I do not believe anything will ever change
my mind. I just want to share a little
discussion I had with a few peers and my
instructor in class a few days ago. From
what I understand, we are on the very edge
of abortion becoming illegal. I had to
stress a point to a couple of ladies in my
class...Whether by law abortion is
prohibited, there will always be women
getting them, no matter what. Abortion
will go underground and will most likely
be done by N.O.N professionals, therefore
hundreds of women will die, whether from
infection or during the procedure itself.
Would it not make more sense to keep it
"legal" and done by actual
professionals,people who K.N.O.W what they
are doing, vs the alternative? I can go on
and on naming different scenarios where
abortion may be the only choice for some
young girls and women, but I am sure
everyone has heard em all. I did however
talk of these scenarios in class, and
believe me, I had quite a few people
re-thinking their initial response on the
subject... people really need to look at
the bigger picture.....
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3962 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 03-15-08 19:10pm
People interested in outlawing abortion
are not doing it because they care about
women's health. That is not a point you
can take up with them. The number of
abortions will go down if it is outlawed,
and they are more concerned about that and
would rather sweep away any realistic
concerns under the rug.
|
lonestarguy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 591 Location: , Hoosierland, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:1
Posted: 03-15-08 20:10pm
There is no logical reason for abortion to
be outlawed in the first place. But,
pro-life supporters are less attentive to
the needs of the women getting abortions
than they are in bringing people to their
side of the argument.
In their minds, women should have no
choice over their body and whether to
bring a baby into an unwelcome situation.
They consider it to be a baby any time
after a man ejaculates into the women and
then they seek to make those women feel
guilty for killing a baby for any decision
to terminate.
The abortion discussion is a long,
involved and complicated scenario of what
ifs and never weres. Of course, it makes
much more common sense to use real
doctors, but somehow, the health of the
woman never distracts the pro-lifers from
their appointed rounds of thinking more
about the health of a non-feeling,
non-thinking and non-human tadpole.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Re: 100% pro-choice Posted: 03-16-08 13:33pm
nmangelfire
wrote:
Whether by law abortion is prohibited,
there will always be women getting them,
no matter what.
No laws have even totally eliminated any
criminal activity, like homicide for
example. Should we consider that in
deciding whether to keep homicide against
the law?
nmangelfire
wrote:
Abortion will go underground and will most
likely be done by N.O.N professionals,
therefore hundreds of women will die,
whether from infection or during the
procedure itself.
.
And 100% of those illegal abortions will
be done by prochoicers, will they not?
In what other area of public law do we put
the interests of the perpetrator of
violence ahead of the interests of the
victims of that violence?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-16-08 13:36pm
lonestarguy
wrote:
There is no logical reason for abortion to
be outlawed in the first place.
Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep
it legal. It's not about logic, it's
about values. Do you place a higher value
the life of the baby, or the right of the
mother to kill that baby?
lonestarguy
wrote:
thinking more about the health of a
non-feeling, non-thinking and non-human
tadpole.
"Tadpoles"? You think we are "tadpoles"
before birth? And you got your
educatshun..... where?
There is no logical reason for abortion to
be outlawed in the first place.
Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep
it legal. It's not about logic, it's
about values. Do you place a higher value
the life of the baby, or the right of the
mother to kill that
baby?
Like you, yodavater, I consider the
language - its connotation and denotations
- to be very important indeed with regard
to the abortion debate. Therefore, I will
pick up on this point in my quote.
Firstly, you say: "Nor is there any
'logical' reason to keep it [abortion]
legal". This is a response to the
statement "There is no logical reason to
make abortion illegal". I notice here that
you don't defend delegalising abortion as
"logical", but rather it is illogical
along with legalising abortion. You've
just condemned your own stance and
furthermore, put it in the same box as
thview you ostensibly abhor.
Secondly, you claim that abortion is a
matter of values, which clearly differ from
individual to individual, and as
you say everything depends on the crude
question "Do you place a higher value on
the life of the baby or te life o the
mother?". I will show you now that you
have just praised the very notion, the
epicentre, and core initiative of the
pro-choice movement. The pro-choice
incentive is based on and revolves around
the very concept of having the choice of
who or what to place a value on. Some
women have no problem whatsoever with
those who consider the foetus more
important or those favour their bodily
autonomy. Pro-lifers, on the other hand,
frantically push for the former and
irrationally attack the latter.
So, is it not fair that every person be
free to decide for him/herself what has a
higher value and this be applied on the
nearest personal level possible? I.e. x
can be a Catholic and give birth to the
baby she conceived after being raped
because she personally values the life of
the foetus more than her own,
whereas person y, a 44-year old secular,
career-orientated married mother of two
can have an abortion because she only ever
intended to have two kids so she could
juggle her working life under a far
balance and, moreover, because she personally
values her own life more than an existence
of something within her body?
