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

[Anonymous]

I hate to oversimplify but this is America and I don't want someone I've never met to have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. There are plenty of wonderful countries some of the PPs can relocate to if they wish to have such decisions made by others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to oversimplify but this is America and I don't want someone I've never met to have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. There are plenty of wonderful countries some of the PPs can relocate to if they wish to have such decisions made by others.

Especially by blowdried old southern men with spray tans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with your argument in 8:57 completely. People who argue that an embryo or fetus is not a human being are rationalizing to make themselves feel better. To say that abortion is justifiable at any stage means that you believe that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of a embryo or fetus. If you want to say you're okay with that and that you're pro-choice, fine, but at least have the guts to be honest about what you are saying. You are saying that there are certain circumstances where it is okay to kill another human being. Another example that most people seem to be fine with is killing in self-defense. But it is all still killing a human being. Where we are drawing the lines is as to what circumstances allow that to be "okay".

Since the beginning of time humans have decided what is justified and unjustified killing. Our society says that it's justified killing to abort an nonviable fetus. And I agree. If it comes down to the mother's life or the fetus', whose do you choose? I'd choose the mother every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with your argument in 8:57 completely. People who argue that an embryo or fetus is not a human being are rationalizing to make themselves feel better. To say that abortion is justifiable at any stage means that you believe that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of a embryo or fetus. If you want to say you're okay with that and that you're pro-choice, fine, but at least have the guts to be honest about what you are saying. You are saying that there are certain circumstances where it is okay to kill another human being. Another example that most people seem to be fine with is killing in self-defense. But it is all still killing a human being. Where we are drawing the lines is as to what circumstances allow that to be "okay".

As a PP pointed out, the central point of the argument is whether an embryo, or a fetus, is in fact a "human being" or a "person". Yes, it is human not a cat or a dog, but it is a "person"? THat's where all the argument lies.

You saying a 6 week post conception embry IS a human being worthy of all protectins afforded born human babies, doesn't necessarily make it so, and my saying a 6 week embryo is NOT a human being worthy of all protections afforded born babies, doesn't make it so either.

But that's where the argument lies.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, I DO think the rights of a pregnant woman outweigh any "rights" of a 6 week post-conception embryo. But I DO NOT think that is the same thing as saying that it is ever OK to kill a human being. Because I do not think a 6 week post conception embryo IS a human being.

And yes, there is a slippery slope, becuase I DO think it is wrong to abort a 38 week post-conception fetus. So the problem is finding out where the line should be drawn between what is and is not considered human.

But the woman in whose body all this gestating is taking place, should be the one to be making these decisions, and these distinctions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to oversimplify but this is America and I don't want someone I've never met to have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. There are plenty of wonderful countries some of the PPs can relocate to if they wish to have such decisions made by others.

Abortion wouldn't be my choice unless a compatibility with life situation. I have no problem with other people making such choices and I don't believe abortions should be illegal. I am however bothered by the "my body" argument. It's weak and it totally diminishes what the choice is and what effect it has on a person. I have known too many women who have needed therapy after an abortion. They feel guilt and regret years later and it's not because their body makes them feel that way. We are emotional creatures with our own sense of morality and too many women push that aside and make a hasty decision because we have been told to do whatever the hell we want with our bodies. If we were ruled by our bodies and instincts most of us would have Duggar sized families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to oversimplify but this is America and I don't want someone I've never met to have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. There are plenty of wonderful countries some of the PPs can relocate to if they wish to have such decisions made by others.

Abortion wouldn't be my choice unless a compatibility with life situation. I have no problem with other people making such choices and I don't believe abortions should be illegal. I am however bothered by the "my body" argument. It's weak and it totally diminishes what the choice is and what effect it has on a person. I have known too many women who have needed therapy after an abortion. They feel guilt and regret years later and it's not because their body makes them feel that way. We are emotional creatures with our own sense of morality and too many women push that aside and make a hasty decision because we have been told to do whatever the hell we want with our bodies. If we were ruled by our bodies and instincts most of us would have Duggar sized families.

