|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:27 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Because I believe that some things need to be said, and because I don't want to completely hijack Captain_Theoretical's thread, I'm going to continue my argument here.
MipsyKitten If you're against choice, you are anti-choice. It's as simple as that.
I have a lot of pro-life friends in real life. I don't even know any anti-choice people. The pro-life people in my life are not against abortion because they want to punish the mother--they're pro-life because they feel abortion kills a child. I disagree with them strongly, but I know their intent, and I know anyway that abortion is an unsolvable issue.
This debate will go on forever, because there is no clear-cut right and wrong. There are very strong opinions, yes, but we'll never be able to prove whether it's right or wrong or pink or purple.
Besides, by using the term "anti-choice," you are clearly using an "emotionally-charged" term and therefore are exhibiting hypocrisy in its purest form.
MipsyKitten You know where the 'quit this quild' button is. No one's forcing you to stay.
What if I love my country, my guild, and my people, but just think they're going down the wrong path?
I never liked when people responded to a very valid complaint with "Grow up." She has a valid complaint, and you apparently have no counter-arguement.
Many pro-choicers in this guild have become the pro-choice equivelent to radical pro-lifers who think abortion is never okay--even if the mother's gonna die. Many choicers in this guild apparently think it's totally fine to abort the "fetus" no matter what stage of the pregnancy, no matter how much the woman has neglected to be responsible--just because the legal definition supports you. I think it's shameful to hide behind loopholes.
Quote: Five week old baby =/= fetus. I don't give a s**t how long it had left in the womb. IT IS NOT MURDER. A fetus IS NOT A CHILD. A child is a BORN human between INFANTCY and PUBERTY. You don't know a goddamn thing about her. You have no right to say "she had five months to make a decision". You don't know what she went through.
No, again, I don't know anything about her, and I do feel sorry for her, but what she did was wrong. And nine months is a really long time--much more than likely, it was her own irresponsibility that led to her unfortunate situation.
I don't advocate prison for her, but counseling.
Quote: If I had no other option YES. I've said it before. No one's going to control my body, but me. If I don't want treatment for something, I'll damn well deny treatment. If I want to shoot myself in the stomach on the 'due date' of the fetus, I'll damn well do it. No one's going to take away my right to an abortion and expect me deal with it. If you have a problem, tough s**t. I am not here to please you . I am not here to do what you feel is right.
We as pro-choicers don't advocate unsafe sex now, do we? Just because you want to get pregnant and have abortion? Don't you think that's wrong? Irresponsibility leads to some pretty hardcore evil.
I don't think you should be punished for temporary irresponsiblity--like if you forgot the condom once, got caught up in the heat of the moment. However, that's why I think there should be a limit on elective abortions--two or three--because if you forget the condom that many times, and have an abortion that many times, you are clearly irresponsible. However, we'd never have to enforce such a law, because no one's that irresponsible. Hopefully.
Actually, I take that back. You shouldn't be allowed to have children if you're that stupid.
But anyway.
You have quickly jumped on the defensive, assuming I'm attacking you by saying the woman in the article was irresponsible. I hope you'll debate with me in a less emotionally-charged way in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:42 pm
|
|
|
|
Kukushka Wrong. You "stooped to the level of the antis" by using medically FALSE and emotionally charged words to get a point across.
I'm pro-choice for a host of reasons, but also because being a mother scares the s**t out of me--I'm pro-choice because of my own fear.
I don't think anyone holds an opinion completely without emotion.
Quote: Sypherengel and not being the mindless drone that most of us in this guild seem to have become. Please see above where you asked us to move out of the childhood stage.
Quote: That's perfectly fine. All we are asking is that you not call it "murder" when it isn't and that you not call the fetus a "child" when it isn't. Until the moment of birth, the fetus is a FETUS and does not have elgal personhood. You may think it SHOULD be murder, but that's not the same thing as it actually being murder.
