PDA

View Full Version : Pro-Life


Joana
Nov 13th, 2004, 02:37 PM
Who coined this absurd phrase and why is it used? I respect that some people believe the abortion should not be allowed but to call that group "pro-life" is IMO pathetic and offensive. That way, those who don't agree with them are "anti-life" or what?

Sam L
Nov 13th, 2004, 02:47 PM
Pro-choice = The TRUE Pro-life, for what could be more pro-life than been looking for the mental and physical health of the woman involved - the woman who is ALREADY alive.

Often, these so-called pro-lifers will ignore the emotional baggage of the women involved. No one WANTS to have abortions. They're not fun. :rolleyes: It's not an easy decision.

Not to mention that banning abortion WILL NOT stop abortion. Ever heard of wire-hangers? Women bleed to death from these. Meaning that banning abortion will actually lead the death of more people because if a woman has an abortion, she can still have another child, but if that women dies from performing an unsafe abortion - that's a life gone.

So these pro-lifers are really anti-life.

The Crow
Nov 13th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Pro-choice = The TRUE Pro-life, for what could be more pro-life than been looking for the mental and physical health of the woman involved - the woman who is ALREADY alive.

Often, these so-called pro-lifers will ignore the emotional baggage of the women involved. No one WANTS to have abortions. They're not fun. :rolleyes: It's not an easy decision.

Not to mention that banning abortion WILL NOT stop abortion. Ever heard of wire-hangers? Women bleed to death from these. Meaning that banning abortion will actually lead the death of more people because if a woman has an abortion, she can still have another child, but if that women dies from performing an unsafe abortion - that's a life gone.

So these pro-lifers are really anti-life.
This is as much bull as the bullshit from those catholic pro-lifes types :rolleyes:

Martian Willow
Nov 13th, 2004, 03:26 PM
Who coined this absurd phrase and why is it used? I respect that some people believe the abortion should not be allowed but to call that group "pro-life" is IMO pathetic and offensive. That way, those who don't agree with them are "anti-life" or what?

People who are in favour are called pro-choice, so logically people who are against abortion should be called anti-choice, which seems more accurate than anti-life. :)

martirogi
Nov 13th, 2004, 03:31 PM
since abortion kills the baby, y not call it pro life and pro death

Crazy Canuck
Nov 13th, 2004, 08:27 PM
This is as much bull as the bullshit from those catholic pro-lifes types :rolleyes:
Whether or not he put some serious spin on it, he did have a good point, which was that banning will not STOP abortion from occuring. It will merely push the practice back underground, which in turn will make it more unsafe.

That, and many "prolifers" don't give a flying fuck about the women involved. Some of them don't believe that abortions should be available for women who were raped!

Now, what he did with those facts is not for me to comment on ;)

blerr
Nov 13th, 2004, 10:40 PM
Pro-Life here :wavey:

martirogi
Nov 13th, 2004, 11:56 PM
I guess men who are pro-life keep their sperm in a refrigerator after they masturbate... Because surely they wouldn't throw a Kleenex full of life in the garbage?

dear lord thats ridiculous, theres a difference between sperm and something with a hearbeat :rolleyes:

kes
Nov 14th, 2004, 03:22 AM
Pro-choice = The TRUE Pro-life, for what could be more pro-life than been looking for the mental and physical health of the woman involved - the woman who is ALREADY alive.

Often, these so-called pro-lifers will ignore the emotional baggage of the women involved. No one WANTS to have abortions. They're not fun. :rolleyes: It's not an easy decision.

Not to mention that banning abortion WILL NOT stop abortion. Ever heard of wire-hangers? Women bleed to death from these. Meaning that banning abortion will actually lead the death of more people because if a woman has an abortion, she can still have another child, but if that women dies from performing an unsafe abortion - that's a life gone.

So these pro-lifers are really anti-life.
:worship: :worship: :worship:
Nice post, Sam.

If men don't want women to have abortions - then its simple!!
QUIT IMPREGNATING THEM!!!!!!!!!!

Shane54
Nov 14th, 2004, 06:04 AM
Pro-choice = The TRUE Pro-life, for what could be more pro-life than been looking for the mental and physical health of the woman involved - the woman who is ALREADY alive.


