Explain why you can't smother your 1 and 2 year old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are pro-life: If you were facing almost certain death or disability while pregnant, and the only way to preserve your health would be abortion, would you abort?

Not everyone who is "pro-life" would argue against abortion in *all* cases, including the one you mention above. If forced to choose a label for myself, I would have to say I am more pro-life than pro-choice, but because I do believe abortion needs to be available to women in some circumstances, I don't actively campaign to have it made illegal. That doesn't mean that abortion in many circumstances doesn't turn my stomach. I am guessing that most women, regardless of which camp they would place themselves in, do not view abortion as a cut and dry, black and white thing.

I honestly cannot say what I would choose when it comes to disability, that could cover a large spectrum, but I probably would choose to abort if I was facing *certain death*, because I already have a child I would not want to leave motherless if I could help it. And I don't think that I would be emotionally unscathed after having that abortion, despite the extreme circumstance that prompted it. What a horrible situation to contemplate for any woman.

Just to pop in here and comment that I find this position the most repugnant of all. "I find abortion icky, and am against it for the sluts of the world who use it as birth control, but as long as there's a good reason--as determined by my personal opinion--then this atrocity is permissible."

Nice.

[Anonymous]

but because I do believe abortion needs to be available to women in some circumstances, I don't actively campaign to have it made illegal.

Ultimately, the decision to abort a pregnancy is medical choice that needs to be left up to the woman and her doctor. Who are we to decide whether someone should be able to terminate a pregnancy under certain rules in vogue at the time - at what level of disability, at what level of harm to the life of the mother - is a police report required for the incest/rape exclusion?

If you are willingto make exceptions like rape or life of the mother, I fail to understand how you can be pro-life.

[Anonymous]

In response to 9:42 and 10:02:

I'm pro-choice and think it perfectly consistent that there are cases where I would disapprove strongly of the choice a woman makes even while defending her right to make that choice.

I also find it a consistent position for someone to be pro-life and yet accept rape or incest as over-riding considerations that justify exceptions. Of course, being pro-choice, I think that position should be one they advocate by persuasion rather than by force of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In response to 9:42 and 10:02:

I'm pro-choice and think it perfectly consistent that there are cases where I would disapprove strongly of the choice a woman makes even while defending her right to make that choice.

I also find it a consistent position for someone to be pro-life and yet accept rape or incest as over-riding considerations that justify exceptions. Of course, being pro-choice, I think that position should be one they advocate by persuasion rather than by force of law.

Well, I'm glad *you* can find it consistent. 'Cause there certainly isn't any way to square that circle with logic. Being pro-choice, I don't really care why you support that position, as long as you do. Just saying there's no possible rational support for it, other than the idea that "irresponsible women should be punished with pregnancy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In response to 9:42 and 10:02:

I'm pro-choice and think it perfectly consistent that there are cases where I would disapprove strongly of the choice a woman makes even while defending her right to make that choice.

I also find it a consistent position for someone to be pro-life and yet accept rape or incest as over-riding considerations that justify exceptions. Of course, being pro-choice, I think that position should be one they advocate by persuasion rather than by force of law.

That's the position that truly makes no sense to me.

I'm pro-choice, and I do not believe embryos and fetuses earlier than viability are human life in such a way that ending their pregnancy is the same as murder.

But -- if you DID think an embry, 2 weeks post conception, was a human life worthy of protection, the same as a newborn, the same as a 2 year old child -- how on earth could you say that there shoudl be an exception in the case of race or incest?

That would be like saying you could murder a 2 year old, or a 20 year old, because he was the product of a rape!

When "pro-life" people make the comment that they are opposed to abortion except in the case of rape or incest, that says to me thatthey really want to prohibit abortion so as to punish women for having unprotected intercourse and getting pregnant in the first place. And it seems an admission to me that even they don't really see an embryo as a full human being.

[Anonymous]

I'm 10:58 replying to 11:18 and 18:59. BTW, are you the same person repeating a position, or two people with the same opinion. It makes no difference -- I'm just curious.

I'm not talking about logical consistency. Pro-life, to me, means you have a basic emotional repugnance about destroying an embryo. But surely you can simultaneously feel a repugnance about forcing a woman to have a baby after rape or incest. For some, the former repugnance may be greater than the latter, for others, vice-versa. And some will be too conflicted to take a stand between them.

Since I don't share that view of the fetus, who am I to pontificate on how they should rationally solve this dilemma?