Quote: This wasn't an attack on your beliefs or your opinion. This was an attack on the language you used. You are being compared to the antis because you are using language that is inappropriate just because it is more convenient for you to get your point across.
Quote: Wrong. Most of us are going "Oh my God! That poor woman that she was driven to the point of shooting herself in the stomach! We need to get her some psychiatric help, ASAP!"
Quote: Honestly, how does it help ANYONE (the dead fetus OR the woman OR anyone else) to just condemn her, call her evil, and make the situation worse for all parties involved?
Quote: Yes, she is. Because a five-week-old baby is a PERSON. A pre-born fetus, however, is not. Therefore, the woman we are talking about is NOT a murderer.
Of course, I never liked hiding behind technical definitions.
This "pre-born" fetus was a viable, conscious being--even if it wasn't techinically a person yet.
Quote: I don't agree with what she did either. But that doesn't mean that we can call it murder when it clearly wasn't. Just because you care, just because this case appeals to your emotions, does NOT mean that you can just pretend that legal definitions don't exist.
I certainly am not pretending the definitions don't exist. I'm saying they're bullshit. xd
Quote: You cannot abort a child, conscious or otherwise. You can only abort fetuses, embryos, and such.
Lelas Hey, thanks for making assumptions! |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:31 pm
|
|
|
|
Concerning the whole "it should be considered murder when the child has a consciousness" thing, I'd have to say I disagree to a point.
The pro-choice stance has far less to do with the cognital capabilities of the fetus than it does about bodily integrity. Regardless of whether or not the fetus fits the definition of what is a person (which is already debatable), it is using the mother's body until viability, and even after, if you consider its residence in one's uterus continued violation of BD.
I do not think a large number of people would call me a murderer if I denied a dying man a kidney transplant with one of my own kidneys - even if I originally signed up to be a possible organ donor.
The man is certainly considered a person- why is it moreso murder if I deny the fetus usage of my nutrients and uterus when it is possibly considered a person?
That said, I do not, in any case, recommend abortion after viability. I think most people who would abort in say, the eighth month, are generally ********, since they're choosing a procedure that will cost a great deal more, and is a great deal more risky than the standard first trimester abortion. By right of their bodily integrity, they have the right to- or at least, I think so. That doesn't stop me from thinking that they're also ******** stupid to have postponed it this long.
Specifically referring to the woman who shot herself in the stomach the day she was supposed to give birth, though. Someone who would shoot themselves in the stomach is up for some serious therapy. Someone who would shoot herself in the stomach during a pregnancy she supposedly 'loved, and couldn't wait for' needs even more therapy, and some investigating into just what happened to her to make her do this. I don't think she needs to be labeled a murderer and/or put into jail or whatsuch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:37 pm
|
|
|
|
Reinna Astarel Concerning the whole "it should be considered murder when the child has a consciousness" thing, I'd have to say I disagree to a point. The pro-choice stance has far less to do with the cognital capabilities of the fetus than it does about bodily integrity. Regardless of whether or not the fetus fits the definition of what is a person (which is already debatable), it is using the mother's body until viability, and even after, if you consider its residence in one's uterus continued violation of BD. I do not think a large number of people would call me a murderer if I denied a dying man a kidney transplant with one of my own kidneys - even if I originally signed up to be a possible organ donor. The man is certainly considered a person- why is it moreso murder if I deny the fetus usage of my nutrients and uterus when it is possibly considered a person? That said, I do not, in any case, recommend abortion after viability. I think most people who would abort in say, the eighth month, are generally ********, since they're choosing a procedure that will cost a great deal more, and is a great deal more risky than the standard first trimester abortion. By right of their bodily integrity, they have the right to- or at least, I think so. That doesn't stop me from thinking that they're also ******** stupid to have postponed it this long. Specifically referring to the woman who shot herself in the stomach the day she was supposed to give birth, though. Someone who would shoot themselves in the stomach is up for some serious therapy. Someone who would shoot herself in the stomach during a pregnancy she supposedly 'loved, and couldn't wait for' needs even more therapy, and some investigating into just what happened to her to make her do this. I don't think she needs to be labeled a murderer and/or put into jail or whatsuch.
