"health" of the mother

Brain of J.Lo

Heineken Helen wrote:

THere's no fear... but it's definitely used by some as propaganda. Pro-choice IS a term related to abortion.

Absolutely. It's not fear, it's an objection to a term that is used to stoke anger.

Brain of J.Lo

NMyTree wrote:

How about just Pro-Options. Or An Advocate Of Having Options Available.


I know, the second one is too long and doesn't roll off the tounge quite so well, when arguing:D

Isn't that just the same as pro-choice, anyway?

iamica

It's all just buzz labels to generate sympathy for a particular opinion. People who are in favor of abortion being legal call themselves "pro choice", and the opposition "anti choice". People against abortion being legal call themselves "pro life" and label the opposition "pro abortion". It's all very calculated to demonize the opposition.
I think we should all be working together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and by doing so, reducing abortions.

know1

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

lol!

I have no trouble sleeping at night; I just don't believe abortion is murder. I firmly believe that the rights and well-being of the mother trump the rights of the potential life inside of her. And I say this from the perspective of a mother who would happily give her life to save her 2 year old child, if it were somehow necessary.

I just don't think it's *accurate* to say that pro-choice = pro-abortion, for the reasons I've already explained.

Well I believe the proper perspective is for a doctor to save as much life as he/she can - mother, baby, etc.

I think it's most accurate to say Pro-Legal-Abortion.

But I'll continue to just use Pro-Abortion since it's interesting to see how uncomfortable that makes people.

Heineken Helen

know1 wrote:

Well I believe the proper perspective is for a doctor to save as much life as he/she can - mother, baby, etc.

I think it's most accurate to say Pro-Legal-Abortion.

But I'll continue to just use Pro-Abortion since it's interesting to see how uncomfortable that makes people.

well I'll feel free to call you anti-choice then so

know1

Heineken Helen wrote:

well I'll feel free to call you anti-choice then so

Fine by me. I'm really anti-abortion, though. Pro-Life just doesn't quite go far enough for me.

Brain of J.Lo

know1 wrote:

But I'll continue to just use Pro-Abortion since it's interesting to see how uncomfortable that makes people.

Well, if it makes you happy, you can call me "pro-baby-killin'". It's just the same, and it's just as inaccurate.

Heineken Helen

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

Well, if it makes you happy, you can call me "pro-baby-killin'". It's just the same, and it's just as inaccurate.

I'll second that one.

so know1 if you support refusing an abortion where the mothers life is in danger, do you mind if I call you anti-life?

saveuplife

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I agree. I support the fact that the CHOICE belongs to the woman. Therefore, I'm pro-choice. I'm not pro-abortion, nor am I pro-legal-abortion, because I do not promote abortion, legal or otherwise. I support the choice.

You aren't making any sense. You are for abortion being legal. Hence, people have more of an ability to decide to abort because it's not against the law. Just to clarify though, people can still CHOOSE to abort even if it's against the law.

You ARE pro-legalized abortion. Come on. Trying to get out of that is not helping your cause.

saveuplife

By the way, why are those of you who don't like the title pro-legalized abortion, scared of it? Why do you not want more abortions as long as they are safe for the mom? If your not killing anything you are just removing cells, right? Why do you want less abortions? Why are you scared to say you are for pro-legalized abortion when that is clearly what you are for.

It just doesn't make sense to me. IMHO the tide on this issue is turning when people on the one side are starting to admit that they don't condone abortion even when the mom's life isn't threatened at all by the procedure.

You are starting to point out that there is something intrinsically wrong with it. You're not to point of saying it's life, but you certainly are getting closer.

Lizard

scb wrote:

Uh... huh?




And what's that got to do with him being an adoptive parent?

My exact thoughts last night.
Huh???

know1

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'll second that one.

so know1 if you support refusing an abortion where the mothers life is in danger, do you mind if I call you anti-life?

I don't mind what you call me, but the fact is that I don't support that.