Pro-choice isn't about liking abortion (I
mean who does?). It's not even about being
comfortable with it or ever having to opt
for it. It's about not being so blindly
fascistic that we are content with forcing
every person under our Government to
follow a rigid, dangerous dogma of
force-feeding one single set of values.
The only 'dogmatic value' I adhere to -
and proudly so - is that of allowing every
citizen to create their own dogmatic
values that are of no concern to anyone -
especially politicians - but themselves,
their own lives, their own bodies. This is
moral libertarianism at its very
grandest.
Can you justify your position? Can you
justify your desire to enforce oppressive
values (which you have previously conceded
are subjective ideas) onto everybody in
your country via the law? Why shouldn't
women who place a higher value on
terminating their pregnancy be allowed to
exact their own values in the same way
pro-life women have the right to squeeze
out as many welfare-drainers* as they
want? I'll give you your chance to shine
now. Until you can justify your position,
you are a mere hypocrite. Or perhaps you
would like to make a confession of
totalitarianism?
*I used that for
effect; don't take it personally. See, I
used semantic hyperbole because its
nuances were appropriate for me, as the
author of this post, at this moment in
time. The joys of being pompously
pedantic, eh .
|
nmangelfire
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 20 Location: ,
Posted: 03-16-08 17:00pm
Kypros
wrote:
yodavater
wrote:
lonestarguy
wrote:
There is no logical reason for abortion to
be outlawed in the first place.
Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep
it legal. It's not about logic, it's
about values. Do you place a higher value
the life of the baby, or the right of the
mother to kill that
baby?
Like you, yodavater, I consider the
language - its connotation and denotations
- to be very important indeed with regard
to the abortion debate. Therefore, I will
pick up on this point in my quote.
Firstly, you say: "Nor is there any
'logical' reason to keep it [abortion]
legal". This is a response to the
statement "There is no logical reason to
make abortion illegal". I notice here that
you don't defend delegalising abortion as
"logical", but rather it is illogical
along with legalising abortion. You've
just condemned your own stance and
furthermore, put it in the same box as
thview you ostensibly abhor.
Secondly, you claim that abortion is a
matter of values, which clearly differ from
individual to individual, and as
you say everything depends on the crude
question "Do you place a higher value on
the life of the baby or te life o the
mother?". I will show you now that you
have just praised the very notion, the
epicentre, and core initiative of the
pro-choice movement. The pro-choice
incentive is based on and revolves around
the very concept of having the choice of
who or what to place a value on. Some
women have no problem whatsoever with
those who consider the foetus more
important or those favour their bodily
autonomy. Pro-lifers, on the other hand,
frantically push for the former and
irrationally attack the latter.
So, is it not fair that every person be
free to decide for him/herself what has a
higher value and this be applied on the
nearest personal level possible? I.e. x
can be a Catholic and give birth to the
baby she conceived after being raped
because she personally values the life of
the foetus more than her own,
whereas person y, a 44-year old secular,
career-orientated married mother of two
can have an abortion because she only ever
intended to have two kids so she could
juggle her working life under a far
balance and, moreover, because she personally
values her own life more than an existence
of something within her body?
Pro-choice isn't about liking abortion (I
mean who does?). It's not even about being
comfortable with it or ever having to opt
for it. It's about not being so blindly
fascistic that we are content with forcing
every person under our Government to
follow a rigid, dangerous dogma of
force-feeding one single set of values.
The only 'dogmatic value' I adhere to -
and proudly so - is that of allowing every
citizen to create their own dogmatic
values that are of no concern to anyone -
especially politicians - but themselves,
their own lives, their own bodies. This is
moral libertarianism at its very
grandest.
Can you justify your position? Can you
justify your desire to enforce oppressive
values (which you have previously conceded
are subjective ideas) onto everybody in
your country via the law? Why shouldn't
women who place a higher value on
terminating their pregnancy be allowed to
exact their own values in the same way
pro-life women have the right to squeeze
out as many welfare-drainers* as they
want? I'll give you your chance to shine
now. Until you can justify your position,
you are a mere hypocrite. Or perhaps you
would like to make a confession of
totalitarianism?
*I used that for
effect; don't take it personally. See, I
used semantic hyperbole because its
nuances were appropriate for me, as the
author of this post, at this moment in
time. The joys of being pompously
pedantic, eh .
There is no logical reason for abortion to
be outlawed in the first place.
Nor is there any "logical" reason to keep
it legal. It's not about logic, it's
about values. Do you place a higher value
the life of the baby, or the right of the
mother to kill that
baby?