I agree.
Lelas MipsyKitten If you're against choice, you are anti-choice. It's as simple as that. One could argue that they are not against choice, but for the life of the "baby," as they see it. "Anti-choice" is an emotionally-charged, political term that seeks to present political pro-lifers as "anti-woman" or some such. Calling them pro-life makes them sound too good and pure for your taste, so radical pro-choicers use the term anti-choice to make them sound evil.
No.
Those people are trying to take away my right to control my own body, and there's no way around it. They are anti-woman. You can't be in favor of womens' rights while forcing them to carry out unwanted pregnancies. A woman is not an incubator.
I call them anti-choice because they are in favor of taking away my choice of whether or not I want to end a pregnancy. I don't call them that to demonize them, I call them that because it's what they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:16 pm
|
|
|
|
Lelas However, that's why I think there should be a limit on elective abortions--two or three--because if you forget the condom that many times, and have an abortion that many times, you are clearly irresponsible. However, we'd never have to enforce such a law, because no one's that irresponsible. Hopefully.
Because everyone who gets an abortion "forgot a condom," right?
So let's pretend that your "two abortions and that's it" rule goes through. Now we have a girl who was raped and impregnated by her father. Dear old dad takes her to get an abortion because she's only 13.
She turns 17 and gets away from her abusive family. Unfortunately, she has battered woman syndrome and, in her hurry to escape, grabs the first guy who comes around. Unfortunately, he turns out to be abusive as well. He won't let her work, barely lets her out of the house. One night, he gets really drunk and rapes her. She gets pregnant. She can't go back to her family, she never graduated high school, she has no qualifications or work experience, where can she go? She knows that if she has a child to worry about, she will never be able to escape her husband because he puts food on the table and she can't let her child go hungry.
So that's her second abortion.
She gets away from the guy, finishes her High School degree, and gets into college. She goes to councelling and gets the help she needs to be a strong and independant woman. At 25, she gets married again. This new guy is awesome. He's sweet and kind and life is great. Unfortunately, both have bad luck with jobs and never do very well financially.
They have three wonderful children and are very happy together.
Fast forward again and our girl is 39 and pregnant again. She knows that her family doesn't have enough money to support a fourth child. She knows that with both her and her husband working, they cannot properly care for yet another child. They are already struggling to keep a roof over their family.
Oh, but sorry, she's already wasted her two abortions. Tough luck mommy and daddy, tough luck kids.
You might think this story is a stretch, but it happened to a friend (except she had two children with her abusive husband before aborting the third). This is why I won't put a limit on abortions -- I do not know the individual situations of every single woman seeking an abortion. I would rather give people the choice to make an irresponsible choice rather than taking choices away and ******** over perfectly legitimate cases.
Lelas As do so many choicers these days, it seems. Besides, this "stooping" seems to encompass only the lifers' emotions--not ours, when it comes to our anger or our sadness. Our anger and sadness is apparently viewed as acceptable.
Either provide examples of where we've used emotionally charged and FALSE language or take back that statement.
Lelas I don't think anyone holds an opinion completely without emotion.
Then you misunderstood what I said.
I don't care why you have an opinion. I don't care what your opinion is. The "stooping" was in using LANGUAGE that was INCORRECT to appeal to the emotions of others and thereby not have to actually come up with a logical argument of your own.
Lelas Again, choicers use emotional arguements too. This is not a specifically lifer type of arguement. We do it more often than we'd like to admit.
Provide examples or take back your statement.
Lelas Technically. Of course, I never liked hiding behind technical definitions. This "pre-born" fetus was a viable, conscious being--even if it wasn't techinically a person yet.
I don't go around calling tables "cows" just because I want them to be cows. Why? Because I'd be wrong.
Should be =/= is. Don't say it IS murder or it IS a child when it clearly is neither. You can say "what she did was horrible and should be considered murder!" and I might even agree with you to an extent.