Not to mention that banning abortion WILL NOT stop abortion. Ever heard of wire-hangers? Women bleed to death from these. Meaning that banning abortion will actually lead the death of more people because if a woman has an abortion, she can still have another child, but if that women dies from performing an unsafe abortion - that's a life gone.

So these pro-lifers are really anti-life.
And rape and murder are outlawed also but they continue. Should we just make those legal?

And as for the woman who is ALIVE already comment- Scott Petersen deservedly got the guilty for the murder of Laci and HIS UNBORN SON.
Laci wanted her baby so that makes it murder. Does that make an aborted baby any less of a human being just because his mother did nt want him?

Volcana
Nov 14th, 2004, 06:23 AM
I don't agree with them politically, but I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge a great marketing ploy. By implication, your opponents are 'anti-life'. Who wants to be that? I hope whoever came up with the term got a nice bonus. They did their job well.

Bacardi
Nov 14th, 2004, 06:27 AM
Sam had a point, abortion has gone on for centuries. There are several drinks back in the 1700s even women would drink to try to kill the baby to avoid having it. Most of the time, these things were lethal poisons and killed not only the baby but the mother as well. And the children that were born, had very bad disorders or disfigurement. Plus, there have been women who've conducted abortions with wire coat hangers, and they bled to death. Even knitting needles have been used. Most commonly I heard they drank wormwood thou, and that's a poison. Not to mention the chop shops of doctors that would still offer the services, however unsanitary, unsafe, and without proper equipment.

Bacardi
Nov 14th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Plus, what do you do in a situation like this. A mother who's say gotten pregant again, and she already has a few other children... The doctor tells her there's going to be complications of the pregnancy and either the mother, child, or both will pass if she gives birth. Is it wrong to tell the woman she can't have an abortion? Is it wrong to deprive the rest of her family, and her children of having a mother?

backhanddtl4
Nov 14th, 2004, 06:55 AM
Here's a thought. Most republicans that are pro-life are also anti-welfare. Don't they realize that if a women wants an abortion, she probably can't financially support her child. Being pro-life and anti-welfare is just cruel and rude.

Volcana
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:13 AM
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but ....

Look, forget the 'science', and go with your intuition.

Life begins before birth, right? Virtually nobody disagrees with that.

Okay now MOST people belive that life, at least attached to a specific physical form, does NOT begin BEFORE birth. We're getting into philosophical territory here, but you rarely here the arguement that life begins BEFORE conception.

So we're down to a nine month 'window'.

Now, pre-mature births have grown into live humans after as little as five months of pregnancy. Not the usual case, but it happens. More to the point, no one disputes a life 'dies' at that point.

At some point between zero and nine months, we're talking about a baby, not a clump of cells.

Even if your motivation is as weak as 'why take chances?', opposing deliberately ending a pregnancy really IS as simple as 'save the babies'.

Unfortunately, inthe real world, it all too often also becomes 'enslave the pregnant women'.

I've always opposed Operation Rescue, but I have no trouble understanding them. 'Save the Babies' is simple and powerful.

Sam L
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:39 AM
And rape and murder are outlawed also but they continue. Should we just make those legal?

And as for the woman who is ALIVE already comment- Scott Petersen deservedly got the guilty for the murder of Laci and HIS UNBORN SON.
Laci wanted her baby so that makes it murder. Does that make an aborted baby any less of a human being just because his mother did nt want him?
Rape has a victim. Most likely a woman.

Murder has a victim. Another person.

Of course they have to be banned.

Abortion has no victims. Oh the unborn baby that's a part of a woman's body? You don't seem to get the point. Regardless of whether it's alive or not is irrelevant! If I have a life growing inside of me, I have THE RIGHT to get rid of it. PERIOD! OK?

This is a fundamental right of a woman and it would be for a man too, if he ever gets another life growing inside of him.

That's the way I see it.

You can't tell another person what they want to do with their bodies. It's their domain, it's their right. If you don't want to perform an abortion. Fine! Don't stop others.

