Anonymous
08/06/2012 22:12
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in the right to kill babies, either. Nor do I believe in the right to reinvent language to win an argument.
But I do believe in a woman's right to abort a fetus!
Okay . . . then let's get back to the age-old question. At what point do you think is too far along to "abort a fetus?" Because if the "fetus" can survive on its own (and I know many of us have had premature babies who are the joy of our lives), should its life not be saved?
Did you even bother to read this thread?
The question was directed towards a specific PP and statement.
Anonymous
08/06/2012 22:08
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Are you saying adoption as a contraceptive method? No worry about a 'surprise' because you can leave it in the hospital?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.
i don't either, but i also wish that we could get to a place in our culture so that women who are accidentally pregnant are encouraged to have the baby and place it for adoption. it seems to me that now there is more stigma attached to carrying a child to term than having an abortion (seriously, there are women on here who talk proudly about how many abortions they have had). there are women who are cavalier about pregnancy and i find that sickening. I realize this is my world view and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else.
Can we not just increase womens rights, so surprise pregnancies actually mean that the man is on the hook for child support, and that the mother gets paid maternity leave, and can get child care subsidies and wic if she needs?
Baby scoop era is over and you cannot treat women like that anymore
Anonymous
08/06/2012 19:51
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.
i don't either, but i also wish that we could get to a place in our culture so that women who are accidentally pregnant are encouraged to have the baby and place it for adoption. it seems to me that now there is more stigma attached to carrying a child to term than having an abortion (seriously, there are women on here who talk proudly about how many abortions they have had). there are women who are cavalier about pregnancy and i find that sickening. I realize this is my world view and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else.
Anonymous
08/06/2012 09:54
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:It's really unsportsmanlike of God to have created this whole "woman as incubator" idea in the first place. Here's an interesting thought experiment for pro-choice people: If mammals laid eggs and the eggs could survive without the mother if properly incubated, would you support a woman's right to destroy laid eggs? How about destruction of eggs before they were laid? At what point or under what circumstances would you support criminalizing egg destruction? For pro-lifers, would you support egg destruction in cases of incest or rape?
If a woman could lay an egg and just hand it over to a family who needs a baby, the problem would be solved. Seriously. OTOH you would probably not be happy having to sit on an egg every month for three or four days just to find out if it is fertilized.
Anonymous
08/06/2012 09:19
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:It's really unsportsmanlike of God to have created this whole "woman as incubator" idea in the first place. Here's an interesting thought experiment for pro-choice people: If mammals laid eggs and the eggs could survive without the mother if properly incubated, would you support a woman's right to destroy laid eggs? How about destruction of eggs before they were laid? At what point or under what circumstances would you support criminalizing egg destruction? For pro-lifers, would you support egg destruction in cases of incest or rape?
Pro-choice here -- and not so interesting. I would not support the destruction of laid eggs because there is no competing interest -- the laid eggs do not impact the mother.
Anonymous
08/06/2012 09:15
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
It's really unsportsmanlike of God to have created this whole "woman as incubator" idea in the first place. Here's an interesting thought experiment for pro-choice people: If mammals laid eggs and the eggs could survive without the mother if properly incubated, would you support a woman's right to destroy laid eggs? How about destruction of eggs before they were laid? At what point or under what circumstances would you support criminalizing egg destruction? For pro-lifers, would you support egg destruction in cases of incest or rape?
Anonymous
08/06/2012 08:47
Subject: Re:I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The argument of "what's next? Protecting the egg and sperm?" is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard on any topic. Period.
i don't know if I'm considered pro-life or pro-choice. I believe that abortion is only justified in the case of rape or if the mother's health is jeopardized. Or if the fetus has defects that will prevent it from having a decent quality of life. I don't believe in abortions because pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother. Rest assured, you still have *choices* - 1. to have sex or not have sex 2. to use protection (actually double protection would be wise). If that fails, you have another choice 1. Keep baby 2. give the baby up for adoption. Plenty of choices here. I don't think that terminating a life for your own convenience should be one of them. If you choose to have sex, you should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences arise from it.
I agree with the PP who suggested that medical experts should figure out when the fetus feels pain.
Ok, this position is why I'm convinced most anti-choicers frankly just want to punish women for having sex. Do you believe that abortion should be outlawed to protect the rights of what you believe is a "life" or do you believe it should be outlawed to punish women for having sex? Because first, you say that women who get pregnant should be forced to carry to term because they should have to "deal with whatever consequences arise." And since you clearly don't consider having an abortion to be "dealing with the consequences," then you want to use pregnancy as a punishment.
You seem to justify this by referring to the fetus as "a life." But if a fetus is a life, then why the exception for rape? We don't go around killing born babies just because their mom was raped. Why would we do so to a fetus that you claim is a life?
