I dont think any of you are giving Juno the respect she deserves. Cate, Juno makes a big sacrifice because, if she had chosen abortion, she would not have had to go through any of the aspects of pregnancy I mentioned. I know she is a fictional character but she represents a lot of women who refuse to take the 'easy option' of abortion and sacrifice 9 months of their lives to doing something immensly courageous and worthwhile. Our modern society is too used to trying to avoid consequences, people Like Juno face up to the consequences of their actions and redeem them by doing something brave and selfless. It turns out that abortion is not a 'quick fix' after all since MANY women suffer the psychological consequences later, women who made the right choice, however, always know that, even if they never see their child again, they did all they could to give them life, a good life. regarding the fathers choice, I agree that he should not be able to force his will on the mother but what if he wants to keep the child and the mother wants to kill it, where is the justice for the father? let alone the child. Injustice begets injustice. The option to kill/terminate should not exist, it is barbaric and it causes nothing but suffering.
how could i possibly give respect to someone who doesnt even exist tim? stop holding up juno as the examplar of positive pregnancy outcomes. she doesnt represent anything but a saccharine hollywood take on a very real situation. if you want reality why not hold up jamie lynn spears up as an example. i live in the real world. i know that abortion is not a quick fix. and i also know the consequences of carrying pregnancy to term.
ho hum... i dont see pregancy as courageous. stop trying to put it on a pedestal as if its something extraordinary. its an extremely commonplace part of, not only a humans life, but other species as well. granted tis an experience that i enjoyed several times, but not every time. to think your growing a life inside you is wonderous at times. but still as i said, it happens all the time every day and night.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
How do you know what women who choose adoption know & feel? How do you know what women who choose abortion know & feel? Why do you think Juno's situation is representative of the 84 million other women in the world each year who have to make a decision regarding their unintended pregnancies?
Juno is a representative of a 'classic' case of someone who acciedntly gets pregnant too young and choses adoption over abortion. I have heard many testimonies of women hurt by abortion. Here are some examples:
Regarding justice for the father, what are you suggesting be done about it? In an ideal world, neither fathers nor mothers would have their children aborted - or given up for adoption, or born - unless that's what they wanted. But we do not live in an ideal world and we must just do the best we can. I'd like to know your position on justice for the fathers when the father wants to abort the child and the mother doesn't. What about justice for the fathers then? Or do they deserve justice only when they agree with what you think is best?
Simple. Abortion should not be an option.
Regarding justice for the embryo, that implies that being born is necessarily what's best for them. If that's what you believe, can you justify that?
Sometimes people wish they had never been born, but thats their choice, nobody elses.
And abortion causes nothing but suffering? While I'm not exactly sure what suffering you're referring to, suffering oftentimes exists no matter what decision you make. Unintended/unwanted pregnancy puts a woman between a rock and a hard place. There is no ideal decision.
The unborn do suffer, they are fully formed at 12 weeks and many are aborted after this time. The women also suffer as I have said above.
In the beginning of this conversation, you were trying to judge the situation using philosophy & logic, and I appreciated that. I see that you've since abandoned those methods and chosen to ignore many good points made by others. I would like to see you address those points.
Sorry if I have ignored any philosophical points, I have not always had time to read all the posts. Which particular ones are you thinking of?
If, however, you simply have a religious objection to abortion, why don't you just go ahead and say so and we can discuss what this is really about?
I do believe in God, but I have not used religious arguments as I dont thnk they are necessary. I think abortion is even more 'wrong' from an atheistic perspective, since the child would never get a chance, even in the next life.
ho hum... i dont see pregancy as courageous. stop trying to put it on a pedestal as if its something extraordinary. its an extremely commonplace part of, not only a humans life, but other species as well. granted tis an experience that i enjoyed several times, but not every time. to think your growing a life inside you is wonderous at times. but still as i said, it happens all the time every day and night.
You enjoyed it because you wanted it, you were happy with it. We are talking about women who dont want to have a baby. In those cases, someone who refuses abortion and continues with the pregnancy to give someone life (and someone a child) is courageous, surely you can see this.
You enjoyed it because you wanted it, you were happy with it. We are talking about women who dont want to have a baby. In those cases, someone who refuses abortion and continues with the pregnancy to give someone life (and someone a child) is courageous, surely you can see this.
wrong! in fact i enjoyed it cause i thought juno was a wise cracking little smartarse, i identified with her and im a fan of the actress ellen page... plus the music didnt hurt either.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
wrong! in fact i enjoyed it cause i thought juno was a wise cracking little smartarse, i identified with her and im a fan of the actress ellen page... plus the music didnt hurt either.
No, i meant you enjoyed pregnancy cos you were happy to have a baby, i'm not talking about the film. Juno was not happy to have a baby, she did not want to be pregnant, thats why going through pregnancy was a selfless sacrifice.
No, i meant you enjoyed pregnancy cos you were happy to have a baby, i'm not talking about the film. Juno was not happy to have a baby, she did not want to be pregnant, thats why going through pregnancy was a selfless sacrifice.
oops my bad.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Giving money to charity is worthwhile, working in a war torn hospital is courageous. Pregnancy is an everyday happening, in all species of animals. It's wonderful for many, difficult for some and disasterous for a few.
Unless you have been intimately involved with every part of every situation its not your place to judge. If you believe in God then you must believe that only He has the right to judge a womans actions, and no one else.
Giving money to charity is worthwhile, working in a war torn hospital is courageous. Pregnancy is an everyday happening, in all species of animals. It's wonderful for many, difficult for some and disasterous for a few.
Unless you have been intimately involved with every part of every situation its not your place to judge. If you believe in God then you must believe that only He has the right to judge a womans actions, and no one else.
Whats wrong with you people? Refusing abortion and continuing with an unwanted pregnancy, so that the child will have a life with someone who desperately wants a child but cannot concieve, is brave, honourable, selfless, and courageous. Why do you refuse to accept this?
me, i would LOVE to see the absolute NON-neccessity of abortion. i would like to see education, access and affordability of all BC methods and social stigmas against such disappear. i think these factors alone would wor wonders to reduce, and almost obliterate abortion. and even the very few abortions that may take place would occur SO early on b/c every girl/woman will know her options and make her decisions, free from the fear of social stigma. i know, i AM a dreamer.....
anyhoo....yes collin...i'd really love to read more of what you think b/c that is the exact kind of thinking that truly interests me on this subject. against abortion, yet pro-choice. evolved thinking to be sure...i think.
