I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

Pats54 · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

there should never be any legislation that dictates what a woman should be allowed to do with her body that trepasses against her own free will. ALL persons should have the right of sovereignty over their own body.

One question I have always had is this. Why if someone murders a pregnant woman is he/she charged with murder of two. This logic does not line up with me.

Also we have laws in this country that make it illegall to be a prostitute. Isn't that the Govt. teleing people what they can and can't do tot their bodies.

Just food for thought.

know1 · August 2008

scb wrote:

Yes, I went to the site. And I saw that's another one of those anti-abortion propaganda sites that spews anecdotes as medical fact.

There is a lot of spewing propaganda and anecdotes on both sides of this issue. In my opinion, more of it comes from the pro-abortion side of things.

Abuskedti · August 2008

know1 wrote:

There is a lot of spewing propaganda and anecdotes on both sides of this issue. In my opinion, more of it comes from the pro-abortion side of things.

just as your short post is filled with propaganda

If there are pro abortion people, they are a very very small group. No body like that in this discussion.

Abortion is an option is an unfortunated situation.

Abuskedti · August 2008

Abuskedti wrote:

along those lines....

when a law enforcement agency becomes aware that a child's life is threatened by its parents, it will take the child away, feed it and protect it. If a fetus is exactly that, why does the government not take it, feed it and protect it?

in essence, the conservative government chooses to do nothing to protect the fetus... it has chosen abortion over caring for the unborn fetus. I follows that the conservatives that ride the pro-life platform are really pro abortion.

Medicated-Genius · August 2008

timsinclair wrote:

When the nucleus' of the sperm and egg fuse, a cell is created that has its own unique DNA sequence, it is not part of the mother or the father. Saying that it cannot survive without the mother is irrelevant since this is the case even after the baby is born, unlike many animals, humans are completely dependant on a mother (or sustitute adult) for at least a year after birth. Furthermore, if you follow this logic to its conclusion, the many disabled folk who are completely dependant on medical machinery and drugs would also forfeit their human right to life. I suggest that the only reason we affirm the right to life for the 1 year old child and the medically dependant yet deny it for the unborn child is that killing the former would confront us with VISIBLE bloodshed whilst the later is done somewhere so hidden that we can live in denial that a killing has really taken place.

timsinclair wrote:

This is true, once the equal DNA material from each parent fuses, a new DNA sequence is formed. In saying that an embryo can not survive outside of its mother, I meant no matter what other measures one take to try to help it survive, it won't. A premature baby born at 24 weeks has some chance of survival with life support, a 7 week old embryo does not. Once again though, it comes down to which side of the argument you sit, and while you believe it to be a killing, others don't. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground where this issue is concerned.

timsinclair wrote:

the real question is not about dependancy but when the fetus is a 'Human being' with human rights. In this country (england) we can legally abort up to 24 weeks but medical advances have meant that babies can now survive if they are born at 22 weeks. This will undoubtedly be further reduced so it cannot be used as the point where the fetus 'becomes human'. the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed.

Sure, medical advances mean we can save babies at an earlier and earlier stage, but at what cost? The earlier a baby is born, the higher the chances of life long illness and disability and reduced quality of life. It is still extremely rare for a 22 weeker to survive, and when they do they have an almost 100% chance of some kind of impairment. The fact is, that no matter how advanced medicine becomes, the fetus is simply not developed enough to survive outside the uterus at such an early stage. You mentioned the legal gestation for abortion in the England being 24, but these second trimester terminations are extremely rare and never without medical merit. They are usually done when anomalies are found in the fetus that are incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, or when the mothers life is in grave danger. Simply walking into a clinic at 22 weeks pregnant and requesting an abortion because the mother has changed her mind or just got around to dealing with it, just doesn't happen. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, usually before the 9th week of pregnancy. You said "the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed" is only your truth. While it's extremely valid for you, it is not the truth of all.

Abuskedti · August 2008

Abuskedti wrote:

in essence, the conservative government chooses to do nothing to protect the fetus... it has chosen abortion over caring for the unborn fetus. I follows that the conservatives that ride the pro-life platform are really pro abortion.

you know, in a test tube.. in a baby saving lab.. then the parent get to see the child grow.. and from the saved, a panel to write the laws on abortion

angelica · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

you angelica are full of shit. regardless of the amount of time an in utero child spends inside its mother, its DNA whilst being unique, is the totality of its mother and its father. an embryo is not a person. tis debatable whether a foetus is a viable entity and therefore a person, so what exactly is your point i ask?

I made my point. It is clearly a person. I see you disagree.

know1 · August 2008

scb wrote:

I'm interested in seeing some data to support this idea.

You can't really make everyone carry their pregnancies to term anyway. Abortions are common whether they are legal or not.

Also, if people truly value children, they shouldn't want them to be brought into the world for punitive purposes.

Why do you need data? Isn't it common sense that if the consequences of an action are going to be greater, that less people will participate?