Like you, yodavater, I consider the
language - its connotation and denotations
- to be very important indeed with regard
to the abortion debate. Therefore, I will
pick up on this point in my quote.
Firstly, you say: "Nor is there any
'logical' reason to keep it [abortion]
legal". This is a response to the
statement "There is no logical reason to
make abortion illegal". I notice here that
you don't defend delegalising abortion as
"logical", but rather it is illogical
along with legalising abortion. You've
just condemned your own stance and
furthermore, put it in the same box as
thview you ostensibly abhor.
Secondly, you claim that abortion is a
matter of values, which clearly differ from
individual to individual, and as
you say everything depends on the crude
question "Do you place a higher value on
the life of the baby or te life o the
mother?". I will show you now that you
have just praised the very notion, the
epicentre, and core initiative of the
pro-choice movement. The pro-choice
incentive is based on and revolves around
the very concept of having the choice of
who or what to place a value on. Some
women have no problem whatsoever with
those who consider the foetus more
important or those favour their bodily
autonomy. Pro-lifers, on the other hand,
frantically push for the former and
irrationally attack the latter.
So, is it not fair that every person be
free to decide for him/herself what has a
higher value and this be applied on the
nearest personal level possible? I.e. x
can be a Catholic and give birth to the
baby she conceived after being raped
because she personally values the life of
the foetus more than her own,
whereas person y, a 44-year old secular,
career-orientated married mother of two
can have an abortion because she only ever
intended to have two kids so she could
juggle her working life under a far
balance and, moreover, because she personally
values her own life more than an existence
of something within her body?
Pro-choice isn't about liking abortion (I
mean who does?). It's not even about being
comfortable with it or ever having to opt
for it. It's about not being so blindly
fascistic that we are content with forcing
every person under our Government to
follow a rigid, dangerous dogma of
force-feeding one single set of values.
The only 'dogmatic value' I adhere to -
and proudly so - is that of allowing every
citizen to create their own dogmatic
values that are of no concern to anyone -
especially politicians - but themselves,
their own lives, their own bodies. This is
moral libertarianism at its very
grandest.
Can you justify your position? Can you
justify your desire to enforce oppressive
values (which you have previously conceded
are subjective ideas) onto everybody in
your country via the law? Why shouldn't
women who place a higher value on
terminating their pregnancy be allowed to
exact their own values in the same way
pro-life women have the right to squeeze
out as many welfare-drainers* as they
want? I'll give you your chance to shine
now. Until you can justify your position,
you are a mere hypocrite. Or perhaps you
would like to make a confession of
totalitarianism?
*I used that for
effect; don't take it personally. See, I
used semantic hyperbole because its
nuances were appropriate for me, as the
author of this post, at this moment in
time. The joys of being pompously
pedantic, eh .
I love you
I love you, too . I feel a
need to return the feeling .
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Posted: 03-18-08 04:06am
yodavater
wrote:
Do you place a higher
value the life of the baby, or the right
of the mother to kill that baby?
The right of the woman to choose whether
or not to carry the z/e/f (or baby if you
must), obviously. You?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-18-08 08:28am
I'm going to have to say I'm 90%
pro-choice, because I approve of 90% of
abortions. It's probably higher than that
even, since even in the case of a
late-term abortion, it is most likely done
for a medical reason.
|
Lilly Ivy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Aug 2007 Posts: 1529 Location: Moorefield, WV
Thanks: 46
Thanked:80
online
Posted: 03-18-08 20:36pm
what I don't understand is the fact that
even once the baby is born, the mother
still makes EVERY decision for that baby,
especially medical wise. So why shouldn't
she make the choice BEFORE it's a newborn
baby? She nourishes it, so she chooses
what nutrients it gets. Why not choose to
keep it or not?
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1251 Location: ,
Thanks: 43
Thanked:2
Posted: 03-19-08 08:01am
Eiri
wrote:
I'm going to have to say I'm
90% pro-choice, because I approve of 90%
of abortions. It's probably higher than
that even, since even in the case of a
late-term abortion, it is most likely done
for a medical
reason.
Your rationale makes me uncomfortable. It
is possible to disapprove of 100% of
abortions, but still be pro-choice.
Otherwise you are
"pro-whatever-Eiri-decides-is-acceptable"
, not pro-choice.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-19-08 10:00am
As I have stated on other topics, I do not
believe the labels are as black and white
as everyone wants them to be. A lot more
pro-choicers would be willing to admit
"Well, actually, I don't
like abortion for this reason or at this
time" if they weren't scared of people
screaming at them and calling them
anti-choice.
