debate would still exist? Probably, because some women choose not to use birth control. I have to say I disagree with that.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
I think someone else pointed out giving "birth" to the child (not immediately killing it) once it becomes viable. I only agree with abortion as far as the law allows in and in the cases the law allows it. I don't think abortion is "all" about the womens right to her body, especially when the fetus can be removed and stands a chance at living. If there was a way to remove a 6 week embryo from me and have it continue to grow and become a person, I'd be all for that. But since it's actually impossible, there's no other choice for me if I become pregnant. Once a fetus becomes viable, I think it has earned that right to live, even if it does so outside of me. I don't understand why any women actually waits that long, and the 1% of women who do are mostly getting one out of medical reasons.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
*nod*. I'm glad to hear you say that (as I said on the other topic). And true, it's not much of an issue and is actually illegal in most places. I wonder what some of the other pro-choicers here think of that? Obviously the pro-lifers are glad it's illegal; no need to ask! Smile

Pro-lifers fight to make abortion illegal -- to what extent varies.

Are there pro-choicers who fight to make abortion legal 'till birth?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
cmyked wrote:

Are there pro-choicers who fight to make abortion legal 'till birth?


I'm gonna jump in here. Smile I certainly can't speak for all pro-choicers, but I'm sure there many who want to make abortion legal until birth. My personal opinion is that once a fetus is viable, I don't agree with aborting it. I know a lot of pro-choicers who feel this way. I actually used to believe in abortion until birth. Then a very close friend of mine gave birth 3 months early. I watched this baby struggle to breath and struggle to survive for 16 days. Sadly, she passed away. Crying or Very sad After that, I changed my view on partial birth abortion.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
cmyked wrote:

I have to agree that forced birth when an early solution of abortion could be available is indeed terrible. If birth control were 100% effective, I wonder if this debate would still exist? Probably, because some women choose not to use birth control. I have to say I disagree with that.


Me too. I (now) use two methods of birth control (used only the pill before) but even that is still not 100%. I don't like abortions that are used as a form of contraception by women who are too lazy or stupid to use birth control, but I don't feel it's my place to take that away from them. An abortion is not an easy thing to go through and it's not something that someone should go through unnecessarily. I really do wish a form of birth control was 100% and that it was convenient and cheap (if not free) to obtain. And I also really wish a lot more women would take the steps required to protect themselves before engaging in sexual contact.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 29th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Yes, the vast majority of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks, and a majority of those under 10 weeks. In fact, a reasonable minority of the aborted pregnancies would have ended in miscarriage anyway, so it's not even true that if it wasn't aborted, that it would ever become a person.

A very small minority of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, and the vast majority of those are for medical reasons.

As for should they be legal up until birth -- my view is that if I don't want it inside me, I should have the right to have it removed (if, for instance, I had been kept in captivity until the 23rd week -- hey, not unlikely if you have seen the story from Austria this week!). If it is at the stage of possible viability, then I should have the right to have it removed from my body, delivered alive if necessary, by caesarean or whatever. Sign it over to the state, and whoever wants to pay for the intensive care and try to keep it alive, that is up to them. But I should not be forced to continue to incubate it against my will.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 29th, 2008
Experienced User
I agree; to the extent that you have a right to your body, you have the right to remove the fetus. I think it does have some rights to be there because that's just how biology works, but those rights don't outweigh the rights of the woman to remove it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 29th, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
jujujellybean wrote:
think on this: if a woman has an abortion, she will go through life without that child. IF she doesn't have an abortion, in nine months there will be a child there. In seven years, she will have a seven year old. In fifty, her child will be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is no child. How can you say that is right and just?

And then also:

What if she brings the child into the world only to neglect her? She won't feed it or breastfeed it. Is that wrong?
Someone said that is wrong because she chose to bring the child into the world; so? doesn't she still have the right to do what she wants with her body?