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who finds this thread title in HORRIFICALLY poor taste? Using the murder of babies to try to score political points with a bunch of anonymous strangers? You should be ashamed OP. Don't feed the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 10:58 replying to 11:18 and 18:59. BTW, are you the same person repeating a position, or two people with the same opinion. It makes no difference -- I'm just curious.

I'm not talking about logical consistency. Pro-life, to me, means you have a basic emotional repugnance about destroying an embryo. But surely you can simultaneously feel a repugnance about forcing a woman to have a baby after rape or incest. For some, the former repugnance may be greater than the latter, for others, vice-versa. And some will be too conflicted to take a stand between them.

Since I don't share that view of the fetus, who am I to pontificate on how they should rationally solve this dilemma?

(I'm 18:59 but not 10:58.)

I have a hard time with your definition of "pro-life" in bold. See, I'm pro-choice, yet I also have a basic emotional repugnance about destruction of an embryo. I think it is a sad, sad, thing to have happen, and I extremely dislike the idea that women will have them. Even though I do NOT think an embryo should be afforded human rights, I see abortion of an embryo and even more of a fetus to be a very sad thing, I wish abortions didn't ever happen. I have such an extreme dislike of abortions that I think all teenagers should recieve a LOT of sex ed and birth control instruction, even if theie parents think they aare not having sex. Personally, I would never have an abortion, and that is why even over the age of 40 we still use 2 forms of birth control!

So, I have extreme dislike (or repugnance) of abortion -- yet that does not make me pro-life!

Because I believe that no matter what I may think of abortion, that it is the pregnant woman whose body is being used for gestation, who should get to decide what happens in her own body with an embryo. Even if she failed to use 2 forms of birth control, even if her birth control just failed, even if she used no birth control, even if she ignored her doctor's orders and got pregnant when it was a hazard to her health to do so, even if she made a choice to have sex with a man that would not be a good father -- even if she was raped -- it doesn't matter why she got pregnant. It is her body and she gets to be the one to decide. Even though I find abortion to be repugnant, I think she gets to make the decision. And therefore I am pro-choice and not pro-life.

[Anonymous]

If men handled their penis with the responsibility they should, abortions would not be necessary. I think it should be mandatory for any man who has sired two children to have a vasectomy. For those who have not sired a child they should only be allowed to have sex if it is to imregnate a women. No more sex for the hell of it for men; you impregnate twice, whether with wife, or one-night stand, and a man either has a vasectomy or sex with the hand. No more abortions and end of abortion debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 10:58 replying to 11:18 and 18:59. BTW, are you the same person repeating a position, or two people with the same opinion. It makes no difference -- I'm just curious.

I'm not talking about logical consistency. Pro-life, to me, means you have a basic emotional repugnance about destroying an embryo. But surely you can simultaneously feel a repugnance about forcing a woman to have a baby after rape or incest. For some, the former repugnance may be greater than the latter, for others, vice-versa. And some will be too conflicted to take a stand between them.

Since I don't share that view of the fetus, who am I to pontificate on how they should rationally solve this dilemma?

(I'm 18:59 but not 10:58.)

I have a hard time with your definition of "pro-life" in bold. See, I'm pro-choice, yet I also have a basic emotional repugnance about destruction of an embryo. I think it is a sad, sad, thing to have happen, and I extremely dislike the idea that women will have them. Even though I do NOT think an embryo should be afforded human rights, I see abortion of an embryo and even more of a fetus to be a very sad thing, I wish abortions didn't ever happen. I have such an extreme dislike of abortions that I think all teenagers should recieve a LOT of sex ed and birth control instruction, even if theie parents think they aare not having sex. Personally, I would never have an abortion, and that is why even over the age of 40 we still use 2 forms of birth control!

So, I have extreme dislike (or repugnance) of abortion -- yet that does not make me pro-life!

Because I believe that no matter what I may think of abortion, that it is the pregnant woman whose body is being used for gestation, who should get to decide what happens in her own body with an embryo. Even if she failed to use 2 forms of birth control, even if her birth control just failed, even if she used no birth control, even if she ignored her doctor's orders and got pregnant when it was a hazard to her health to do so, even if she made a choice to have sex with a man that would not be a good father -- even if she was raped -- it doesn't matter why she got pregnant. It is her body and she gets to be the one to decide. Even though I find abortion to be repugnant, I think she gets to make the decision. And therefore I am pro-choice and not pro-life.

I used "means" in the sense of "implies", rather than "is equivalent to" -- sorry for the imprecision. I grant with no argument that one can be pro-choice and personally oppose abortion, and I tried to say that in my 10:58 posting.