Lelas Argue with me, instead of providing a witty statement, please.
oookay...
1) I am perfectly willing to make compromises. Just not when it harms people or reduces quality of life.
2) I do not think that ******** over people who need an abortion in third trimester or ******** over people who have had to have more than X abortions is an adequate compromise.
3) I am not so damn intent on getting every little thing I want out of a situation. I am perfectly willing to let pro-lifers not have abortions even when I think that they should have them.
4) I do not refuse to listen to reason. I simply haven't heard any reasonable arguments coming from you. You have not presented any arguments at all. Just accusations on my (and the other pro-choicers') character and "I think it should be thus!" without any kind of logical argument to back it up.
Lelas I'm not calling it murder. I'm saying it should be
You've implied it:
Lelas Try saying that about a woman who just killed a five-week-old baby. We don't know what was going through her head? Fine, but she's still a murderer.
Reinna Astarel That said, I do not, in any case, recommend abortion after viability. I think most people who would abort in say, the eighth month, are generally ********, since they're choosing a procedure that will cost a great deal more, and is a great deal more risky than the standard first trimester abortion. By right of their bodily integrity, they have the right to- or at least, I think so. That doesn't stop me from thinking that they're also ******** stupid to have postponed it this long.
Agreed.
Besides which, I know that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to have an abortion that late (hydrocephalus or other severe problems that aren't diagnosed until late, not knowing she was pregnant until then, complications that put her life in danger, the fetus has died -- to name a few). I also know that there are probably tons that I don't know about. And, because I cannot possible know every little detail of every single case, I'd rather just leave the option open for women who need it rather than just pass judgement and hurting the lives of many desparate women.
Sypherengel Precisely, and the reason explaining why I feel so strongly on this is because, whether most here believe that such a mature baby is a fetus or a child, I do believe it is a child, which is why I'm sure the law allowing for a legal abortion ends after the second trimester.
We don't "believe it's a fetus." It is a fetus. Pick up a medical dictionary.
You can believe and wish and hope all you want, it's still a fetus. I'm sorry.
Now, you can think that it should have the same status as a child. That's fine. But it is simply illogical to go around saying "I believe 1 = 2!!"
Sypherengel my choice of words may be considered wrong by others.
Yeah... like the dictionary xp
Sypherengel I don't think it sets a good example, and if others start doing such things, I will only feel that it is due to people like some here, supporting this woman's decision simply because "we don't know what she was thinking" or because "she had a choice".
Wait a second... Are you honestly trying to tell me that my saying that this woman needs to get psychiatric help rather than just be bashed around and called a murderer is going to cause other people to shoot themselves in the stomach on the day their delivery is due? I mean... honestly?
If someone is desperate enough to cause such severe self-injury and risk killing themselves, I doubt that "oh no! People might disapprove!" is going to do much to dissuade them.
Sypherengel I am really more bothered by personal attacks to my need to "grow up" and "get over it".
Aaah, but see you told someone else to grow up (or was it "get out the schoolyard"? Or something similar). When you call others names and toss around accusations, expect to get the same treatement back.
I am perfectly willing to debate without anything even approaching a personal attack. However, I demand the same back. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Reinna Astarel The pro-choice stance has far less to do with the cognital capabilities of the fetus than it does about bodily integrity. Regardless of whether or not the fetus fits the definition of what is a person (which is already debatable), it is using the mother's body until viability, and even after, if you consider its residence in one's uterus continued violation of BD.
Even so, late abortions are not currently legal except in emergencies, so I'm not particularly worried about it. However, I do think women should be informed that they have a right to early abortions--and we do need to get the word around.
In the future, I'd like to start a charitable fund to pay for poor womens' early abortions.
Quote: I do not think a large number of people would call me a murderer if I denied a dying man a kidney transplant with one of my own kidneys - even if I originally signed up to be a possible organ donor. The man is certainly considered a person- why is it moreso murder if I deny the fetus usage of my nutrients and uterus when it is possibly considered a person?