Well, I'm pro-abortion in at least one scenario and that's when the mother is in serious danger. But I'm generally against abortion. I'm in support of more education about sex and birth control. I'm also a big proponent of adoption. I think if we invest more in education about these things, these options and indeed make birth control more accessible and affordable, abortions might not happens so often. I told you in another thread that the pill was fairly cheap here, well, I just found out it is now free for girls under 21. I think this is good news.
Making abortion illegal won't help anyone. You will only make more criminals because abortion will be pushed underground. Unsafe methods will be used. I just don't think it's wise to make it illegal.
I am of course totally against late term abortion, like most people here. I feel there's a distinction. A embryo is not a person, imo.
Anyway, I don't think it should be illegal because a certain group of people is morally opposed to it. The law system should be based on a "blank" foundation. There's a term for this, but I don't remember what it is. If you base the legal system on your morals, you instantly make 'criminals' out of the ones who oppose your morals. Now, I think if we combine this system, which is based on a emty foundation instead of a foundation filled with religious or other morals, with the human rights, which grants every human regardless of creed, race, sex... the same rights and regards them as equal... you'll end up with a pretty fine system.
I think the question of abortion cannot, now, be answered objectively, thus everyone should answer it individually.
Whats wrong with you people? Refusing abortion and continuing with an unwanted pregnancy, so that the child will have a life with someone who desperately wants a child but cannot concieve, is brave, honourable, selfless, and courageous. Why do you refuse to accept this?
I agree with this. But I don't think the opposite is true. It is not cowardice, dishonourable and selfish to have an abortion.
Juno is a representative of a 'classic' case of someone who acciedntly gets pregnant too young and choses adoption over abortion.
I asked what makes you think Juno's situation is representative of the 84 million other women in world each year who have to make this decision and your answer is that hers is a "classic case"? That's not an answer. What makes you think she's a classic case?
Also, this movie dealt primarily with her experience after she made the decision to have the child and give it up for adoption. It completely glossed over her decision-making process. Therefore, we can't pretend to know anything about what went into her decision.
You have said that in order to justify a position it must be able to be applicable to other situations. You are saying now that there are women who are hurt by abortion and (presumably) therefore women shouldn't have abortions.
I have heard testimonies of women who are hurt by adoption. Should I therefore claim that women should not place their children for adoption?
I feel bad for those women who posted on the website above, and for any other women who regret their abortions. However,
A. Their experiences are not generalizable.
B. I couldn't help but notice two themes as I read some of the statements:
1. Many of them said they had been forced into having abortions. Of course they're going to feel bad when their choice is taken away from them. No one here is advocating that women be forced to have abortions. People are, however, advocating that women be forced to have children with seemingly no concern for the same sorrow that these women would likely experience.
2. Many of them said they felt bad after having seen the pictures from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Of course they feel bad - the whole purpose of these pictures is to make women feel bad. And they do this in part by presenting skewed, misleading information. It's noteworthy to me that they feel the need to do this. As I've said twice already, I think if women saw FACTUAL information about what their abortions looked like, they actually wouldn't feel so bad.
I think your examples show that women feel bad about their choices being taken from them and about seeing pictures that are designed to make them feel bad - not that they necessarily feel bad about abortion itself. (Which is not to say that there has never been a woman who has regretted her decision to have an abortion - just that they aren't representative cases.)
So "justice" for the man flies out the window when he doesn't make the choice you would like him to make. At least now we've got that straight and we know that justice for the man isn't really an issue. Probably should've have brought it up as if it was then...
Sometimes people wish they had never been born, but thats their choice, nobody elses.
You didn't answer my question. The embryo hasn't chosen to be aborted OR to be born. You are projecting your values and choices onto the embryo without consideration of its choice. Why do you think your choice is any more valid than the opposite choice?
The unborn do suffer, they are fully formed at 12 weeks and many are aborted after this time. The women also suffer as I have said above.
Wait, what? How do you know the unborn suffer?
And of course they're not fully formed at 12 weeks or they could survive outside the womb at that time.
Also, nearly 90% are aborted by 12 weeks. But if you're truly concerned about decreasing later abortions, the best way to do that is to provide better education & access to abortion care, as it is a lack of these two things that lead to most later abortions.
Sorry if I have ignored any philosophical points, I have not always had time to read all the posts. Which particular ones are you thinking of?
Yeah, I hear ya.
Let's see... I don't think I remember responses to my posts # 312 & 375, as a couple of examples (although please forgive me if I missed them).
At this point, I'm not sure I really care. It's just that I appreciated your use of logic and philosophy to frame the discussion earlier and things seem to me to have degenrated to some extent.
I do believe in God, but I have not used religious arguments as I dont thnk they are necessary. I think abortion is even more 'wrong' from an atheistic perspective, since the child would never get a chance, even in the next life.
Peace.
I think individuals have so many different reasons for supporting or opposing abortion or the choice of abortion (trying to leave room for the pro-choice, anti-abortion folks here) and it's good to really get down to the bottom of them and see where it takes us. It's too bad we can't do this in more of a values clarification kind of way than an argumentative kind of way.
But, for instance, you use justice for fathers in your anti-abortion argument, but it seems as if your position isn't really about justice for fathers at all - it's just anti-choice/abortion for other reasons. Similarly, I could argue all day that an embryo isn't a person, but when it comes to my own personal support of abortion as a choice, I don't believe it matters whether it's a person or not. (I'm not sure those are actually similar examples but, hey, it's what I came up with. ) Many people find abortion unacceptable, but it's acceptable to them in a few select cicumstances like rape or to save the life of the mother. Some people find abortion to be evil, but the image they have of abortion is of those 3rd-trimester pictures from the CBR. Would they find it so abhorrent if they knew what most abortion really looked like? I'd like to know. It's just a very complicated issue I guess.
I mentioned my job earlier in this thread. You know, part of my job is to help doctors clarify their values about abortion - which are all unique - and to help ensure that none of them find themselves in a position (regarding abortion) that they don't feel comforable with. (Yes, that's right, I protect the anti-abortion sensitivities of doctors!) Even for people who feel strongly about abortion one way or the other, it really does take a determined effort of self-examination, careful consideration of various circumstances, and education about the facts to really get to the bottom of it all.
Well, I'm pro-abortion in at least one scenario and that's when the mother is in serious danger. But I'm generally against abortion. I'm in support of more education about sex and birth control. I'm also a big proponent of adoption. I think if we invest more in education about these things, these options and indeed make birth control more accessible and affordable, abortions might not happens so often. I told you in another thread that the pill was fairly cheap here, well, I just found out it is now free for girls under 21. I think this is good news.