The point I have been trying to make is that it's a complicated issue that addresses a situation where a choice has to be made between two awful alternatives, destroying a fetus and forcing a woman to undergo an unwanted pregnancy, with all sorts of other factors making it even more complex. I don't think it's helpful to concentrate on why MY position is rational and YOURS isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If men handled their penis with the responsibility they should, abortions would not be necessary. I think it should be mandatory for any man who has sired two children to have a vasectomy. For those who have not sired a child they should only be allowed to have sex if it is to imregnate a women. No more sex for the hell of it for men; you impregnate twice, whether with wife, or one-night stand, and a man either has a vasectomy or sex with the hand. No more abortions and end of abortion debate.

LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 10:58 replying to 11:18 and 18:59. BTW, are you the same person repeating a position, or two people with the same opinion. It makes no difference -- I'm just curious.

I'm not talking about logical consistency. Pro-life, to me, means you have a basic emotional repugnance about destroying an embryo. But surely you can simultaneously feel a repugnance about forcing a woman to have a baby after rape or incest. For some, the former repugnance may be greater than the latter, for others, vice-versa. And some will be too conflicted to take a stand between them.

Since I don't share that view of the fetus, who am I to pontificate on how they should rationally solve this dilemma?

(I'm 18:59 but not 10:58.)

I have a hard time with your definition of "pro-life" in bold. See, I'm pro-choice, yet I also have a basic emotional repugnance about destruction of an embryo. I think it is a sad, sad, thing to have happen, and I extremely dislike the idea that women will have them. Even though I do NOT think an embryo should be afforded human rights, I see abortion of an embryo and even more of a fetus to be a very sad thing, I wish abortions didn't ever happen. I have such an extreme dislike of abortions that I think all teenagers should recieve a LOT of sex ed and birth control instruction, even if theie parents think they aare not having sex. Personally, I would never have an abortion, and that is why even over the age of 40 we still use 2 forms of birth control!

So, I have extreme dislike (or repugnance) of abortion -- yet that does not make me pro-life!

Because I believe that no matter what I may think of abortion, that it is the pregnant woman whose body is being used for gestation, who should get to decide what happens in her own body with an embryo. Even if she failed to use 2 forms of birth control, even if her birth control just failed, even if she used no birth control, even if she ignored her doctor's orders and got pregnant when it was a hazard to her health to do so, even if she made a choice to have sex with a man that would not be a good father -- even if she was raped -- it doesn't matter why she got pregnant. It is her body and she gets to be the one to decide. Even though I find abortion to be repugnant, I think she gets to make the decision. And therefore I am pro-choice and not pro-life.

I used "means" in the sense of "implies", rather than "is equivalent to" -- sorry for the imprecision. I grant with no argument that one can be pro-choice and personally oppose abortion, and I tried to say that in my 10:58 posting.

The point I have been trying to make is that it's a complicated issue that addresses a situation where a choice has to be made between two awful alternatives, destroying a fetus and forcing a woman to undergo an unwanted pregnancy, with all sorts of other factors making it even more complex. I don't think it's helpful to concentrate on why MY position is rational and YOURS isn't.

Absolutely and all the more reason the decision should be made by the actual woman in that situation and not anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Pro-life, to me, means you have a basic emotional repugnance about destroying an embryo. But surely you can simultaneously feel a repugnance about forcing a woman to have a baby after rape or incest. For some, the former repugnance may be greater than the latter, for others, vice-versa. And some will be too conflicted to take a stand between them.

Except in the case of IVF. After all, t's perfectly okay to kill, say, a half-dozen babies so long as you end up with one live one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If men handled their penis with the responsibility they should, abortions would not be necessary. I think it should be mandatory for any man who has sired two children to have a vasectomy. For those who have not sired a child they should only be allowed to have sex if it is to imregnate a women. No more sex for the hell of it for men; you impregnate twice, whether with wife, or one-night stand, and a man either has a vasectomy or sex with the hand. No more abortions and end of abortion debate.

And if our sexual organs were on our heads, we'd fuck by bumping our noggins together. Plus I'd like a pony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If men handled their penis with the responsibility they should, abortions would not be necessary. I think it should be mandatory for any man who has sired two children to have a vasectomy. For those who have not sired a child they should only be allowed to have sex if it is to imregnate a women. No more sex for the hell of it for men; you impregnate twice, whether with wife, or one-night stand, and a man either has a vasectomy or sex with the hand. No more abortions and end of abortion debate.

And if our sexual organs were on our heads, we'd fuck by bumping our noggins together. Plus I'd like a pony.

Did your lil' ole male ego just get stomped?