And no, they wouldn't call you a murderer. But there is a difference between denying a dying man your kidney and going in and killing a viable fetus. I'd advocate a c-section if the mother simply didn't want the kid to be living off of her anymore, but if she wishes to remain childfree, she has a responsibility to have the abortion early (again, unless she was forced to postpone said abortion).
With rights come responsibility, and no mature, rational person can deny that.
Quote: That said, I do not, in any case, recommend abortion after viability. I think most people who would abort in say, the eighth month, are generally ********, since they're choosing a procedure that will cost a great deal more, and is a great deal more risky than the standard first trimester abortion. By right of their bodily integrity, they have the right to- or at least, I think so. That doesn't stop me from thinking that they're also ******** stupid to have postponed it this long.
Perhaps they should have the right, to an extent, but you know...everyone has the right to be a stupid ********, it seems. That doesn't stop the fact that they're a stupid ********. xd
Quote: Specifically referring to the woman who shot herself in the stomach the day she was supposed to give birth, though. Someone who would shoot themselves in the stomach is up for some serious therapy. Someone who would shoot herself in the stomach during a pregnancy she supposedly 'loved, and couldn't wait for' needs even more therapy, and some investigating into just what happened to her to make her do this. I don't think she needs to be labeled a murderer and/or put into jail or whatsuch.
-----
PhaedraMcSpiffy Those people are trying to take away my right to control my own body, and there's no way around it. They are anti-woman. You can't be in favor of womens' rights while forcing them to carry out unwanted pregnancies. A woman is not an incubator. I call them anti-choice because they are in favor of taking away my choice of whether or not I want to end a pregnancy. I don't call them that to demonize them, I call them that because it's what they are.
My dearest pro-life friends are just that: pro-life. I believe they're misguided, but their beliefs go something like this: prenatal care and counseling could be increased a hundredfold--this way, most women could be convinced to either put the child up for adoption or, if given the resources and assistance, to keep it and raise it. It's a little too optimistic to be put into play in real life, but the fact is that most lifers have no desire to force you kicking and screaming to have the baby.
That's not to say that I deny the existence of anti-choicers. Look at President Bush, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, James Dobson...now they're anti-choice. They advocate banning abortion, as well as most birth control and sex education. These wingnuts think we should live by their moral code and, if not, ******** us. They don't think we should have the choice or opportunity to protect ourselves, and nor do they think we should be able to save ourselves afterward. They're anti-woman.
Nethilia I am pro-life and pro-choice; I do not think that my love of life negates my desire to allow a woman to choose whatever she wants for her pregnancy. I love her life and quality of life, and yes, I love it more because she is here and knows what will befall her if she carries a pregnancy she didn't plan for and doesn't want. I am for quality of life over quantity.
Quote: As a friend of mine said: "Pro life means you support all life, whether its a zygote or a death row inmate."
That's not to say I like the death penalty, because rarely do we ever prove cases beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As I've said before, "I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man die."
Does that make me anti-life?
Quote: And from what I've seen of a lot of media outlets (I cannot pull up any right now, so you are free to disbelieve me), the political terms are switching to become pro-choice and anti-choice.
Just like it wouldn't be fair for us to be called "anti-life" or "pro-abortion." One could argue that because you believe abortion should be legal that you are pro-abortion--the argument is just as valid as saying a lifer is anti-choice. Semantics are tricky like that.
Quote: So no, I won't change my language. My two broadest definitions are pro-choice and anti-choice--and if this offends the anti-choicers, then maybe they should stop trying to limit reproductive rights.