Very inchoherent and illogical. I've read some of your other posts on this thread so I'll answer generally:

No foetus has the right to exist inside the body of a distinct, legally-recognised person. Since this legally-recognised person (i.e. the foetus's mother or hostess) possesses the right to do as she pleases with her body and property, she can freely deny the foetus the right to be sustained by her organs without any scruples, since the foetus never has the right to do so in the first place (it can do so only by the hostess's permission).

Secondly, killing the foetus can be regarded as an act of self-defense as the hostess may feel her irrefutable rights to self-autonomy are under threat by the foetus's presence.

Lastly, foetuses don't have rights because they are not biologically independent or discreet, two 'criteria' needed in order to be distinguished and granted human rights. They live in, on, and from the woman's bodily organs, thus they are subject to the wishes of the mother at all times. To deny the woman the right to abort (that is to say, the denial of her human rights to bodily discretion) could be seen as slavery (the owning of one human by another) in today's civilised world.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 30th, 2008
Experienced User
Self defense is the weakest justification for abortion I've ever heard.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 1st, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
"You're both wrong; but the name of the unborn isn't important."

Thats right, its the nature of the unborn that is important
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 1st, 2008
Experienced User
cmyked wrote:
Self defense is the weakest justification for abortion I've ever heard.


It's actually the best I've heard. If a woman will die if forced to gestate, then I think she has one of the best reasons to abort.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 1st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Wow, most people immediately give rape, and then 'if a mother's life is in danger' for reasons they support abortion. The latter sure sounds like self defense to me, but what do I know. I am a woman without independent thinking skills.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 1st, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
Kypros wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:
think on this: if a woman has an abortion, she will go through life without that child. IF she doesn't have an abortion, in nine months there will be a child there. In seven years, she will have a seven year old. In fifty, her child will be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is no child. How can you say that is right and just?

And then also:

What if she brings the child into the world only to neglect her? She won't feed it or breastfeed it. Is that wrong?
Someone said that is wrong because she chose to bring the child into the world; so? doesn't she still have the right to do what she wants with her body?


Very inchoherent and illogical. I've read some of your other posts on this thread so I'll answer generally:

No foetus has the right to exist inside the body of a distinct, legally-recognised person. Since this legally-recognised person (i.e. the foetus's mother or hostess) possesses the right to do as she pleases with her body and property, she can freely deny the foetus the right to be sustained by her organs without any scruples, since the foetus never has the right to do so in the first place (it can do so only by the hostess's permission).

Secondly, killing the foetus can be regarded as an act of self-defense as the hostess may feel her irrefutable rights to self-autonomy are under threat by the foetus's presence.

Lastly, foetuses don't have rights because they are not biologically independent or discreet, two 'criteria' needed in order to be distinguished and granted human rights. They live in, on, and from the woman's bodily organs, thus they are subject to the wishes of the mother at all times. To deny the woman the right to abort (that is to say, the denial of her human rights to bodily discretion) could be seen as slavery (the owning of one human by another) in today's civilised world.


OK:
When a woman has sex she makes that choice with her body. SHE decides she will do that and run the risk. If she gets pregnant, she now has a new life inside her, and you can throw out all the reasons you want but NONE of them are good enough to kill someone! Most people are dependant on someone else.

And DON'T throw that legal stuff at me. Seriously, SLAVERY was legal and that is now considered wrong. Argue abortion all you want, but leave legality out of it. Was slavery right when it was legal?

And we GET bodily domain by having a body. A fetus does to. And bodily domain is NOT as important as life. Period.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 1st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
jujujellybean wrote:

When a woman has sex she makes that choice with her body. SHE decides she will do that and run the risk. If she gets pregnant, she now has a new life inside her, and you can throw out all the reasons you want but NONE of them are good enough to kill someone! Most people are dependant on someone else.