I already said that I think the doctor should try and save as much life as possible in those situations.

Brain of J.Lo

saveuplife wrote:

You aren't making any sense. You are for abortion being legal. Hence, people have more of an ability to decide to abort because it's not against the law. Just to clarify though, people can still CHOOSE to abort even if it's against the law.

You ARE pro-legalized abortion. Come on. Trying to get out of that is not helping your cause.

"Pro-abortion" and "pro-legalized abortion" mean essentially the same thing to me in that they are both phrases used to imply that people who support the right to choose encourage abortion. That's why I think both are inaccurate. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the point of this debate is to dissect the literal meaning of the words; it is to examine the connotations they hold.

Brain of J.Lo

saveuplife wrote:

By the way, why are those of you who don't like the title pro-legalized abortion, scared of it? Why do you not want more abortions as long as they are safe for the mom? If your not killing anything you are just removing cells, right? Why do you want less abortions? Why are you scared to say you are for pro-legalized abortion when that is clearly what you are for.

It just doesn't make sense to me. IMHO the tide on this issue is turning when people on the one side are starting to admit that they don't condone abortion even when the mom's life isn't threatened at all by the procedure.

You are starting to point out that there is something intrinsically wrong with it. You're not to point of saying it's life, but you certainly are getting closer.

I am not afraid of anything, as I already stated. The desire to prevent abortions is not an admission that it's morally wrong. It's an avoidable medical procedure. That's reason enough to not want more abortions.

Furthermore, just because I don't consider it a moral issue doesn't mean that others have to share my opinion. There are many women who choose abortion, for whatever reason, that do view it as a moral issue, and view it as a personal tragedy. That's another reason to work towards preventing the need for abortions. But it shouldn't be an excuse to take the choice away.

saveuplife

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I am not afraid of anything, as I already stated. The desire to prevent abortions is not an admission that it's morally wrong. It's an avoidable medical procedure. That's reason enough to not want more abortions.

Furthermore, just because I don't consider it a moral issue doesn't mean that others have to share my opinion. There are many women who choose abortion, for whatever reason, that do view it as a moral issue, and view it as a personal tragedy. That's another reason to work towards preventing the need for abortions. But it shouldn't be an excuse to take the choice away.

You said you didn't like the term pro-legalized abortion. It's a fact that, that is exactly what pro-choice individuals are for. Why then, are you scared to say.... "yes, I'm pro-legalized abortion."

The point that it's an avoidable medical procedure is a cop-out. Of course it's an avoidable medical procedure. But, so is plastic/cosmetic surgery. In fact, I'm willing to bet the death-rate for the patient is similar for both procedures. And they both can centainly be considered invasive. Yet, you don't see politicians (or people on message boards) rallying against plastic/cosmetic surgery because it's an avoidable medical procedure.

Check your conscience.

Brain of J.Lo

saveuplife wrote:

You said you didn't like the term pro-legalized abortion. It's a fact that, that is exactly what pro-choice individuals are for. Why then, are you scared to say.... "yes, I'm pro-legalized abortion."

The point that it's an avoidable medical procedure is a cop-out. Of course it's an avoidable medical procedure. But, so is plastic/cosmetic surgery. In fact, I'm willing to bet the death-rate for the patient is similar for both procedures. And they both can centainly be considered invasive. Yet, you don't see politicians (or people on message boards) rallying against plastic/cosmetic surgery because it's an avoidable medical procedure.

Check your conscience.

I am not afraid to say that I support a woman's choice to have a legal abortion, nor am I afraid to say that I want abortion to remain legal. I explained what I meant. If you don't understand what I meant, and you want to keep picking at this, go ahead. I'm done.

My conscience is just fine, but thanks for your concern...lol.

Personally, I don't even buy into the whole "pro-life crusade to save the innocent unborn" bullshit. I think the majority of the people that are staunchly pro-life are just relishing an opportunity to pass judgment. It's a way to be really "passionate" about something, while actually being totally passive.