Hi Collin,
We meet again. Looks like we have more common ground this time. I sypathise with your position that abortion can be justified when the mother will almost certainly die (and thus the baby too), such as in an ectopic pregnancy, but the trouble is all these kinds of cases are only a tiny monirity (less than 2% i think) of all the abortions that take place. For this reason, I dont thnk they should be used to justify abortion generally.
Anyway, I don't think it should be illegal because a certain group of people is morally opposed to it. The law system should be based on a "blank" foundation. There's a term for this, but I don't remember what it is. If you base the legal system on your morals, you instantly make 'criminals' out of the ones who oppose your morals. Now, I think if we combine this system, which is based on a emty foundation instead of a foundation filled with religious or other morals, with the human rights, which grants every human regardless of creed, race, sex... the same rights and regards them as equal... you'll end up with a pretty fine system.
Surely all legal systems are based on a form of morality, you cannot escape this. If someone were to promote the killing of disabled infants under 2 years old, it would be opposed on 'moral' grounds because it would conflict with the moral sentiments of the majority. In short, this kind of thing is (to quote you) 'illegal because a certain group of people is morally opposed to it'. On the same basis, the killing of the unborn should be illegal if the majority oppose it on moral grounds.
I agree with this [that adoption is brave, honourable, and selfless). But I don't think the opposite is true. It is not cowardice, dishonourable and selfish to have an abortion.
I am not here to judge women who have had abortions, I realise that many are pressured into it by others and that many believe it to be the 'right' thing to do. However, the women's own interests (reputation, career etc..) are usually paramount in abortions, and in these cases i would say that the decision is a self-centred one. Unlike adoption, I also struggle to find anything brave or honourable in chosing abortion.
I asked what makes you think Juno's situation is representative of the 84 million other women in world each year who have to make this decision and your answer is that hers is a "classic case"? That's not an answer. What makes you think she's a classic case?
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought that the majority of abortions were performed on teenagers, or early 20somethings who's sexuality predeeds their desire to have children, and therefore find that an accidental pregnancy does not fit into their plan for their lives. Juno is a 'classic' example of this kind of scenario, in which the women doesn't feel 'ready' because they are lacking a stable relationship and dont feel mature enough.
Also, this movie dealt primarily with her experience after she made the decision to have the child and give it up for adoption. It completely glossed over her decision-making process. Therefore, we can't pretend to know anything about what went into her decision.
I dont think the film glossed over it. Juno's concience was convicted by a pro-life protester outside the abortion clinic who simply gave her some truth about the fact that a person, not just a glob of cells, was developing inside her. Juno then discovered a childless couple who desperatly wanted a child and realised that she could use her situation for good.
You have said that in order to justify a position it must be able to be applicable to other situations. You are saying now that there are women who are hurt by abortion and (presumably) therefore women shouldn't have abortions. I have heard testimonies of women who are hurt by adoption. Should I therefore claim that women should not place their children for adoption?
I must say I really appreciate you using some analytical reasoning, I dont come accross it much on this forum. However, I did not say that the fact that 'abortion hurts women' is the philosophical principle on which my anti-abortion stance is based, indeed such a basis would be shaky to say the least. Prison hurts criminals but its also right. the philosophical basis I have offered have been related to the humanity of the embryo/fetus/baby and its human rights. I have also pointed out that the ONLY difference between abortion and infanticide is that you cannot see the killing inside the womb.
Many of [the women who claim to have been hurt by abortion] said they felt bad after having seen the pictures from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Of course they feel bad - the whole purpose of these pictures is to make women feel bad. And they do this in part by presenting skewed, misleading information. It's noteworthy to me that they feel the need to do this. As I've said twice already, I think if women saw FACTUAL information about what their abortions looked like, they actually wouldn't feel so bad.
This is simply not true. Women are convicted by pictures of what a baby looks like at the stage of pregnancy that they are at, or that they had their abortions at. Even at 5 weeks, a fetus looks 'human', and at 12 it IS fully formed, although some of the organs (such as the lungs) are not mature enough to function yet, every part of the child is formed.
So "justice" for the man flies out the window when he doesn't make the choice you would like him to make. At least now we've got that straight and we know that justice for the man isn't really an issue. Probably should've have brought it up as if it was then...
I dont think you are being fair here, it is a real issue for me. When I see a father whose child is killed against his will because he has no power to stop the mother aborting, it makes me sad and angry. As I said, I dont think this should be able to occur because I dont think abortion should be legal. Injustice begets injustice.
The embryo hasn't chosen to be aborted OR to be born. You are projecting your values and choices onto the embryo without consideration of its choice. Why do you think your choice is any more valid than the opposite choice?
I think the weakness of this argument is clear for all to see. Could I kill a one year old child and then claim that, since he could not express his preference for life or death, I had the right to choose death for him?
Hi Collin,
We meet again. Looks like we have more common ground this time. I sypathise with your position that abortion can be justified when the mother will almost certainly die (and thus the baby too), such as in an ectopic pregnancy, but the trouble is all these kinds of cases are only a tiny monirity (less than 2% i think) of all the abortions that take place. For this reason, I dont thnk they should be used to justify abortion generally.
That is not my argument for making abortion a choice, however. It is one case where I agree with it.
Surely all legal systems are based on a form of morality, you cannot escape this. If someone were to promote the killing of disabled infants under 2 years old, it would be opposed on 'moral' grounds because it would conflict with the moral sentiments of the majority. In short, this kind of thing is (to quote you) 'illegal because a certain group of people is morally opposed to it'. On the same basis, the killing of the unborn should be illegal if the majority oppose it on moral grounds.
Peace.
That's why I said a blank foundation, not filled with any particular moral view, but rather complemented with the human rights, which respects all people as equal.
If you make abortion illegal strictly on chirstian morals, you are imposing your will onto others. To you this will might be the logical, right thing to do... However, put hinduism in that blank spot and suddenly it becomes illegal to kill cattle. I don't think many people would be prepared to give up their steak, mcdonalds... because of the hindu moral code. You might find this example absurd, but a devout hindu will feel very strongly about this. A devout hindu believes that cows should be treated with the same respect as you'd treat your mother, and they should in no case be killed.
That's why I think the blank spot should be filled, or combined with a neutral code such as the human rights.
Again we have the question if embryos are 'human', 'people', 'beings', 'cells'... You insist one thing, the other insists the other.
It all depends on how you define life. And, I guess, what value you give to that 'life'. Most of us don't give a damn if life is taken away, if it's non-human. What makes humans so special? I can guess at your answer, and you can guess at mine. I'm not saying we're worthless... I'm saying it's relative, especially when we're talking about a bundle of cells and not an actual person. And we are talking about a person when we look at it from the perspective of a mother. Her life could be ruined, not her career, or reputation, some of these women, girls have no reputation to uphold, have no career. They can barely survive. They can barely pay the bills, they might have other children to support... They might loose income by being pregnant etc. There are so many factors besides reputation and career. A new pregnancy could harm not only the quality of the mother's life, but perhaps even the quality of other children's lives.