It appears, from what you posted, that a fetus is a life, but not as much of a life as the mother is, but the only time the mother's life actually outweighs the fetus' life is when the mother wants an abortion for reasons that aren't her "fault." So, this pregnancy gets forced on women for having sex, even if they used birth control, and even if they (*gasp*) weren't ready to be a parent right then and there.
I'm pro-choice, but frankly, I have so much more respect for anti-choicers who believe abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances, even rape or incest. At least they are ACTUALLY concerned with the fetus, and not just using it as an excuse to punish women for daring to have sex without feeling properly guilty about it.
I'm the PP here. I do get some of your points. some are things I've thought about, and that's why I don't really know how I would want the laws to be written if it were up to me. Yeah, I don't think a woman who has been raped should be forced to carry the child. But if that's the law, then what's to stop women from saying they were raped, even if they weren't, just to get an abortion? As for the mother's health - yeah, I don't think we should let the mother die in order to have the baby. But if you start out your life motherless, does that make your life not worth living? of course not. So, I get that my opinion is hypocritical and I struggle to figure out where I really stand in all this. I guess if I felt the need to really sort things out, I would discuss it with my pastor. So, i don't know. Maybe that's where I think things should go. maybe women should be required to have substantial counseling or religious guidance (whichever she prefers) before getting an abortion. I would think a counselor or pastor would be more effective then any law at getting the right and moral outcome for the mother and baby.
that said, I don't think you are ever justified in getting an abortion for convenience. But not because i want women to be punished for having sex. Hey, I lost my virginity at 15, so I'm in no position to pass judgment! But even at that age, before having sex, i thought about whether I would be able to handle pregnancy if it happened. I felt that I could carry the baby and then put it up for adoption. If I didn't think that I could handle that, i wouldn't have had sex. Sex = potential to create life. we all know this so we shouldn't act shocked or victimized when we get knocked up. So that's why the 'my body, my choice" argument bothers me. You HAD choices and they resulted in pregnancy.
I have a simple question. Why choose abortion over adoption? Again, unless the mother's health is at risk, why? sure, it's more convenient, but that's not a valid reason.
JUst want to add one more thing - a little perspective for those that use the "just a clump of cells" argument:
Week 5 (around the time you take a home pregnancy test)
-Now an embryo taking on the shape of a seahorse
-the nerve tube has closed
-primitive heart
Week 6
-arm and leg buds
-face is developing, embryo has eyes, nose and mouth
Week 7
-heart has been beating for a couple of weeks
-tiny hands resemble paddles
-Nerve cells and parts of the brain are developing, to take on their separate functions
Weeks 8 and 9
-embryo is lively, in constant motion, sleeping for brief periods
-Many organs have begun to function - kidneys produce urine and stomach produces gastric juice
*at this point, you'v'e only known you're pregnant for 3-4 weeks
Why choose abortion over adoption? Because, at best, pregnancy takes a huge toll on your body and well-being. I had my first baby recently, and (luckily) had an "uneventful" pregnancy. I wouldn't wish that on anyone who didn't want to carry a pregnancy through to delivery. The nausea, the insomnia, the heartburn, the shortness of breath, the back pain, the eating and drinking restrictions, all for months -- that's not just "inconvenience." That's a huge committment, even excluding all the things that can go wrong. And it doesn't even begin to discuss the risk, pain and effort of labor and delivery. So, yeah, if I didn't want the baby, I can see choosing abortion over adoption. Pregnancy, labor and delivery are not "inconveniences," and calling them that minimizes women generally.
To me, having an abortion IS dealing with getting pregnant. Or at least, it's one way to deal with it. It may not be the one you would choose, but then, it's not your body.
I appreciate the honest discussion. I do have a couple of questions for you: you say that you don't want to punish women for having sex. So why don't you approve of abortion for "convenience?" Why can't you avail yourself of choices after pregnancy? And why do you assume that a woman can't come to the "right and moral outcome" on her own? Or that she would find help to decide what to do if she needed it? Why would we legally require her to do so?
Anonymous
08/06/2012 08:43
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Replying to your question "Am I the only one?".
People killing babies are murders, women electing to abort a are making a personal decision.
The leading causes of death of babies in the DC area is gun related murder and the lack of prenatal care. What have you done to save these babies????
NP, I can answer that. Nothing! Please go to the adoption forum. There are people writing many reasons why people should not adopt. I bet most of the anti-choice folks are also many of the same people who think adopted children are damaged and thus they would never adopt. Somebody posted that she was a teacher at a catholic school and the school rejected all adopted children, as a group, adopted children were considered problem children. Hypocrites, the batch of them.