You don't like abortions? So don't have one. I don't believe you're getting brownie points with God by calling out the baby-killers of the world. I'm equally confident that I'm not going to go to hell for supporting them.

chopitdown

There was a statement in 1992, of Ireland's foremost obstetricans and gynaecologists: “As obstetricians and gynaecologists, we affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.” (Letter to Irish Times, 1st April 1992, signed by Professor John Bonnar, Head of the Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Trinity College, Dublin; Kieran O’Driscoll, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at University College, Dublin; Eamonn O’Dwyer, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at University College, Galway; and Julia Vaughan, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist.)

There was another study that saw 151 abortions that were performed to save the mothers live (from 1967-90) and that number is %0.004 of all abortions performed.

it seems that the notion for the health of the mother MAY be something to tug at heartstrings of people, but not have as much grounding in reality as people would like.

I looked around but couldn't find any numbers to back up either sides case. I could find people saying that abortions are / aren't necessary to save the mother, but i couldnt find any number to say how many abortions were performed for that reason.

saveuplife

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I am not afraid to say that I support a woman's choice to have a legal abortion, nor am I afraid to say that I want abortion to remain legal. I explained what I meant. If you don't understand what I meant, and you want to keep picking at this, go ahead. I'm done..

You said you ARE NOT pro-legalized abortion, which according to what you wrote above... you are. Sorry, I understand you are "done" but you are not consistent.

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

My conscience is just fine, but thanks for your concern...lol. .

That's great. I'm happy for you.

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

Personally, I don't even buy into the whole "pro-life crusade to save the innocent unborn" bullshit. I think the majority of the people that are staunchly pro-life are just relishing an opportunity to pass judgment. It's a way to be really "passionate" about something, while actually being totally passive. .

I'm not calling out (as you call them) the "baby-killers" of the world. I'm simply trying to say something to a few people who disagree with me on a message board. I look at abortion like slavery. Some people back then thought the law supported slavery. Yet, others said the law was wrong. Some thought it was morally wrong, others said morals weren't involved at all in their decision to have slaves. In a way, my opinion is that abortion has all the same components... yet it is much much worse than slavery because in my opinion the aborted is a human life being destroyed.

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

You don't like abortions? So don't have one. I don't believe you're getting brownie points with God by calling out the baby-killers of the world. I'm equally confident that I'm not going to go to hell for supporting them.

So, if you thought a human life was being destroyed, you'd do nothing to save it. You sit in the corner and let the destruction, a new halocaust happen. Let's use murder as an example of human life being destroyed. Someone murders someone. Your response above says, you don't like murder? Than don't murder anyone. Let the murders be.

That's what I call BS. I don't know you at all.... and I do think you are better than that.

Brain of J.Lo

If I see a person getting murdered, I will intervene if I have the power to do so.

A fetus, however, is a potential life. Because of this, I don't view abortion as murder, and I don't believe I have the right or responsibility to interfere with a woman's decision. I care more about the woman's wellbeing than I do the plight of her fetus. That is up to her.

As far as the continued semantics debate, I really am done. I already explained what I meant. Maybe you didn't understand it, and that's why it seemed inconsistent, but that's not my problem.

_

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

It's absurd to imply that pro-choice advocates are trying to protect a mother's right to abort because of heartburn, or any other insignificant health issue. The fact is, there is a LOT of gray area between a healthy pregnancy and a pregnancy that results in death. There are complications that can severely impact a woman's long-term health that don't result in immediate death.

edited just to add: I don't believe that anyone but the mother in question has the right to determine whether or not her health concern is valid "enough".

It's not even the mother who gets to make that determination anyway, nor is it me or Cincy or anyone else but the woman's doctor. And if a doctor tells McCain that a patient's health is at risk, it shouldn't be McCain's place to decide that it's not.

Edit: I mean the determination of when the mother's health is at risk. Of course the mother whose health is at risk gets to decide whether or not to have an abortion.