So I think we must really focus on more education about birth control methods, that includes the morning after pill, which is really the same as the pill, only stronger. I think anti-abortion and pro-choice people should both stop spewing up fake, false, incomplete arguments. They should stop all propaganda and work to get rid of abortion on a different level. That is, informing people at young ages about sex, about contraception... Making birth control more accessible and cheaper for everyone.
The pro-choice and anti-abortion groups have one thing in common; they don't like abortion. No one does. One thinks it should be available, the other doesn't. But they don't like it. They much rather have that every women who has an unwanted pregnancy had used contraception and wasn't pregnant.
And that's the goal I think we should strive for. We have something in common, but instead of working together we work against each other.
Now, if you oppose all birth control because of religious views (I don't think you do?) you have to ask yourself what's worse, a condom, pill or an abortion. The same question goes for the morning after pill, I guess.
Surely all legal systems are based on a form of morality, you cannot escape this. If someone were to promote the killing of disabled infants under 2 years old, it would be opposed on 'moral' grounds because it would conflict with the moral sentiments of the majority. In short, this kind of thing is (to quote you) 'illegal because a certain group of people is morally opposed to it'. On the same basis, the killing of the unborn should be illegal if the majority oppose it on moral grounds.
Peace.
Should it then be legal if the majority support it on moral (or other) grounds?
I am not here to judge women who have had abortions, I realise that many are pressured into it by others and that many believe it to be the 'right' thing to do. However, the women's own interests (reputation, career etc..) are usually paramount in abortions, and in these cases i would say that the decision is a self-centred one. Unlike adoption, I also struggle to find anything brave or honourable in chosing abortion.
Here's where I think it's useful to know a lot of women who have had abortions. Or at least to know they've had abortions and be able to talk to them about it. (Given that between 1/3 & 1/2 of American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives - and this rate is higher on a global scale - it's likely that nearly 1/2 the women any given person knows has had an abortion. These are people's mothers, sisters, daughters, partners and friends. But because there is such stigma around it - and more coming from some people than from others - women who have abortions may not feel comfortable speaking honestly about it, even to the people they're close to.)
Anyway, I think the more women's abortion experiences and decision-making processes one knows, the more they realize that abortion is frequently a compassionate decision, not a selfish one. Many/most women bravely face this difficult decision not because of their own self-interests, but because of the interests of their current children, the unborn child they're carrying, the children they plan to have in the future, or other dependents such as elderly parents. You can disagree about what's really in the best interest of these other people if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision to have an abortion was made with their interest - not the interest of the mother - in mind.
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought that the majority of abortions were performed on teenagers, or early 20somethings who's sexuality predeeds their desire to have children, and therefore find that an accidental pregnancy does not fit into their plan for their lives. Juno is a 'classic' example of this kind of scenario, in which the women doesn't feel 'ready' because they are lacking a stable relationship and dont feel mature enough.
- Juno was in high school.
Far less than 20% of abortions in the U.S. are performed on girls of high school age. 55% of abortions are performed on women who are 20-29. There is a big difference between being in high school and being in your 20s.
- Juno was from a middle-class home and didn't have to work.
A disproportionately large amount of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. are to poor women, whose unintended pregnancy rate increased by 29% while that of middle-upper-class women dropped by 20% (between 1994 & 2001). Women who live at less than 200% of the federal poverty level account for 58% of the abortions. Women who live at less than 100% of the federal poverty level have a 4.4 times greater rate of abortion than women who live at 300% or more of the FPL.
- Juno didn't have any existing kids to support.
61% of women who have abortions are already mothers.
- Juno was white.
Black women have a disproportionately higher rate of unintended pregnancy and a 3.8 times higher rate of abortion than white women. Hispanic women have a disproportionately higher rate of unintended pregnancy and a 2.5 higher rate of abortion.
- Additionally, Juno was healthy and had the support of her parents and partner. Many women aren't so lucky (and it's often the parents or partner who "force" young women to have abortions instead of continuing the pregnancy).
Regardless of all these disparities shown by demographic data, everyone's situation is unique and you can't use a movie character's decision (or any individual real person's decision) to judge what other women with individual circumstances should do.
I dont think the film glossed over it. Juno's concience was convicted by a pro-life protester outside the abortion clinic who simply gave her some truth about the fact that a person, not just a glob of cells, was developing inside her. Juno then discovered a childless couple who desperatly wanted a child and realised that she could use her situation for good.
I didn't leave the movie thinking it was the protester who changed her mind at all. Regardless, pregnancy decisions are far more complicated than that. There is a lot more to consider than just whether an embryo has fingernails. I actually find this simplification of it somewhat offensive.
I must say I really appreciate you using some analytical reasoning, I dont come accross it much on this forum. However, I did not say that the fact that 'abortion hurts women' is the philosophical principle on which my anti-abortion stance is based, indeed such a basis would be shaky to say the least. Prison hurts criminals but its also right. the philosophical basis I have offered have been related to the humanity of the embryo/fetus/baby and its human rights. I have also pointed out that the ONLY difference between abortion and infanticide is that you cannot see the killing inside the womb.
Well I guess I'm getting confused about your argument, then. In the midst of your argument that abortion should not be an option, you're saying things like it hurts women and fathers should have justice. But now you seem to be saying that these aren't actually part of your argument. Maybe you're just trying to confuse your opponents as some kind of debate tactic.
This is simply not true. Women are convicted by pictures of what a baby looks like at the stage of pregnancy that they are at, or that they had their abortions at. Even at 5 weeks, a fetus looks 'human', and at 12 it IS fully formed, although some of the organs (such as the lungs) are not mature enough to function yet, every part of the child is formed.
I don't know how much you know about the tactics of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, but just one of the many things they use to mislead women is the way they label the gestational age of the pictures. (I had a big conversation with them about this last time they came to my campus and they don't deny that they label them this way, they just count on the fact that most people don't know the difference.) They label pictures according to "fetal age" instead of the gestational age by last menstrual period (LMP) that doctors use. This creates a two week discrepancy in dating, making the fetus in the picture seem younger than it really is. So if you've just come from the doctor and been told you're 7 weeks pregnant and then some anti-abortion person shows you a picture from the CBR, they'll be showing you a picture of a 9-week pregnancy. Why do you think they feel such need to mislead trusting women? And why is this okay? And is this the kind of organization you really want to use to back up your argument? (There are also many reasons to believe that many of their pictures of so-called aborted fetuses are actually not at all what they say they are, but that's another can of worms.)