Since murder and theft are going to occur whether they are legal or not, should we make them legal too?

How many TV stars would sign up for "Circus of the Stars" if there wasn't a safety net under the trapeze?

know1 · August 2008

scb wrote:

And not everyone knows the ineffectiveness of some contraceptive methods. Hell, it looks like some people even still think the withdrawal method is a good idea!

I totally agree with your point, by the way. Abstinence-only-until-marriage education only undermines efforts to fight unintended pregnancy.

So focus on something that you can make light of rather than address what I'm really saying - that it's odd to say that abortions are easier to come by than other forms of birth control.

know1 · August 2008

Abuskedti wrote:

just as your short post is filled with propaganda

If there are pro abortion people, they are a very very small group. No body like that in this discussion.

Abortion is an option is an unfortunated situation.

I do not believe that. There are plenty of people whose intentions appear to me to be pro-abortion.

angelica · August 2008

know1 wrote:

I do not believe that. There are plenty of people whose intentions appear to me to be pro-abortion.

I agree with you.

And it's clear to me that some are so biased that they cannot realistically assess the different variables - they can only see their limited agenda.

decides2dream · August 2008

know1 wrote:

I do not believe that. There are plenty of people whose intentions appear to me to be pro-abortion.

YAY!
ooooooooo..i want to go out and purposely have unprotected sex....get pregnant so i can have an abortion! it Is so much FUN! i LOVE getting abortions...making such decisions without a care in the world...and i like to do it ofen...so that YAY! i can have an abortion again and again! they are the BEST!

yea...i know lots of people like that. :rolleyes:

the part i bolded....i think THAT is it. what you INFER, and what one actually thinks/believes/beahves....quite obviously, NOT always the same thing.

i can safely say in my life i have NEVER met anyone i would remotely even THINK of as 'pro-abortion'...what an absurd notion! however, i also am a pro-choice thinker...and i appreciate and respect both sides of the equation. as i say opften enough.....i fully support EVERYone's right to make their own individual decisions.....and i expect the same. all free to make their own choices.

Medicated-Genius wrote:

Sure, medical advances mean we can save babies at an earlier and earlier stage, but at what cost? The earlier a baby is born, the higher the chances of life long illness and disability and reduced quality of life. It is still extremely rare for a 22 weeker to survive, and when they do they have an almost 100% chance of some kind of impairment. The fact is, that no matter how advanced medicine becomes, the fetus is simply not developed enough to survive outside the uterus at such an early stage. You mentioned the legal gestation for abortion in the England being 24, but these second trimester terminations are extremely rare and never without medical merit. They are usually done when anomalies are found in the fetus that are incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, or when the mothers life is in grave danger. Simply walking into a clinic at 22 weeks pregnant and requesting an abortion because the mother has changed her mind or just got around to dealing with it, just doesn't happen. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, usually before the 9th week of pregnancy. You said "the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed" is only your truth. While it's extremely valid for you, it is not the truth of all.

exactly.
i find it interesting too....we continually develop more and more artificial means to extend life, to keep life from ceasing...even for fetuses who even 10-20 years ago wouldn't survive. this is all a-ok though. perhaps that fetus is not meant to survive? thus why the vast medical complications throut life many of these children end up having, for life...b/c of medical intervention. so it's ok to do so to keep life going at all costs...but one cannot choose for themselves to end something living in their own bodies, with absolutely NO sensory percerption and ZERO chance of living outside the body....normally wellunder 12 weeks of 'life' in the body. it's certainly a perspective for one to have...just not one i share.

btw - i see the 'point' made that if all were forced to 'face the consequences' of their unwanted pregnancies...that there'd be less of em. history seems to speak otherwise to THAT statement.

and i DO say people face the consequences of their actions ALL the time. simply b/c they make a decision you do not agree with does NOT mean one is not taking responsibilty ofr their actions. i find it far more 'responsible'...for a woman to choose the morning after pill for example...to have an abortion as early as possible if that is her choice....or to decide to have a baby....ALL are 'dealing with the consequences.'

anyhoo....enjoy your sunday all!

know1 · August 2008

So you can take issue with the term pro-abortion, but hold up as a comparison the completely ridiculous moniker of pro-choice?

Pro-abortion is much more accurate than pro-choice as a descriptor.

decides2dream · August 2008

know1 wrote:

So you can take issue with the term pro-abortion, but hold up as a comparison the completely ridiculous moniker of pro-choice?