Sam L
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Sperm is full of life. :)
You know that life argument is silly. You're right sperm has the potential to become a human being. Should we ban masterbation? Because really we're talking the potential here aren't we? A 1 day old foetus has the potential to become a human, thus it should banned they say. Well if that's the case, we should ban masterbation too. All those sperms have the potential to become human. :rolleyes:

Sam L
Nov 14th, 2004, 08:02 AM
Whether or not he put some serious spin on it, he did have a good point, which was that banning will not STOP abortion from occuring. It will merely push the practice back underground, which in turn will make it more unsafe.

That, and many "prolifers" don't give a flying fuck about the women involved. Some of them don't believe that abortions should be available for women who were raped!

Now, what he did with those facts is not for me to comment on ;)
Spin? What spin? ;)

Tennis Fool
Nov 14th, 2004, 08:06 AM
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but ....

Look, forget the 'science', and go with your intuition.

Life begins before birth, right? Virtually nobody disagrees with that.


.
I take exception to your first premise. Most people cannot agree to this. That's the main controversy thread. In fact, no one can even define what "life" is.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 14th, 2004, 08:07 AM
Rape has a victim. Most likely a woman.

Murder has a victim. Another person.

Of course they have to be banned.

Abortion has no victims. Oh the unborn baby that's a part of a woman's body? You don't seem to get the point. Regardless of whether it's alive or not is irrelevant! If I have a life growing inside of me, I have THE RIGHT to get rid of it. PERIOD! OK?

This is a fundamental right of a woman and it would be for a man too, if he ever gets another life growing inside of him.

That's the way I see it.

You can't tell another person what they want to do with their bodies. It's their domain, it's their right. If you don't want to perform an abortion. Fine! Don't stop others.
I tend to agree with your post here. It's my body. Frankly, any man who thinks he has any say whatsoever over my body, can stuff it. I will not be owned. I will not be controlled (at least no more than men are).

For every woman that willingly engages in sexual activity and gets pregnant as a result of it, there is a man that was equally responsible for that. Perhaps if the extreme anti abortion activists who used to wave signs in front of my highschool acknowledged and did something with this point instead of coming across as mysogynists, I would actually give them the time of day.

Before somebody gives me a lecture, I'm not talking about ALL individuals who are antiabortion here. I'm talking about a very specific group who used to perch out front of my highschool. That's it.

For what it's worth, I don't *like* people using abortion as birth control. There is no excuse for that, imo. However, I don't feel that how *I* feel about something is reason enough to tell people that they can't do it. My choices don't have to be everybody's choices. Furthermore, I realize that in making it available for women who have been raped or will face serious health risks in carrying a child to full term, that there will be loop holes that let people "abuse" the system. I'm willing to live with that fact.

Tennis Fool
Nov 14th, 2004, 08:08 AM
You know that life argument is silly. You're right sperm has the potential to become a human being. Should we ban masterbation? Because really we're talking the potential here aren't we? A 1 day old foetus has the potential to become a human, thus it should banned they say. Well if that's the case, we should ban masterbation too. All those sperms have the potential to become human. :rolleyes:Actually some people are against masturbation and birth control because this "spilling of seed" prevents the life that would have been formed.

This was the reason given by a woman recently, I believe, who had 20 kids.

jelena4me
Nov 14th, 2004, 09:18 AM
I guess men who are pro-life keep their sperm in a refrigerator after they masturbate... Because surely they wouldn't throw a Kleenex full of life in the garbage?
:lol: (http://www.wtaworld.com/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=13#)

Mariangelina
Nov 14th, 2004, 11:18 AM
I, personally, am not comfortable with abortion, would not have one myself, and think it usually is not the best solution, but I don't believe it's murder. I'm sorry, but a ball of cells is not a human being yet. You could take "pro-life" arguments to ridiculous lengths- dudes who jack off are committing murder, chicks who willingly let an egg go unfertilized are committing murder- but we'd have to be married to fertilize them. Maybe we should all get married when we're eleven then. That eliminates most of the nasty fornication problem too. Cool! Yeah, there might be some overpopulation issues, since contraception is murder too by preventing little cells from meeting other little cells, but all our very Christian anti-welfare and pro-death penalty policies ought to help. :D And those weird homosexual people would be married normally before their perverted tendencies could fully emerge- heck, it might even cure them! You know, I think I just solved all the Catholic Church's problems. I really should contact the Vatican- they might canonize me. :D

More seriously, in spite of my personal qualms about abortion, no other person- especially no dude- tells me what I can do with my body. Basically, what Crazy Canuck said. It's every woman's choice to make for herself. And banning abortion is hardly going to stop abortion. I think we've all heard of the rusty-coat-hanger method. :eek:

gentenaire
Nov 14th, 2004, 11:23 AM
dear lord thats ridiculous, theres a difference between sperm and something with a hearbeat :rolleyes:
Are you a vegetarian?