Speaking of a 5-week embryo looking human, have you ever actually seen a 5-week embryo in person? Of course not. At 5 weeks, a doctor can't even find an embryo with a transvaginal ultrasound!
Okay, I couldn't help but Google it to see what was out there and here's the most common picture I found: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg
Of course, if you read the description it actually says this is from a 7-week pregnancy. This doesn't look like a person to me, and a 5-week pregnancy is sure to look even less like one.
Besides, what about all those women who have abortions with the pill all the way up to 9 weeks? They actually see everything that comes out of them. How many of them have you heard say they saw a baby come out?
And yet protesters stand outside abortion clinics with their pictures of 3rd-trimester abortions (supposedly) and tell these impressionable women who are 5 weeks pregnant, "This is what you're doing to your baby!" No, it's not. Why don't they at least have the decency to show them a 5-week abortion (where you can only see a gestational sac and no embryo at all) and tell them the truth? Then the women can decide what to do and how feel about it based on factual information and not lies. Fucking cowards.
Regarding your assertion that a 12-week fetus is fully formed, I still say it's not. But I don't have all the data right in front of me so we'll have to save that one for another time.
I dont think you are being fair here, it is a real issue for me. When I see a father whose child is killed against his will because he has no power to stop the mother aborting, it makes me sad and angry. As I said, I dont think this should be able to occur because I dont think abortion should be legal. Injustice begets injustice.
Well I didn't mean to disregard something that's important to you and I certainly hope you haven't had to have any personal experience with this. (Although, another reason women don't always tell their partners about their abortions is because they're going to do it no matter what and they want to spare the guy's feelings.)
I'm just saying that I don't think justice is the appropriate term to use when you only think they guy's choice should be protected if he makes the choice you agree with. And I don't think it's a reason to force pregnant women to bear children.
I think the weakness of this argument is clear for all to see. Could I kill a one year old child and then claim that, since he could not express his preference for life or death, I had the right to choose death for him?
Yes, if it was in that child's best interest.
Here's my take on it: You shouldn't kill people (or have them) against their will. But we don't always know what their will is. In these cases, someone must make the decision on their behalf, and this usually falls to their parents or children. It's the job of the pregnant woman to do what she thinks is best for her unborn child, whether that's to have them or to not have them. Sometimes abortion is the best choice.
Given the case of a 1-year-old child, or of my grandmother, or whoever... if you are the guardian of that person and you have reason to believe it's in that person's best interest to remove them from their life support, you have a moral obligation to do so, regardless of how hard that is for you to do or whether society agrees.
Also, once again, abortion may end a life but, like "pulling the plug," it is killing in a passive way more than an active one (if that matters to some people). There is a difference between removing something from it's life support (or vice versa) and straight up killing someone who's doing fine on their own.
Somehow among all the other bullshit America swallows.... it believes abortion a political and religious issue
I wonder if any of the millions of abortions performed were done on Conservative Republican Christians?
I guess that should a question on the forms you fill out - perhaps that would shed a little light on the hypocracy and further abuse of this difficult situation.
Somehow among all the other bullshit America swallows.... it believes abortion a political and religious issue
I wonder if any of the millions of abortions performed were done on Conservative Republican Christians?
I guess that should a question on the forms you fill out - perhaps that would shed a little light on the hypocracy and further abuse of this difficult situation.
Christians (Protestants & Catholics) account for 70% of abortions in the U.S.
I don't know about their political affiliations. (Good question though! )
Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226-235.
I am not Pro-Republican, but I don't think it should be illegal.
therefore I am not Pro-choice.
I'm confused. You don't think abortion should be illegal (so you do think it should be legal) but you're NOT pro-choice? But wanting it to be legal is the definition of pro-choice. Did I read this wrong?
Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226-235.
I'm confused. You don't think abortion should be illegal (so you do think it should be legal) but you're NOT pro-choice? But wanting it to be legal is the definition of pro-choice. Did I read this wrong?
I am not pro choice, I don't like the choice.
But I am firmly against laws forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want.
But I am firmly against laws forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want.
Many other things can be done
But do you think she should HAVE the choice, even if you don't think she should CHOOSE that choice?
Edit: If you're against laws against abortion, then you are for women having that choice. That makes you pro-choice - not pro-abortion - by definition.
But do you think she should HAVE the choice, even if you don't think she should CHOOSE that choice?
Edit: If you're against laws against abortion, then you are for women having that choice. That makes you pro-choice - not pro-abortion - by definition.
In today's world
I am not Pro-abortion.. i don't think anyone is.. I will neither crusade for a womans "right" to abort. I do oppose the government legislating this issue.
its is not a simple issue, and therefore I don't like being labeled.
I am not Pro-abortion.. i don't think anyone is.. I will neither crusade for a womans "right" to abort. I do oppose the government legislating this issue.
its is not a simple issue, and therefore I don't like being labeled.
she's right. i've been lurking and reading here for sometime and that dude was one of those conspiracy nuts wasn't he?
didn't you like that girl from bend it like beckham?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Here is something..........I got this in the email. I am not sure if this is true....looks real. But I think abortion is one thing but this is way different. I think most people know before this time that their child is not normal......right?
Here is something..........I got this in the email. I am not sure if this is true....looks real. But I think abortion is one thing but this is way different. I think most people know before this time that their child is not normal......right?
I'm going to need to see some evidence-based information - rather than some random woman on the internet speaking for a website called nohussein.org in a sensationalized video - before I believe this. And if it is true, I'll need to know the other side of the story as well.
I'm going to need to see some evidence-based information - rather than some random woman on the internet speaking for a website called nohussein.org in a sensationalized video - before I believe this. And if it is true, I'll need to know the other side of the story as well.
hi there.............
yeah, I am sorry that I didn't check the validity of this before I put it on here.
the person that sent this to me is 100% pro lifer, which , as you know, I am not.
I am sorry for those of you who thought this is bs. forgive me for being so gullible.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Comments
how could i possibly give respect to someone who doesnt even exist tim? stop holding up juno as the examplar of positive pregnancy outcomes. she doesnt represent anything but a saccharine hollywood take on a very real situation. if you want reality why not hold up jamie lynn spears up as an example. i live in the real world. i know that abortion is not a quick fix. and i also know the consequences of carrying pregnancy to term.
ho hum... i dont see pregancy as courageous. stop trying to put it on a pedestal as if its something extraordinary. its an extremely commonplace part of, not only a humans life, but other species as well. granted tis an experience that i enjoyed several times, but not every time. to think your growing a life inside you is wonderous at times. but still as i said, it happens all the time every day and night.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Juno is a representative of a 'classic' case of someone who acciedntly gets pregnant too young and choses adoption over abortion. I have heard many testimonies of women hurt by abortion. Here are some examples:
http://www.abortionno.org/AbortionNO/hurt.html
Simple. Abortion should not be an option.