And if you're offended when you're called pro-abortion, maybe you should stop advocating women's right to kill their babies.
xd
Works both ways. We believe we're right, but we can't prove we're right--otherwise all but the wingnuts would be pro-choice. This is a multi-faceted issue with no clear-cut answer. You must realize that much of the debate is lodged in personal belief, so it's impossible to have a concrete, factual settlement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:20 pm
|
|
|
|
Lelas I agree. But I do recognize that to be taken seriously in society at large (and also in our own minds), we have to be logical about the terms of abortion. It's a matter of responsibility to have an early abortion, before viability. Now, if a woman is stopped from having one early by finances or threats or such, she should be able to have a late one--but, I do think she should be discouraged. Viability is a very serious thing--it means that the baby is already an independent being. But, if she does not want the child period, I do believe she should be able to have the abortion...I just don't like it one little bit.
1) Who is going to be the one to decide if her claims of financial inability or threats are legitimate? Is this going to be decided in court? Because court cases can take a long time - longer than the 1-3 months she has remaining.
2) It's not a baby and, as long as it is feeding directly off my body, it is not an independent being.
3) Late term abortions ARE discouraged. The mere cost/risk/pain should be ennough to dissuade any normal person from choosing it over the much simpler earlier term abortion.
Lelas Anti-choice is a loaded, emotion-filled term. It is not fact when it comes to the sane pro-lifers.
Then we will call them anti-abortion.
Lelas Just like it wouldn't be fair for us to be called "anti-life" or "pro-abortion." One could argue that because you believe abortion should be legal that you are pro-abortion--the argument is just as valid as saying a lifer is anti-choice. Semantics are tricky like that.[
Except that pro-lifers can legitimately be called "anti-choice" since they support the removal of choices for women. Pro-choicers cannot be called anti-life because none desire life to end. They also cannot be called pro-abortion because they do not want to force abortions on anyone. Pro-choicers are just about giving women the choice. NOT to force her hand in EITHER direction.
Lelas And if you're offended when you're called pro-abortion, maybe you should stop advocating women's right to kill their babies.
I have NEVER, read NEVER EVER EVER, told a woman that she has to get an abortion - or even that she should get one. So how can you possibly call me pro-abortion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:51 pm
|
|
|
|
Kukushka Because everyone who gets an abortion "forgot a condom," right?
Which is why there would be an exception for rape and incest.
Dude, you honestly think I'd want those to count? Just because I want to limit abortions doesn't mean I blanket them all with the same situation.
Quote: Either provide examples of where we've used emotionally charged and FALSE language or take back that statement.
MipseyKitten I've said it before. No one's going to control my body, but me. If I don't want treatment for something, I'll damn well deny treatment. If I want to shoot myself in the stomach on the 'due date' of the fetus, I'll damn well do it. No one's going to take away my right to an abortion and expect me deal with it. If you have a problem, tough s**t. I am not here to please you . I am not here to do what you feel is right.
PhaedraMcSpiffy Those people are trying to take away my right to control my own body, and there's no way around it. They are anti-woman. You can't be in favor of womens' rights while forcing them to carry out unwanted pregnancies. A woman is not an incubator.
I call them anti-choice because they are in favor of taking away my choice of whether or not I want to end a pregnancy.
Quote: I don't care why you have an opinion. I don't care what your opinion is. The "stooping" was in using LANGUAGE that was INCORRECT to appeal to the emotions of others and thereby not have to actually come up with a logical argument of your own.
However, by that logic, the argument that "Oh noes, if you kill the fetus now it will never get a chance to see flowers and ponies" is a viable argument--it has no incorrect language, and appeals strictly to the sympathetic emotions.
But, if arguments that appeal strictly to emotion--like "No one gets to decide what goes on with my body but me!"--which appeals to angry emotions--are invalid, then yes, many pro-choicers are being hypocritical. There's no way around that.
That's not to say that a dash of hypocrisy here and there makes us wrong. I'm pro-choice because I believe I'm right. But, so that we do not appear to be arrogant (thereby turning off many potential converts who may be on the fence about the issue), we must admit when we've been bad little boys and girls. It's a matter of saving face.
Quote: Provide examples or take back your statement.
Lelas I don't go around calling tables "cows" just because I want them to be cows. Why? Because I'd be wrong.