The Crow
Nov 14th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Abortion has no victims. Oh the unborn baby that's a part of a woman's body? You don't seem to get the point. Regardless of whether it's alive or not is irrelevant! If I have a life growing inside of me, I have THE RIGHT to get rid of it. PERIOD! OK?

No. In some specific cases you (could) have a point (rape, death-threat for the mother,...), but not in general. There is life, and whether you kill it when it's already born or before it is born is imo exactly the same: murder.

I'm not saying I'd ban abortion. Certainly not if the alternative is that the women suffer (alone). However, there must be better alternatives, no? Paternity tests are very reliable nowadays, so it mustn't be that hard to make the father as responsible as the mother for raising the unwanted baby. I'm sorry, but imo if you fuck unprotected you have to take the consequences. Period.

The Crow
Nov 14th, 2004, 01:25 PM
But okay, I had this discussion before on this board. And I agree with Joana (and the others) that the term "pro-life" is absurd.

backhanddtl4
Nov 14th, 2004, 04:40 PM
But okay, I had this discussion before on this board. And I agree with Joana (and the others) that the term "pro-life" is absurd.


It is absurd. Doesn't it seem like the people that are "pro-life" are pro-life for all life. They are only pro-"fetus"-life. My orchestra teacher was raised catholic and is a hardcore catholic. She told me that she is very pro-life. VERY pro-life. However she also said that she voted for Kerry. Confused, I asked why. She told me because to be pro-life, you must be pro-"all forms"-of like. She mean, that she feels Bush and his supporters aren't pro-life because the war in Iraq.

Hulet
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:16 PM
Pro-life = the true pro-choice.
It's simple really. The choice is that, if you don't want to give birth to a child, don't have sexual intercourse in the first place (100% guarantee) or, if you want to take some risk, have it anyways but use a protection.
Once a woman becomes pregnant through VOLUNTARY sexual activity, she loses the choice or part of her right to her body, because she chose to share it with another living entity. The choice now belongs to the unborn child - to be born/live or not. But, since we can't determine what its choice is, of course, we have to let it be born so it can make that choice.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:46 PM
I'm sorry, but imo if you fuck unprotected you have to take the consequences. Period.

Not that I disagree, but it's extremely fucking easy for a man to say that.

Bacardi
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Not that I disagree, but it's extremely fucking easy for a man to say that.

Especially considering as a woman I can vouch for the fact that 3 years ago a guy I was with, put on a condom and during the act without me knowing it, while we were switching positions he took it off.

Guys always can talk the talk, but they can never walk the walk.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Once a woman becomes pregnant through VOLUNTARY sexual activity, she loses the choice or part of her right to her body, because she chose to share it with another living entity. The choice now belongs to the unborn child - to be born/live or not. But, since we can't determine what its choice is, of course, we have to let it be born so it can make that choice.

Eh, wrong. My body, my choice. If you ever, ever, start out a paragraph by saying that a woman has no choice over her own body, I almost immediately disregard the rest ;)

I don't know if you are a man or not, and it doesn't matter, but I get really, really, irked with SEXUAL ACTIVE men who make comments like this. Again, that is a general comment, not one directed at you. /me does not like sexist hypocracy.

Martian Willow
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:54 PM
It always is men who are most sanctimonious about abortion. They can get stuffed. :)

Crazy Canuck
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:56 PM
It always is men who are most sanctimonious about abortion. They can get stuffed. :)
That's more or less how I feel too ;) Unless they have only ever fucked in order to reproduce, I have zero intrest in what they have to say. If that makes me closed minded, so be it, but I sure as fuck am not going to sit around and have somebody who could never get IT tell me how I should deal with my body if I get date raped some day :p

The Crow
Nov 14th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Not that I disagree, but it's extremely fucking easy for a man to say that.
I did not make a difference between a man and a women in that sentence, did I? :p And yes I know the whole pregnancy thing is a woman's thing only. But the pregnancy is in most of the cases not the reason for the abortion. It's the child and having to raise it, which should be a joint responsibility between the father and the mother.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 14th, 2004, 08:05 PM
I did not make a difference between a man and a women in that sentence, did I? :p And yes I know the whole pregnancy thing is a woman's thing only. But the pregnancy is in most of the cases not the reason for the abortion. It's the child and having to raise it, which should be a joint responsibility between the father and the mother.
Right. True.