Sometimes people wish they had never been born, but thats their choice, nobody elses.
The unborn do suffer, they are fully formed at 12 weeks and many are aborted after this time. The women also suffer as I have said above.
Sorry if I have ignored any philosophical points, I have not always had time to read all the posts. Which particular ones are you thinking of?
I do believe in God, but I have not used religious arguments as I dont thnk they are necessary. I think abortion is even more 'wrong' from an atheistic perspective, since the child would never get a chance, even in the next life.
Peace.
You enjoyed it because you wanted it, you were happy with it. We are talking about women who dont want to have a baby. In those cases, someone who refuses abortion and continues with the pregnancy to give someone life (and someone a child) is courageous, surely you can see this.
wrong! in fact i enjoyed it cause i thought juno was a wise cracking little smartarse, i identified with her and im a fan of the actress ellen page... plus the music didnt hurt either.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No, i meant you enjoyed pregnancy cos you were happy to have a baby, i'm not talking about the film. Juno was not happy to have a baby, she did not want to be pregnant, thats why going through pregnancy was a selfless sacrifice.
oops my bad.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Unless you have been intimately involved with every part of every situation its not your place to judge. If you believe in God then you must believe that only He has the right to judge a womans actions, and no one else.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
Whats wrong with you people? Refusing abortion and continuing with an unwanted pregnancy, so that the child will have a life with someone who desperately wants a child but cannot concieve, is brave, honourable, selfless, and courageous. Why do you refuse to accept this?
Well, I'm pro-abortion in at least one scenario and that's when the mother is in serious danger. But I'm generally against abortion. I'm in support of more education about sex and birth control. I'm also a big proponent of adoption. I think if we invest more in education about these things, these options and indeed make birth control more accessible and affordable, abortions might not happens so often. I told you in another thread that the pill was fairly cheap here, well, I just found out it is now free for girls under 21. I think this is good news.
Making abortion illegal won't help anyone. You will only make more criminals because abortion will be pushed underground. Unsafe methods will be used. I just don't think it's wise to make it illegal.
I am of course totally against late term abortion, like most people here. I feel there's a distinction. A embryo is not a person, imo.
Anyway, I don't think it should be illegal because a certain group of people is morally opposed to it. The law system should be based on a "blank" foundation. There's a term for this, but I don't remember what it is. If you base the legal system on your morals, you instantly make 'criminals' out of the ones who oppose your morals. Now, I think if we combine this system, which is based on a emty foundation instead of a foundation filled with religious or other morals, with the human rights, which grants every human regardless of creed, race, sex... the same rights and regards them as equal... you'll end up with a pretty fine system.
I think the question of abortion cannot, now, be answered objectively, thus everyone should answer it individually.
naděje umírá poslední
I agree with this. But I don't think the opposite is true. It is not cowardice, dishonourable and selfish to have an abortion.
It is what it is... And every case is different.
naděje umírá poslední
I asked what makes you think Juno's situation is representative of the 84 million other women in world each year who have to make this decision and your answer is that hers is a "classic case"? That's not an answer. What makes you think she's a classic case?
Also, this movie dealt primarily with her experience after she made the decision to have the child and give it up for adoption. It completely glossed over her decision-making process. Therefore, we can't pretend to know anything about what went into her decision.
You have said that in order to justify a position it must be able to be applicable to other situations. You are saying now that there are women who are hurt by abortion and (presumably) therefore women shouldn't have abortions.
I have heard testimonies of women who are hurt by adoption. Should I therefore claim that women should not place their children for adoption?
I feel bad for those women who posted on the website above, and for any other women who regret their abortions. However,
A. Their experiences are not generalizable.
B. I couldn't help but notice two themes as I read some of the statements:
1. Many of them said they had been forced into having abortions. Of course they're going to feel bad when their choice is taken away from them. No one here is advocating that women be forced to have abortions. People are, however, advocating that women be forced to have children with seemingly no concern for the same sorrow that these women would likely experience.
2. Many of them said they felt bad after having seen the pictures from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Of course they feel bad - the whole purpose of these pictures is to make women feel bad. And they do this in part by presenting skewed, misleading information. It's noteworthy to me that they feel the need to do this. As I've said twice already, I think if women saw FACTUAL information about what their abortions looked like, they actually wouldn't feel so bad.
I think your examples show that women feel bad about their choices being taken from them and about seeing pictures that are designed to make them feel bad - not that they necessarily feel bad about abortion itself. (Which is not to say that there has never been a woman who has regretted her decision to have an abortion - just that they aren't representative cases.)
So "justice" for the man flies out the window when he doesn't make the choice you would like him to make. At least now we've got that straight and we know that justice for the man isn't really an issue. Probably should've have brought it up as if it was then...
You didn't answer my question. The embryo hasn't chosen to be aborted OR to be born. You are projecting your values and choices onto the embryo without consideration of its choice. Why do you think your choice is any more valid than the opposite choice?
Wait, what? How do you know the unborn suffer?
And of course they're not fully formed at 12 weeks or they could survive outside the womb at that time.
Also, nearly 90% are aborted by 12 weeks. But if you're truly concerned about decreasing later abortions, the best way to do that is to provide better education & access to abortion care, as it is a lack of these two things that lead to most later abortions.
Yeah, I hear ya.
Let's see... I don't think I remember responses to my posts # 312 & 375, as a couple of examples (although please forgive me if I missed them).
At this point, I'm not sure I really care. It's just that I appreciated your use of logic and philosophy to frame the discussion earlier and things seem to me to have degenrated to some extent.
I think individuals have so many different reasons for supporting or opposing abortion or the choice of abortion (trying to leave room for the pro-choice, anti-abortion folks here) and it's good to really get down to the bottom of them and see where it takes us. It's too bad we can't do this in more of a values clarification kind of way than an argumentative kind of way.
But, for instance, you use justice for fathers in your anti-abortion argument, but it seems as if your position isn't really about justice for fathers at all - it's just anti-choice/abortion for other reasons. Similarly, I could argue all day that an embryo isn't a person, but when it comes to my own personal support of abortion as a choice, I don't believe it matters whether it's a person or not. (I'm not sure those are actually similar examples but, hey, it's what I came up with.