Again, that's not to say I think the late-term fetus has a right to live off its mother. I think a c-section should be done if the mother no longer wants to support the child with her body.
Quote: Should be =/= is. Don't say it IS murder or it IS a child when it clearly is neither.
Quote: You can say "what she did was horrible and should be considered murder!" and I might even agree with you to an extent.
Quote: 1) I am perfectly willing to make compromises. Just not when it harms people or reduces quality of life.
Quote: 2) I do not think that ******** over people who need an abortion in third trimester or ******** over people who have had to have more than X abortions is an adequate compromise.
Quote: 3) I am not so damn intent on getting every little thing I want out of a situation. I am perfectly willing to let pro-lifers not have abortions even when I think that they should have them.
Quote: 4) I do not refuse to listen to reason. I simply haven't heard any reasonable arguments coming from you. You have not presented any arguments at all. Just accusations on my (and the other pro-choicers') character and "I think it should be thus!" without any kind of logical argument to back it up.
Also, I have not attacked you directly. You'll notice that neither of my examples include you, because you've been nothing but logical in your arguments, and I appreciate that.
And I'd like to think I've provided reasons for my "thinking it should be thus," like the fact that viability and consciousness are serious issues.
You misunderstood my words. Yes, the mother who killed her five-week-old baby is a murderer.
I was not implying that a mother who kills her late-term fetus is a murderer. I was saying that I believe it should be so, in many cases.
Excuse me for my unclear words, I will do better next time.
Quote: Besides which, I know that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to have an abortion that late (hydrocephalus or other severe problems that aren't diagnosed until late, not knowing she was pregnant until then, complications that put her life in danger, the fetus has died -- to name a few). I also know that there are probably tons that I don't know about. And, because I cannot possible know every little detail of every single case, I'd rather just leave the option open for women who need it rather than just pass judgement and hurting the lives of many desparate women.
Sypherengel We don't "believe it's a fetus." It is a fetus. Pick up a medical dictionary. You can believe and wish and hope all you want, it's still a fetus. I'm sorry. Now, you can think that it should have the same status as a child. That's fine. But it is simply illogical to go around saying "I believe 1 = 2!!"
If all you're hoping to establish is the fact that an unborn fetus is not legally considered a person, you have accomplished your task.
Quote: Yeah... like the dictionary xp
Quote: Wait a second... Are you honestly trying to tell me that my saying that this woman needs to get psychiatric help rather than just be bashed around and called a murderer is going to cause other people to shoot themselves in the stomach on the day their delivery is due? I mean... honestly?
Syhereangel Although I am the one who brought up this subject again, I do agree with your statement. The point of my original post on the topic was to make sure I wasn't the only one who believed in morals, and not just "rights" and "choice". As selfish as it sounds, and is, I am appeased with what I originally wanted to know, and am more than willing to let this conversation drop.
Quote: If someone is desperate enough to cause such severe self-injury and risk killing themselves, I doubt that "oh no! People might disapprove!" is going to do much to dissuade them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:55 pm
|
|
|
|
Lelas Reinna Astarel The pro-choice stance has far less to do with the cognital capabilities of the fetus than it does about bodily integrity. Regardless of whether or not the fetus fits the definition of what is a person (which is already debatable), it is using the mother's body until viability, and even after, if you consider its residence in one's uterus continued violation of BD. I agree. But I do recognize that to be taken seriously in society at large (and also in our own minds), we have to be logical about the terms of abortion. It's a matter of responsibility to have an early abortion, before viability. Now, if a woman is stopped from having one early by finances or threats or such, she should be able to have a late one--but, I do think she should be discouraged. Viability is a very serious thing--it means that the baby is already an independent being. But, if she does not want the child period, I do believe she should be able to have the abortion...I just don't like it one little bit. Even so, late abortions are not currently legal except in emergencies, so I'm not particularly worried about it. However, I do think women should be informed that they have a right to early abortions--and we do need to get the word around. In the future, I'd