Anonymous
08/06/2012 01:57
Subject: Re:I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The argument of "what's next? Protecting the egg and sperm?" is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard on any topic. Period.
i don't know if I'm considered pro-life or pro-choice. I believe that abortion is only justified in the case of rape or if the mother's health is jeopardized. Or if the fetus has defects that will prevent it from having a decent quality of life. I don't believe in abortions because pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother. Rest assured, you still have *choices* - 1. to have sex or not have sex 2. to use protection (actually double protection would be wise). If that fails, you have another choice 1. Keep baby 2. give the baby up for adoption. Plenty of choices here. I don't think that terminating a life for your own convenience should be one of them. If you choose to have sex, you should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences arise from it.
I agree with the PP who suggested that medical experts should figure out when the fetus feels pain.
Ok, this position is why I'm convinced most anti-choicers frankly just want to punish women for having sex. Do you believe that abortion should be outlawed to protect the rights of what you believe is a "life" or do you believe it should be outlawed to punish women for having sex? Because first, you say that women who get pregnant should be forced to carry to term because they should have to "deal with whatever consequences arise." And since you clearly don't consider having an abortion to be "dealing with the consequences," then you want to use pregnancy as a punishment.
You seem to justify this by referring to the fetus as "a life." But if a fetus is a life, then why the exception for rape? We don't go around killing born babies just because their mom was raped. Why would we do so to a fetus that you claim is a life?
It appears, from what you posted, that a fetus is a life, but not as much of a life as the mother is, but the only time the mother's life actually outweighs the fetus' life is when the mother wants an abortion for reasons that aren't her "fault." So, this pregnancy gets forced on women for having sex, even if they used birth control, and even if they (*gasp*) weren't ready to be a parent right then and there.
I'm pro-choice, but frankly, I have so much more respect for anti-choicers who believe abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances, even rape or incest. At least they are ACTUALLY concerned with the fetus, and not just using it as an excuse to punish women for daring to have sex without feeling properly guilty about it.
I'm the PP here. I do get some of your points. some are things I've thought about, and that's why I don't really know how I would want the laws to be written if it were up to me. Yeah, I don't think a woman who has been raped should be forced to carry the child. But if that's the law, then what's to stop women from saying they were raped, even if they weren't, just to get an abortion? As for the mother's health - yeah, I don't think we should let the mother die in order to have the baby. But if you start out your life motherless, does that make your life not worth living? of course not. So, I get that my opinion is hypocritical and I struggle to figure out where I really stand in all this. I guess if I felt the need to really sort things out, I would discuss it with my pastor. So, i don't know. Maybe that's where I think things should go. maybe women should be required to have substantial counseling or religious guidance (whichever she prefers) before getting an abortion. I would think a counselor or pastor would be more effective then any law at getting the right and moral outcome for the mother and baby.
that said, I don't think you are ever justified in getting an abortion for convenience. But not because i want women to be punished for having sex. Hey, I lost my virginity at 15, so I'm in no position to pass judgment! But even at that age, before having sex, i thought about whether I would be able to handle pregnancy if it happened. I felt that I could carry the baby and then put it up for adoption. If I didn't think that I could handle that, i wouldn't have had sex. Sex = potential to create life. we all know this so we shouldn't act shocked or victimized when we get knocked up. So that's why the 'my body, my choice" argument bothers me. You HAD choices and they resulted in pregnancy.
I have a simple question. Why choose abortion over adoption? Again, unless the mother's health is at risk, why? sure, it's more convenient, but that's not a valid reason.
JUst want to add one more thing - a little perspective for those that use the "just a clump of cells" argument:
Week 5 (around the time you take a home pregnancy test)
-Now an embryo taking on the shape of a seahorse
-the nerve tube has closed
-primitive heart
Week 6
-arm and leg buds
-face is developing, embryo has eyes, nose and mouth
Week 7
-heart has been beating for a couple of weeks
-tiny hands resemble paddles
-Nerve cells and parts of the brain are developing, to take on their separate functions
Weeks 8 and 9
-embryo is lively, in constant motion, sleeping for brief periods
-Many organs have begun to function - kidneys produce urine and stomach produces gastric juice
*at this point, you'v'e only known you're pregnant for 3-4 weeks
Anonymous
08/05/2012 21:27
Subject: Re:I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:The argument of "what's next? Protecting the egg and sperm?" is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard on any topic. Period.
i don't know if I'm considered pro-life or pro-choice. I believe that abortion is only justified in the case of rape or if the mother's health is jeopardized. Or if the fetus has defects that will prevent it from having a decent quality of life. I don't believe in abortions because pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother. Rest assured, you still have *choices* - 1. to have sex or not have sex 2. to use protection (actually double protection would be wise). If that fails, you have another choice 1. Keep baby 2. give the baby up for adoption. Plenty of choices here. I don't think that terminating a life for your own convenience should be one of them. If you choose to have sex, you should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences arise from it.