As I have said, I don't *like* people using it for that reason, but I accept that accidents happen and people are unprepared for them. It's very easy to tell these women to just sit out the 9 months until it pops out, adopt it off, and then get on with life. But that's 9 months of their life and their body that will never be the same. Frankly, no matter how I feel about it, I don't think that my opinion is important enough to deny those women the *right* to take control of their bodies.

/rant :p

Hulet
Nov 14th, 2004, 08:28 PM
Eh, wrong. My body, my choice. If you ever, ever, start out a paragraph by saying that a woman has no choice over her own body, I almost immediately disregard the rest ;)
Don't disregard it so quickly. :) Of course, a woman has a choice/right over her own body, that was exactly the point of my post. But, she also can choose to lose this right PARTIALY and temporarily (only nine months) when she becomes pregnant. And, she doesn't lose it to anybody else but to her own baby. That's not so bad now, is it?

In another words, a woman has a complete choice over her body, no strings attached, but a pregnant-woman has a choice over her body as long as it doesn't affect the yet undetermined choice of the unborn baby drastically.

I don't know if you are a man or not, and it doesn't matter, but I get really, really, irked with SEXUAL ACTIVE men who make comments like this. Again, that is a general comment, not one directed at you. /me does not like sexist hypocracy.
This doesn't have anything to do with being a man or woman. I also firmly believe a father-to-be has to provide or should be forced to provide everything he possibly can, be it financially, emotionally or otherwise, to raise his own child. That's why I have no sympathy to those who complain about their child support bills. "You bring it to this world, you are responsible to it" => you partially lose your right on how you spent your own money, time, etc for the sake of your child.

I don't really have a statistics but I would think many of the male partners of the pregnant women are the ones who are most likely to pressure the women to have abortion in the first place. So, in that case, I don't see how I am being hypocritical.

The Crow
Nov 14th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Psychon, I totally agree with you.

Joana
Nov 14th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Once a woman becomes pregnant through VOLUNTARY sexual activity, she loses the choice or part of her right to her body, because she chose to share it with another living entity. The choice now belongs to the unborn child - to be born/live or not. But, since we can't determine what its choice is, of course, we have to let it be born so it can make that choice.
I know a woman who has 2 autistic children. Once she got pregnant with the 3rd the test showed it had sever brain damage. She decided to abort. So she voluntarily decided to share her body with another living entity, but would you judge her decision not to continue with pregnancy?

Hulet
Nov 14th, 2004, 10:43 PM
I know a woman who has 2 autistic children. Once she got pregnant with the 3rd the test showed it had sever brain damage. She decided to abort. So she voluntarily decided to share her body with another living entity, but would you judge her decision not to continue with pregnancy?
My own sister had the same dillema posed to her when she had her first baby. The doctors determined from several test results that the baby, if born, will have a high probability - I think more than 70% chance - that she will be autistic. I went with her to one of her appointment with the doctors. It was the most difficult thing I had to observe as she cried non-stop while the doctor explain to her her choices - one of which was abortion. She, nevertheless, chose to have the baby - tbh, I don't know why and don't presume to understand her reasons. Anyways, after a torturous seven or eight months, she gave birth without enjoying her pregnancy, as other woman might do. Well, the baby is fully grown up and she is one of the smartest kid amongst my four nieces and nephew, she could speak by the time she is two, started writing words before she even went to school. In terms of social skill, she is as friendly as any other kid.

I am describing all this to show that the doctors are not always right (tbf, they only give you the probability of a disorder happening to the baby in the first place) and not to judge the woman you described in your post. Some people might say that being born with autism is not a disorder - its just how society treats such people that is the main disorder. Others might ask where would it stop if we start preselecting what type of children we choose to have? But, I don't dare to judge a person in such positions after going through it with my sister. Anyways, I would presume this woman you described make her choice because her child is better off unborn and not due to the inconvenience it might bring or not because she is not ready to have a child. In short, she didn't put her career or convenience ahead of the baby she is carrying. So, I have no quarrel with her decision.