I mentioned my job earlier in this thread. You know, part of my job is to help doctors clarify their values about abortion - which are all unique - and to help ensure that none of them find themselves in a position (regarding abortion) that they don't feel comforable with. (Yes, that's right, I protect the anti-abortion sensitivities of doctors!) Even for people who feel strongly about abortion one way or the other, it really does take a determined effort of self-examination, careful consideration of various circumstances, and education about the facts to really get to the bottom of it all.
But now I'm just rambling. Sorry.
Hi Collin,
We meet again. Looks like we have more common ground this time. I sypathise with your position that abortion can be justified when the mother will almost certainly die (and thus the baby too), such as in an ectopic pregnancy, but the trouble is all these kinds of cases are only a tiny monirity (less than 2% i think) of all the abortions that take place. For this reason, I dont thnk they should be used to justify abortion generally.
Surely all legal systems are based on a form of morality, you cannot escape this. If someone were to promote the killing of disabled infants under 2 years old, it would be opposed on 'moral' grounds because it would conflict with the moral sentiments of the majority. In short, this kind of thing is (to quote you) 'illegal because a certain group of people is morally opposed to it'. On the same basis, the killing of the unborn should be illegal if the majority oppose it on moral grounds.
Peace.
I am not here to judge women who have had abortions, I realise that many are pressured into it by others and that many believe it to be the 'right' thing to do. However, the women's own interests (reputation, career etc..) are usually paramount in abortions, and in these cases i would say that the decision is a self-centred one. Unlike adoption, I also struggle to find anything brave or honourable in chosing abortion.
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought that the majority of abortions were performed on teenagers, or early 20somethings who's sexuality predeeds their desire to have children, and therefore find that an accidental pregnancy does not fit into their plan for their lives. Juno is a 'classic' example of this kind of scenario, in which the women doesn't feel 'ready' because they are lacking a stable relationship and dont feel mature enough.
I dont think the film glossed over it. Juno's concience was convicted by a pro-life protester outside the abortion clinic who simply gave her some truth about the fact that a person, not just a glob of cells, was developing inside her. Juno then discovered a childless couple who desperatly wanted a child and realised that she could use her situation for good.
I must say I really appreciate you using some analytical reasoning, I dont come accross it much on this forum. However, I did not say that the fact that 'abortion hurts women' is the philosophical principle on which my anti-abortion stance is based, indeed such a basis would be shaky to say the least. Prison hurts criminals but its also right. the philosophical basis I have offered have been related to the humanity of the embryo/fetus/baby and its human rights. I have also pointed out that the ONLY difference between abortion and infanticide is that you cannot see the killing inside the womb.
This is simply not true. Women are convicted by pictures of what a baby looks like at the stage of pregnancy that they are at, or that they had their abortions at. Even at 5 weeks, a fetus looks 'human', and at 12 it IS fully formed, although some of the organs (such as the lungs) are not mature enough to function yet, every part of the child is formed.
I dont think you are being fair here, it is a real issue for me. When I see a father whose child is killed against his will because he has no power to stop the mother aborting, it makes me sad and angry. As I said, I dont think this should be able to occur because I dont think abortion should be legal. Injustice begets injustice.
I think the weakness of this argument is clear for all to see. Could I kill a one year old child and then claim that, since he could not express his preference for life or death, I had the right to choose death for him?
That is not my argument for making abortion a choice, however. It is one case where I agree with it.
That's why I said a blank foundation, not filled with any particular moral view, but rather complemented with the human rights, which respects all people as equal.
If you make abortion illegal strictly on chirstian morals, you are imposing your will onto others. To you this will might be the logical, right thing to do... However, put hinduism in that blank spot and suddenly it becomes illegal to kill cattle. I don't think many people would be prepared to give up their steak, mcdonalds... because of the hindu moral code. You might find this example absurd, but a devout hindu will feel very strongly about this. A devout hindu believes that cows should be treated with the same respect as you'd treat your mother, and they should in no case be killed.
That's why I think the blank spot should be filled, or combined with a neutral code such as the human rights.
Again we have the question if embryos are 'human', 'people', 'beings', 'cells'... You insist one thing, the other insists the other.
It all depends on how you define life. And, I guess, what value you give to that 'life'. Most of us don't give a damn if life is taken away, if it's non-human. What makes humans so special? I can guess at your answer, and you can guess at mine. I'm not saying we're worthless... I'm saying it's relative, especially when we're talking about a bundle of cells and not an actual person. And we are talking about a person when we look at it from the perspective of a mother. Her life could be ruined, not her career, or reputation, some of these women, girls have no reputation to uphold, have no career. They can barely survive. They can barely pay the bills, they might have other children to support... They might loose income by being pregnant etc. There are so many factors besides reputation and career. A new pregnancy could harm not only the quality of the mother's life, but perhaps even the quality of other children's lives.
So I think we must really focus on more education about birth control methods, that includes the morning after pill, which is really the same as the pill, only stronger. I think anti-abortion and pro-choice people should both stop spewing up fake, false, incomplete arguments. They should stop all propaganda and work to get rid of abortion on a different level. That is, informing people at young ages about sex, about contraception... Making birth control more accessible and cheaper for everyone.
The pro-choice and anti-abortion groups have one thing in common; they don't like abortion. No one does. One thinks it should be available, the other doesn't. But they don't like it. They much rather have that every women who has an unwanted pregnancy had used contraception and wasn't pregnant.
And that's the goal I think we should strive for. We have something in common, but instead of working together we work against each other.
Now, if you oppose all birth control because of religious views (I don't think you do?) you have to ask yourself what's worse, a condom, pill or an abortion. The same question goes for the morning after pill, I guess.
naděje umírá poslední
Should it then be legal if the majority support it on moral (or other) grounds?
Here's where I think it's useful to know a lot of women who have had abortions. Or at least to know they've had abortions and be able to talk to them about it. (Given that between 1/3 & 1/2 of American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives - and this rate is higher on a global scale - it's likely that nearly 1/2 the women any given person knows has had an abortion. These are people's mothers, sisters, daughters, partners and friends. But because there is such stigma around it - and more coming from some people than from others - women who have abortions may not feel comfortable speaking honestly about it, even to the people they're close to.)
Anyway, I think the more women's abortion experiences and decision-making processes one knows, the more they realize that abortion is frequently a compassionate decision, not a selfish one. Many/most women bravely face this difficult decision not because of their own self-interests, but because of the interests of their current children, the unborn child they're carrying, the children they plan to have in the future, or other dependents such as elderly parents. You can disagree about what's really in the best interest of these other people if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision to have an abortion was made with their interest - not the interest of the mother - in mind.