I agree with the PP who suggested that medical experts should figure out when the fetus feels pain.
Ok, this position is why I'm convinced most anti-choicers frankly just want to punish women for having sex. Do you believe that abortion should be outlawed to protect the rights of what you believe is a "life" or do you believe it should be outlawed to punish women for having sex? Because first, you say that women who get pregnant should be forced to carry to term because they should have to "deal with whatever consequences arise." And since you clearly don't consider having an abortion to be "dealing with the consequences," then you want to use pregnancy as a punishment.
You seem to justify this by referring to the fetus as "a life." But if a fetus is a life, then why the exception for rape? We don't go around killing born babies just because their mom was raped. Why would we do so to a fetus that you claim is a life?
It appears, from what you posted, that a fetus is a life, but not as much of a life as the mother is, but the only time the mother's life actually outweighs the fetus' life is when the mother wants an abortion for reasons that aren't her "fault." So, this pregnancy gets forced on women for having sex, even if they used birth control, and even if they (*gasp*) weren't ready to be a parent right then and there.
I'm pro-choice, but frankly, I have so much more respect for anti-choicers who believe abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances, even rape or incest. At least they are ACTUALLY concerned with the fetus, and not just using it as an excuse to punish women for daring to have sex without feeling properly guilty about it.
Anonymous
08/05/2012 14:02
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
The question of pain has been raised, which is a separate issue from viability. As with "life" and "human", "pain" requires definition. I just saw a plant that closes up when you flick it with your finger. Is that pain?
In any case, if there were some reaction by the fetus that is interpreted as pain, I can see a requirement that an abortion be accompanied by some kind of anesthetic for the fetus, but I don't see that pain should be a deciding issue on the timing of an abortion.
In any case, if there were some reaction by the fetus that is interpreted as pain, I can see a requirement that an abortion be accompanied by some kind of anesthetic for the fetus, but I don't see that pain should be a deciding issue on the timing of an abortion.
Anonymous
08/05/2012 13:12
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in the right to kill babies, either. Nor do I believe in the right to reinvent language to win an argument.
But I do believe in a woman's right to abort a fetus!
Okay . . . then let's get back to the age-old question. At what point do you think is too far along to "abort a fetus?" Because if the "fetus" can survive on its own (and I know many of us have had premature babies who are the joy of our lives), should its life not be saved?
Did you even bother to read this thread?
Anonymous
08/05/2012 13:10
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in the right to kill babies, either. Nor do I believe in the right to reinvent language to win an argument.
But I do believe in a woman's right to abort a fetus!
Okay . . . then let's get back to the age-old question. At what point do you think is too far along to "abort a fetus?" Because if the "fetus" can survive on its own (and I know many of us have had premature babies who are the joy of our lives), should its life not be saved?
Anonymous
08/05/2012 12:56
Subject: Re:I don't believe in the right to kill babies
The argument of "what's next? Protecting the egg and sperm?" is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard on any topic. Period.
i don't know if I'm considered pro-life or pro-choice. I believe that abortion is only justified in the case of rape or if the mother's health is jeopardized. Or if the fetus has defects that will prevent it from having a decent quality of life. I don't believe in abortions because pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother. Rest assured, you still have *choices* - 1. to have sex or not have sex 2. to use protection (actually double protection would be wise). If that fails, you have another choice 1. Keep baby 2. give the baby up for adoption. Plenty of choices here. I don't think that terminating a life for your own convenience should be one of them. If you choose to have sex, you should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences arise from it.
I agree with the PP who suggested that medical experts should figure out when the fetus feels pain.
i don't know if I'm considered pro-life or pro-choice. I believe that abortion is only justified in the case of rape or if the mother's health is jeopardized. Or if the fetus has defects that will prevent it from having a decent quality of life. I don't believe in abortions because pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother. Rest assured, you still have *choices* - 1. to have sex or not have sex 2. to use protection (actually double protection would be wise). If that fails, you have another choice 1. Keep baby 2. give the baby up for adoption. Plenty of choices here. I don't think that terminating a life for your own convenience should be one of them. If you choose to have sex, you should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences arise from it.
I agree with the PP who suggested that medical experts should figure out when the fetus feels pain.
Anonymous
08/03/2012 23:37
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:I am pro-death on every issue: capital punishment, abortion, euthenasia. I am far more consistent on this than most.
Conversely, I am also consistent and pro-life on all the same issues.