PointBlank
Nov 14th, 2004, 10:48 PM
I dont agree with abortions but some people want them..I mean if you dont agree with them dont have one? .. why try to make a big deal and protest a stuff

Volcana
Nov 15th, 2004, 12:21 AM
I take exception to your first premise. Most people cannot agree to this. That's the main controversy thread. In fact, no one can even define what "life" is.Actually, I don't think most people disagree with that premise, but maybe I wasn't clear. They'll argue about HOW LONG before birth. But if I said, 'Is whatever is being born alive 5 seconds before birth?' 99% of people would answer yes.

I think we're arguing about things like 'rights' and 'control' to a great extent, not about 'life'.

Volcana
Nov 15th, 2004, 12:27 AM
Once a woman becomes pregnant through VOLUNTARY sexual activity, she loses the choice or part of her right to her body, because she chose to share it with another living entity.I dispute on two points. One legal, one logical.

1) 'Rights' are legal issue. There is NO law that states that a woman loses ANY rights the moment she becomes pregnant.

2) At what point after conception are we dealing with ANOTHER 'living entity', as opposed to a PART of the living entity that is that woman?

You're arguing, you HAVE to be arguing, to make the statements you do, that life, SEPARATE life, begins at conception. It's a nice idea. Prove it. I'm not telling any woman she HAS to do anything over a group of cells as yet invisible to the naked, and essentially undifferentiated.

And, just for the record, people still die in childbirth. People still die as a result of complications due to pregnancy. Everyone does NOT have healthcare.

But first and foremost, nobody loses ANY rights before we actually dealing with a separate human being, who then would also have rights. Women only GOT equal rights in the USA about 40 years ago.

Ryan
Nov 15th, 2004, 01:39 AM
Eh, wrong. My body, my choice. If you ever, ever, start out a paragraph by saying that a woman has no choice over her own body, I almost immediately disregard the rest ;)

I don't know if you are a man or not, and it doesn't matter, but I get really, really, irked with SEXUAL ACTIVE men who make comments like this. Again, that is a general comment, not one directed at you. /me does not like sexist hypocracy.

Eh, wrong. If someone chooses to have unprotected sex knowing full well of the consequences, then they should not get to cop out. I wont say that a woman has no choice over her own body, because she does. BUT if she has another life inside of her than her choices should not be allowed to harm this life in any way, shape, or form. And you cant be irked with me, I'm still a virgin. ;)

Ryan
Nov 15th, 2004, 01:40 AM
You're arguing, you HAVE to be arguing, to make the statements you do, that life, SEPARATE life, begins at conception. It's a nice idea. Prove it. I'm not telling any woman she HAS to do anything over a group of cells as yet invisible to the naked, and essentially undifferentiated.



Why? Why shouldn't "pro-choice" people have to prove that separate life doesn't begin at conception?

Martian Willow
Nov 15th, 2004, 02:14 AM
Interesting typo. :)

Martian Willow
Nov 15th, 2004, 02:19 AM
There was some talk recently in Britain about reducing the length into the pregnancy a woman could legally have an abortion, because advances in medicine had increased the chances for premature babies survival. They are basically saying the baby is 'viable' at an earlier age now. I hope that might shed some light on the point at which a feotus becomes a baby. :)

Martian Willow
Nov 15th, 2004, 02:20 AM
"Just like inside sprem..." :)

Tennis Fool
Nov 15th, 2004, 02:30 AM
Why don't we add 9 months to our age if "officially" life starts earlier than the day we are born?
This is the point I was trying to make with Volcana, I think.

A foetus does have potentially the chance to become a human and have a life. But it's just that, a potential. Just like inside sprem, there is the potential of life.

Sure, abortion means there is a life opportunity wasted. But how is it different than a couple who want to have a baby and then suddenly change their mind? It's the same thing; a wasted opportunity of one more life on planet earth. But I don't think people will call them murderers.
Quick trivia, in ancient times, people who had unwanted babies regularly left them out in the woods to die from exposure. This was accepted.