- Juno was in high school.
Far less than 20% of abortions in the U.S. are performed on girls of high school age. 55% of abortions are performed on women who are 20-29. There is a big difference between being in high school and being in your 20s.
- Juno was from a middle-class home and didn't have to work.
A disproportionately large amount of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. are to poor women, whose unintended pregnancy rate increased by 29% while that of middle-upper-class women dropped by 20% (between 1994 & 2001). Women who live at less than 200% of the federal poverty level account for 58% of the abortions. Women who live at less than 100% of the federal poverty level have a 4.4 times greater rate of abortion than women who live at 300% or more of the FPL.
- Juno didn't have any existing kids to support.
61% of women who have abortions are already mothers.
- Juno was white.
Black women have a disproportionately higher rate of unintended pregnancy and a 3.8 times higher rate of abortion than white women. Hispanic women have a disproportionately higher rate of unintended pregnancy and a 2.5 higher rate of abortion.
- Additionally, Juno was healthy and had the support of her parents and partner. Many women aren't so lucky (and it's often the parents or partner who "force" young women to have abortions instead of continuing the pregnancy).
Regardless of all these disparities shown by demographic data, everyone's situation is unique and you can't use a movie character's decision (or any individual real person's decision) to judge what other women with individual circumstances should do.
I didn't leave the movie thinking it was the protester who changed her mind at all. Regardless, pregnancy decisions are far more complicated than that. There is a lot more to consider than just whether an embryo has fingernails. I actually find this simplification of it somewhat offensive.
Well I guess I'm getting confused about your argument, then. In the midst of your argument that abortion should not be an option, you're saying things like it hurts women and fathers should have justice. But now you seem to be saying that these aren't actually part of your argument. Maybe you're just trying to confuse your opponents as some kind of debate tactic.
I don't know how much you know about the tactics of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, but just one of the many things they use to mislead women is the way they label the gestational age of the pictures. (I had a big conversation with them about this last time they came to my campus and they don't deny that they label them this way, they just count on the fact that most people don't know the difference.) They label pictures according to "fetal age" instead of the gestational age by last menstrual period (LMP) that doctors use. This creates a two week discrepancy in dating, making the fetus in the picture seem younger than it really is. So if you've just come from the doctor and been told you're 7 weeks pregnant and then some anti-abortion person shows you a picture from the CBR, they'll be showing you a picture of a 9-week pregnancy. Why do you think they feel such need to mislead trusting women? And why is this okay? And is this the kind of organization you really want to use to back up your argument? (There are also many reasons to believe that many of their pictures of so-called aborted fetuses are actually not at all what they say they are, but that's another can of worms.)
Speaking of a 5-week embryo looking human, have you ever actually seen a 5-week embryo in person? Of course not. At 5 weeks, a doctor can't even find an embryo with a transvaginal ultrasound!
Okay, I couldn't help but Google it to see what was out there and here's the most common picture I found:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg
Of course, if you read the description it actually says this is from a 7-week pregnancy. This doesn't look like a person to me, and a 5-week pregnancy is sure to look even less like one.
Besides, what about all those women who have abortions with the pill all the way up to 9 weeks? They actually see everything that comes out of them. How many of them have you heard say they saw a baby come out?
And yet protesters stand outside abortion clinics with their pictures of 3rd-trimester abortions (supposedly) and tell these impressionable women who are 5 weeks pregnant, "This is what you're doing to your baby!" No, it's not. Why don't they at least have the decency to show them a 5-week abortion (where you can only see a gestational sac and no embryo at all) and tell them the truth? Then the women can decide what to do and how feel about it based on factual information and not lies. Fucking cowards.
Regarding your assertion that a 12-week fetus is fully formed, I still say it's not. But I don't have all the data right in front of me so we'll have to save that one for another time.
Well I didn't mean to disregard something that's important to you and I certainly hope you haven't had to have any personal experience with this. (Although, another reason women don't always tell their partners about their abortions is because they're going to do it no matter what and they want to spare the guy's feelings.)
I'm just saying that I don't think justice is the appropriate term to use when you only think they guy's choice should be protected if he makes the choice you agree with. And I don't think it's a reason to force pregnant women to bear children.
Yes, if it was in that child's best interest.
Here's my take on it: You shouldn't kill people (or have them) against their will. But we don't always know what their will is. In these cases, someone must make the decision on their behalf, and this usually falls to their parents or children. It's the job of the pregnant woman to do what she thinks is best for her unborn child, whether that's to have them or to not have them. Sometimes abortion is the best choice.
Given the case of a 1-year-old child, or of my grandmother, or whoever... if you are the guardian of that person and you have reason to believe it's in that person's best interest to remove them from their life support, you have a moral obligation to do so, regardless of how hard that is for you to do or whether society agrees.
Also, once again, abortion may end a life but, like "pulling the plug," it is killing in a passive way more than an active one (if that matters to some people). There is a difference between removing something from it's life support (or vice versa) and straight up killing someone who's doing fine on their own.
I wonder if any of the millions of abortions performed were done on Conservative Republican Christians?
I guess that should a question on the forms you fill out - perhaps that would shed a little light on the hypocracy and further abuse of this difficult situation.
Christians (Protestants & Catholics) account for 70% of abortions in the U.S.
I don't know about their political affiliations. (Good question though!
Source?
I am not Pro-Republican, but I don't think it should be illegal.
therefore I am not Pro-choice.
Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226-235.
I'm confused. You don't think abortion should be illegal (so you do think it should be legal) but you're NOT pro-choice? But wanting it to be legal is the definition of pro-choice. Did I read this wrong?
I am not pro choice, I don't like the choice.
But I am firmly against laws forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want.
Many other things can be done
But do you think she should HAVE the choice, even if you don't think she should CHOOSE that choice?
Edit: If you're against laws against abortion, then you are for women having that choice. That makes you pro-choice - not pro-abortion - by definition.
In today's world
I am not Pro-abortion.. i don't think anyone is.. I will neither crusade for a womans "right" to abort. I do oppose the government legislating this issue.
its is not a simple issue, and therefore I don't like being labeled.
Sorry.
didn't you like that girl from bend it like beckham?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I'm going to need to see some evidence-based information - rather than some random woman on the internet speaking for a website called nohussein.org in a sensationalized video - before I believe this. And if it is true, I'll need to know the other side of the story as well.
hi there.............
yeah, I am sorry that I didn't check the validity of this before I put it on here.
the person that sent this to me is 100% pro lifer, which , as you know, I am not.
I am sorry for those of you who thought this is bs. forgive me for being so gullible.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........