Pro-abortion is much more accurate than pro-choice as a descriptor.

certainly your right to hold that opinion...and also well within my rights to disgree.

to ME, pro-abortion would signify one is 100% FOR abortions...ALL the time...the FIRST and ONLY choice.

whereas to ME...pro-CHOICE means just that, CHOICE. look at the post above...i listed 3 scenarios:
-choose to utlize the morning after pill
-choose to have an abortion
-choose to have a baby

i'd also add
-choosing to abstain from intercourse
-choosing to utilize BC methods

ALL viable and equal choices in my mind.
so YES...i absolutely believe 'pro-choice' is the BEST descriptor for my thinking on the subject.

know1 · August 2008

decides2dream wrote:

certainly your right to hold that opinion...and also well within my rights to disgree.

to ME, pro-abortion would signify one is 100% FOR abortions...ALL the time...the FIRST and ONLY choice.

whereas to ME...pro-CHOICE means just that, CHOICE. look at the post above...i listed 3 scenarios:
-choose to utlize the morning after pill
-choose to have an abortion
-choose to have a baby

i'd also add
-choosing to abstain from intercourse
-choosing to utilize BC methods

ALL viable and equal choices in my mind.
so YES...i absolutely believe 'pro-choice' is the BEST descriptor for my thinking on the subject.

But that means both sides are pro-choice with the exception of the inclusion of one of the choices (abortion). Therefore, the way to differentiate is to call it like it is - pro-abortion.

Collin · August 2008

know1 wrote:

But that means both sides are pro-choice with the exception of the inclusion of one of the choices (abortion). Therefore, the way to differentiate is to call it like it is - pro-abortion.

Nope, one side is not pro-choice; the side that is against abortion. They want to eliminate that choice. edit: I mean how can you say you are pro-choice when you are strictly against one choice?

No one is pro-abortion. I've always been against abortion, but I am pro-choice.

know1 · August 2008

Collin wrote:

Nope, one side is not pro-choice; the side that is against abortion. They want to eliminate that choice.

No one is pro-abortion. I've always been against abortion, but I am pro-choice.

I'm perfectly fine with using the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion. Those are the most accurate in my opinion.

I'm very much pro-life across many issues, but on this issue the most accurate way to describe me is anti-abortion. I'm against abortion. I think it's wrong.

Collin · August 2008

know1 wrote:

I'm perfectly fine with using the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion. Those are the most accurate in my opinion.

I'm very much pro-life across many issues, but on this issue the most accurate way to describe me is anti-abortion. I'm against abortion. I think it's wrong.

If that's what you want to call it, fine. Just know that those you consider "pro-abortion" are not necessarily pro abortion.

They are pro choice. I think that is way, way more accurate. Their stance is people should be able to choose, they should have that choice.

I'm against abortion in almost every case. I'm pro-choice, though. It means you get your way, no one is forcing you to have an abortion (that would be the pro-abortion agenda). You have a choice. The people who want a abortion should be able to get one.

So I think the most accurate description is pro-choice and anti-freedom

decides2dream · August 2008

know1 wrote:

But that means both sides are pro-choice with the exception of the inclusion of one of the choices (abortion). Therefore, the way to differentiate is to call it like it is - pro-abortion.

are they?

to me someone who is pro-life ALWAYS leaves out the option of abortion, oftentimes the morning after pill...and some are even against BC. obviously not all...but some. pro-lifers overwhelmingly seem to never allow abortion into the equation as a choice...so that to me is not honest. (and i know there are some in the pro-life category who at least leave abortion open with the caveat of risk to the mother's life, rape, etc....but that is by and large not all)

i already explained why pro-abortion makes no sense. i am NOT pro-abortion. i am pro-OPTIONS. in an ideal world...abortions would be unnecessary, b/c all would use BC....access to the morning after pill would be quite and easy and open to all.....access to proper education and cost of BC methods would ALL be covered, always, by insurance....etc. so no, to say one is 'pro-abortion' is a misnomer imo. as i already said, you see it differently..so be it. however, doesn't make it true.

Collin wrote:

If that's what you want to call it, fine. Just know that those you consider "pro-abortion" are not necessarily pro abortion.

They are pro choice. I think that is way, way more accurate. Their stance is people should be able to choose, they should have that choice.

I'm against abortion in almost every case. I'm pro-choice, though. It means you get your way, no one is forcing you to have an abortion (that would be the pro-abortion agenda). You have a choice. The people who want a abortion should be able to get one.

So I think the most accurate description is pro-choice and anti-freedom

exactly.
but if makes know1 happy to use those labels for himself...so be it.

i, however, will ALWAYS think of myself as PRO-CHOICE...and no one can ever convince me that my stance is anything but...pro...choice.

know1 · August 2008

Collin wrote:

If that's what you want to call it, fine. Just know that those you consider "pro-abortion" are not necessarily pro abortion.

They are pro choice. I think that is way, way more accurate. Their stance is people should be able to choose, they should have that choice.

I'm against abortion in almost every case. I'm pro-choice, though. It means you get your way, no one is forcing you to have an abortion (that would be the pro-abortion agenda). You have a choice. The people who want a abortion should be able to get one.

So I think the most accurate description is pro-choice and anti-freedom

Still disagree. There are TONS of options or choices out there. What the pro-abortion crowd really cares about is having abortion as an option.

I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

Comments

Categories