That it is a woman's right to choose does not imply that is should be done thoughtlessly. With any right goes the responsibility to use it wisely. I think many on both sides work in our own ways to educate young women to understand the ramifications of their choice,

[Anonymous]

OP, what about the millions of frozen embryos left over from fertility treatments that are destined to be destroyed? If people who are anti-abortion for even the first trimester have any integrity because they believe life starts at conception, then they would agree that it should be illegal to create any embryo that won't definitely be used to become pregnant. And keeping them frozen for some potential future use when they aren't certain to want another pregnancy is just punting on the moral question.

I think when you look at society's actions around fertility treatment, it's clear that there is far more acceptance of a gray area about the start of life and attendant rights than many pro-lifers would like to admit.

[Anonymous]

OK, here's an absurd argument-why do certain fanatical pro-lifers think it's OK to shoot and kill abortion doctors?

[Anonymous]

There are pro-lifers who do fertility treatment and then give their unused embryos to infertile couples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, here's an absurd argument-why do certain fanatical pro-lifers think it's OK to shoot and kill abortion doctors?

I could only assume that they feel by taking that one life they are saving the lives of many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what about the millions of frozen embryos left over from fertility treatments that are destined to be destroyed? If people who are anti-abortion for even the first trimester have any integrity because they believe life starts at conception, then they would agree that it should be illegal to create any embryo that won't definitely be used to become pregnant. And keeping them frozen for some potential future use when they aren't certain to want another pregnancy is just punting on the moral question.

I think when you look at society's actions around fertility treatment, it's clear that there is far more acceptance of a gray area about the start of life and attendant rights than many pro-lifers would like to admit.

I think this is why the Catholic church opposes fertility treatment of this type (among other reasons.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what about the millions of frozen embryos left over from fertility treatments that are destined to be destroyed? If people who are anti-abortion for even the first trimester have any integrity because they believe life starts at conception, then they would agree that it should be illegal to create any embryo that won't definitely be used to become pregnant. And keeping them frozen for some potential future use when they aren't certain to want another pregnancy is just punting on the moral question.

I think when you look at society's actions around fertility treatment, it's clear that there is far more acceptance of a gray area about the start of life and attendant rights than many pro-lifers would like to admit.

I think this is why the Catholic church opposes fertility treatment of this type (among other reasons.)

I didn't realize that the Catholic church took this stand, although it's not surprising. (FWIW, I was raised Catholic but am no longer practicing because of my disagreement with the church on a whole host of issues. And although I disagree with its stance, I have huge respect for the great consistency that the Catholic church has toward issues of "life," i.e. equally opposing abortion, death penalty, war, etc.)

Generally, though, the pro-life movement is silent on the issue of embryos in fertility treatments. I find this hypocritical because it suggests that it's really about judging women who choose to abort rather than the sanctity of life as they define it. I also found the exception about rape and incest to be hypocritical-- Again, if a fetus/embryo is a life deserving of the same protections of a born child, how can its abortion be morally justified based on the circumstances of its creation? The rape/incest exception de facto acknowledges that the mother's well-being is a legitimate competing interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a matter of fact rite of passage.

And every family would have only one child.

And they would probably pick a male child and abandon girls just like in China!

Also in India. Then there was s shortage of girls/women. Nice little reprieve for next generation of female in India.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a matter of fact rite of passage.

And every family would have only one child.

And they would probably pick a male child and abandon girls just like in China!

Also in India. Then there was s shortage of girls/women. Nice little reprieve for next generation of female in India.

I read that the shortage of females in countries that practice gender selection/preference for males will have terrible consequences for women in the future. Some think kidnapping, slavery and sex trafficking will increase dramatically in the future because of the lack of women. The victims will most likely be women from other poor countries.

[Anonymous]

I am someone who believes it is unethical to abort for any reason except danger to the mother's health or significant likelihood of physical suffering of the person that the fetus will become. I also agree with the Catholic Church that creating multiple embryos, some of which will be destroyed, in order to conceive a biological child is wrong.

But I do not say that these actions should be illegal.