The idea of "a life inside her" is enough to make me so violently ill that i couldn't imagine not doing everything in my power to kill and remove it. Pregnancy is biology, not morality. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. The idea of being infested is so fundamentally revolting to me that I can't imagine carrying on for one day in that state.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 1st, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
Quote:
think on this: if a woman has an abortion, she will go through life without that child. IF she doesn't have an abortion, in nine months there will be a child there. In seven years, she will have a seven year old. In fifty, her child will be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is no child. How can you say that is right and just?

And then also:

What if she brings the child into the world only to neglect her? She won't feed it or breastfeed it. Is that wrong?
Someone said that is wrong because she chose to bring the child into the world; so? doesn't she still have the right to do what she wants with her body?


You totally contradict yourself in your post. On one hand, you bleat about what makes a fetus a baby and then ask how it is right to abort a "baby" that could grow up to be an individual person. Then you go on to say that the woman "has the right to do what she wants with her body". Well, if the woman has the right to do what she pleases with her body, that must also mean she also has the right to do what she pleases with what is inside her body. That means she should be able to abort an unwanted child, does it not?

Regardless of whether or not you think a fetus is another person or has a soul or can feel pain or recite propaganda poetry, that doesn't change the fact that it is attached to and feeding off the woman's body. This goes beyond, say, having a 40-year-old child still living at home in the basement who sucks your bank account dry. This is about a thing physically draining a woman of nutrition, weakening her, making her vulnerable from a health standpoint, making her vomit (thus losing even more nutrients), sometimes causing dangerous conditions like preeclampsia or hyperemesis, and under certain circumstances, threatening her life when the incubation period is done.

When dealing with the freeloading quadragenarian offspring, they can harm you financially and maybe emotionally - with pregnancy, it causes physical harm and has the potential to become dangerous. Pregnancy can threaten the woman's life, and I think that alone is a good reason to end one when it is unwanted. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for wanting any woman to have to suffer through something like that because you think a vegetating fetus is a person. But since you are a pro-lifer, I know expecting you to have any shame would be ridiculous.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if a woman was throwing up, losing her quality of health and in danger of possibly dying for ANY other reason, everyone would be telling her to take necessary measures to make her condition stop. But when there's a holy baby involved, everyone wants her to remain sick and unhealthy, even if she doesn't want said child. It's sad that the standard can change so much because of one little ball of blood taking root in a woman's uterus.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 1st, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
oopoopoop wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:

When a woman has sex she makes that choice with her body. SHE decides she will do that and run the risk. If she gets pregnant, she now has a new life inside her, and you can throw out all the reasons you want but NONE of them are good enough to kill someone! Most people are dependant on someone else.


The idea of "a life inside her" is enough to make me so violently ill that i couldn't imagine not doing everything in my power to kill and remove it. Pregnancy is biology, not morality. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. The idea of being infested is so fundamentally revolting to me that I can't imagine carrying on for one day in that state.


Of course it is morality. If it is a baby, which has been proven, then to kill it no matter what is wrong.
You are not 'infested' you have a living human in you, and no matter whether you find it revolting or not it still kills a baby, a person. And that is wrong.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 1st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
jujujellybean wrote:
oopoopoop wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:

When a woman has sex she makes that choice with her body. SHE decides she will do that and run the risk. If she gets pregnant, she now has a new life inside her, and you can throw out all the reasons you want but NONE of them are good enough to kill someone! Most people are dependant on someone else.


The idea of "a life inside her" is enough to make me so violently ill that i couldn't imagine not doing everything in my power to kill and remove it. Pregnancy is biology, not morality. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. The idea of being infested is so fundamentally revolting to me that I can't imagine carrying on for one day in that state.


Of course it is morality. If it is a baby, which has been proven, then to kill it no matter what is wrong.
You are not 'infested' you have a living human in you, and no matter whether you find it revolting or not it still kills a baby, a person. And that is wrong.


It's been proven it's an embryo. It doesn't kill a person. Even if it did, it wouldn't be wrong IF THAT PERSON IS INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON. You are just being silly if you think otherwise.
|
Did you find this post helpful?