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1251 Location: ,
Thanks: 43
Thanked:2
Posted: 03-19-08 13:09pm
Eiri
wrote:
As I have stated on other
topics, I do not believe the labels are as
black and white as everyone wants them to
be. A lot more pro-choicers would be
willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't
like abortion for this reason or at this
time" if they weren't scared of people
screaming at them and calling them
anti-choice.
It is possible to not like abortion for
this reason or that reason, but still
accept that it is a CHOICE that someone
may make. It is possible to not approve of
or like any reason at all for an abortion,
but accept that it is the choice of the
woman and no one else to make the
decision.
As I have stated on other
topics, I do not believe the labels are as
black and white as everyone wants them to
be. A lot more pro-choicers would be
willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't
like abortion for this reason or at this
time" if they weren't scared of people
screaming at them and calling them
anti-choice.
It is possible to not like abortion for
this reason or that reason, but still
accept that it is a CHOICE that someone
may make. It is possible to not approve of
or like any reason at all for an abortion,
but accept that it is the choice of the
woman and no one else to make the
decision.
Fully agree with poopoopoo. I don't LIKE any
abortion, but I support the right of every
woman, regardless of what other, unrelated
people think, to choose. I'm 100%
pro-choice. I don't feel like an
extremist, just a proponent of basic human
rights.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-19-08 14:22pm
Just like I don't think people should have
the choice to murder other born people, I
feel they should not have the choice to
murder a viable fetus. It's
too damn late. Unless there is a medical
reason, you should not have the right to
whimsically kill the late-term unborn.
Thankfully the law agrees with me on this.
It just ruffles my feathers when extreme
pro-choicers say they approve of the
murder of nearly-born babies.
Just like I don't think
people should have the choice to murder
other born people, I feel they should not
have the choice to murder a
viable fetus. It's too damn late. Unless
there is a medical reason, you should not
have the right to whimsically kill the
late-term unborn.
Thankfully the law agrees with me on this.
It just ruffles my feathers when extreme
pro-choicers say they approve of the
murder of nearly-born
babies.
I won't write an essay, but let me just
point out one thing to you: you are
(generally) opposed to late-term abortion,
but you make an exception for medical
reasons. You also say that late-term
foetuses are the same as neonates. If this
is the case, then surely neonates can be
murdered if they're medically
ill? Or not? If not why? Because
neonates and late-term foetuses are not
the same.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-19-08 14:42pm
They are not IDENTICAL and I have never
claimed such. However, despite your verbal
wriggling, I can still say this with
strength: They ARE different from
early-term fetuses. They ARE viable. This
viability gives them MORE of a
life-to-right than an early-term fetus
because quite simply, it is capable of
being INDEPENDENT.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2123 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 03-19-08 17:15pm
Eiri
wrote:
They are not IDENTICAL and I
have never claimed such. However, despite
your verbal wriggling, I can still say
this with strength: They ARE different
from early-term fetuses. They ARE viable.
This viability gives them MORE of a
life-to-right than an early-term fetus
because quite simply, it is capable of
being
INDEPENDENT.
I agree with you Eiri.. and I know what
you mean. But tell me how is it more
independent because it is visiable then
when it is not. It is still living off
from the mother.. Right? It isn't even
independent when it is born. Someone need
to take care of it.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-19-08 18:09pm
meblonde01
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
They are not IDENTICAL and I
have never claimed such. However, despite
your verbal wriggling, I can still say
this with strength: They ARE different
from early-term fetuses. They ARE viable.
This viability gives them MORE of a
life-to-right than an early-term fetus
because quite simply, it is capable of
being
INDEPENDENT.
I agree with you Eiri.. and I know what
you mean. But tell me how is it more
independent because it is visiable then
when it is not. It is still living off
from the mother.. Right? It isn't even
independent when it is born. Someone need
to take care of
it.
Viable. And it is more independent because
the Point Of Viability is the age at which
the fetus is capable of being removed from
the womb and surviving independently.
By independent, I mean that it is not
physically attached to someone's body. Not
the mother's, not the father's. If
newborns were NOT independent in this
sense, then the only person that could
care for them would be the birth mother,
and they would still be attached to her
via the umbilical cord. This is not how
humans reproduce. After birth, the baby is
literally independent from the mother's
body.
One of the major tenants of the pro-choice
movement is that the unborn does not have
a right to live over that of the mother
because it is incapable of being alive
independently from her body. If you remove
a 10 week fetus from the mother, it will
not survive, even if you remove it in one
piece. A 30 week fetus will. Thus, it is
CAPABLE of independence.
Another tenant of pro-choice thought is
that you cannot give rights to what MIGHT
become capable of independence or what
MIGHT become a baby. A viable fetus IS
capable of independence, right now. You
remove it and it lives. That has to count
for something!!
.
. I feel a
need to return the feeling 
.