like to start a charitable fund to pay for poor womens' early abortions. Quote: I do not think a large number of people would call me a murderer if I denied a dying man a kidney transplant with one of my own kidneys - even if I originally signed up to be a possible organ donor. The man is certainly considered a person- why is it moreso murder if I deny the fetus usage of my nutrients and uterus when it is possibly considered a person? I love that argument. I remember, a long time ago, when that argument was presented to the Gaian pro-choice community at large. It's one of my favorites, and I use it a lot when talking to pro-lifers in my community (and there are a shitload of them, I live in Alabama). And no, they wouldn't call you a murderer. But there is a difference between denying a dying man your kidney and going in and killing a viable fetus. I'd advocate a c-section if the mother simply didn't want the kid to be living off of her anymore, but if she wishes to remain childfree, she has a responsibility to have the abortion early (again, unless she was forced to postpone said abortion). With rights come responsibility, and no mature, rational person can deny that. Quote: That said, I do not, in any case, recommend abortion after viability. I think most people who would abort in say, the eighth month, are generally ********, since they're choosing a procedure that will cost a great deal more, and is a great deal more risky than the standard first trimester abortion. By right of their bodily integrity, they have the right to- or at least, I think so. That doesn't stop me from thinking that they're also ******** stupid to have postponed it this long. Oh, so true. I think we're coming to understand each other. Perhaps they should have the right, to an extent, but you know...everyone has the right to be a stupid ********, it seems. That doesn't stop the fact that they're a stupid ********. xd Quote: Specifically referring to the woman who shot herself in the stomach the day she was supposed to give birth, though. Someone who would shoot themselves in the stomach is up for some serious therapy. Someone who would shoot herself in the stomach during a pregnancy she supposedly 'loved, and couldn't wait for' needs even more therapy, and some investigating into just what happened to her to make her do this. I don't think she needs to be labeled a murderer and/or put into jail or whatsuch. I agree wholeheartedly.
Yay. ^________^
And concerning your 'charitable fund for women in poverty', that's a great idea. Far better than them finding out that they're pregnant, and spending a lot of time trying to scrape up money for a proper abortion, or doing it in an alleyway. whee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:09 pm
|
|
|
|
Kukushka 1) Who is going to be the one to decide if her claims of financial inability or threats are legitimate? Is this going to be decided in court? Because court cases can take a long time - longer than the 1-3 months she has remaining.
But I do think we as choicers should recognize that late abortions "just cuz I felt like it" are really not, well, right. 'Course, it's not like they happen very often (if at all), so I'm not so worried about it.
Quote: 2) It's not a baby and, as long as it is feeding directly off my body, it is not an independent being.
However, if the, oh, let's call it a "being," has the ability to live on its own outside its mother's body, it should be given the chance. I think a late-term abortion, in cases of severe irresponsibility, is akin to not just denying the man your kidney, but shooting him in the chest as well.
That's not to say I think these are real, legal positions in current law. It's to say that I believe they should be such.
Quote: 3) Late term abortions ARE discouraged. The mere cost/risk/pain should be ennough to dissuade any normal person from choosing it over the much simpler earlier term abortion.
Of course, late-term abortions are currently only legal in emergencies, and why else would they be needed? You're right, they are rarely asked for because of their serious negative effects. Besides, they're most often used for dead fetuses, or fetuses with serious defects--and I'm of the opinion that a very disabled child should not be forced into the world.
Quote: Then we will call them anti-abortion.
I love that idea!
Quote: They also cannot be called pro-abortion because they do not want to force abortions on anyone. Pro-choicers are just about giving women the choice. NOT to force her hand in EITHER direction.
Quote: I have NEVER, read NEVER EVER EVER, told a woman that she has to get an abortion - or even that she should get one. So how can you possibly call me pro-abortion?
It's really a question of semantics, and people can twist words easily. It all rides on how you and others define certain words. Connotations are important too.
That said, the connotations of "pro-abortion" don't jive with me, that's why I like the term pro-choice. Just like anti-choice has such negative and misplaced connotations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