And an unwanted baby is a tragedy, much more than an adoption.

Also, let's say a woman gets raped. THE BABY WILL HAVE THE GENES OF THE RAPER. That's sickening. Who wants to have a father who is a raper? The same reasonning if he is an asshole.
Another piece of trivia. If anyone watches L&O: SVU, they know that the female detective was a child of rape. This led her to a lifelong obsession to collar sex perps.

Hulet
Nov 15th, 2004, 03:31 AM
I dispute on two points. One legal, one logical.

1) 'Rights' are legal issue. There is NO law that states that a woman loses ANY rights the moment she becomes pregnant.
First, I don't think we are debating 'right of the woman' purely from legal point of view. If that is the case, I had no expertise in such field so I have to abandon this discussion. :) The way I used 'rights' , and I think Crazy Canuck and others used it this way too, was from the moral stand point. So, when I said a woman has a full right over her body, I don't mean to say, on some law document this right is stated so. All I meant to say was that she will be morally/ethically right to do whatever she wants with her body. May be the state grants her such a right by making it a law but that's besides the point.

2) At what point after conception are we dealing with ANOTHER 'living entity', as opposed to a PART of the living entity that is that woman?

You're arguing, you HAVE to be arguing, to make the statements you do, that life, SEPARATE life, begins at conception. It's a nice idea. Prove it. I'm not telling any woman she HAS to do anything over a group of cells as yet invisible to the naked, and essentially undifferentiated.

I am relying on my highschool biology, so I might remember this wrong, but a human embryo will have most of the tissue it needs for building the organs we "separated" human beings have with in the first month of fertilization. What's to become its heart begans beating within this first month. Now, if we don't call that life, then I don't know why we call a virus or parasite inside our body alive.

And, just for the record, people still die in childbirth. People still die as a result of complications due to pregnancy. Everyone does NOT have healthcare.

But first and foremost, nobody loses ANY rights before we actually dealing with a separate human being, who then would also have rights. Women only GOT equal rights in the USA about 40 years ago.
Again, I am not debating against the equal rights of women. All I am saying is, due to their unique natural makeup, women have the capacity to share their body and their rights with another entity (their unborn child) through pregnancy. Nobody is going to take this right away from the mother - after the separation of mother and child, both the mother and child would have their own separate rights (again strictly from moral point of view). But, while they are joined, so will their rights be. Well, that's how I see it.

Hulet
Nov 15th, 2004, 03:35 AM
Even if we consider it a baby when it's inside the woman's body. That baby is not having a "life", it's just the potential of life which is there. The contact with the world is very limited, not to say inexistant.

Even by considerating abortion a murder, morally I would much rather kill someone (who never had any real contact with reality) that is unwanted than any other option available. Adoption is a tragedy. How can you have any self esteem, if the people who are supposed to love you the most didn't want you? Your life is already fucked. And even without adoption, if a baby is unwanted, odds are, his or her life will be a mess.

Some people should just try to look at common sense and what's best for humanity instead of looking at life with their little moral ideas of what people should do or shouldn't do.
Adoption doesn't necessarily means that the biological parents didn't want the baby; it could be, and most probably is, that due to circumstances beyond their control they couldn't raise the child properly. In fact, it could be a great show of love to give one's child to adoption if the biological parents feel like their child will have a much better life (not only financially, but from emotional and safety point of view) if s/he were to be adopted by others.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 15th, 2004, 03:40 AM
Eh, wrong. If someone chooses to have unprotected sex knowing full well of the consequences, then they should not get to cop out. I wont say that a woman has no choice over her own body, because she does. BUT if she has another life inside of her than her choices should not be allowed to harm this life in any way, shape, or form. And you cant be irked with me, I'm still a virgin. ;)

Eh. As has been touched upon, we could get into a very long "when does life begin" debate based on comments like this. But... I don't want to be bothered. All I know is that if I ever need to have an abortion, for whatever reason, I don't give a flying fuck what people who could NEVER POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A PREGNANT WOMAN thinks. Those are most definitely the last people that I would be taking advice from, that much is certain (erm, unless I was say, MARRIED) :)

That said, I'm abstinent, so unless, God forbid, something happens to me it's unlikely that I'll be having an abortion anytime soon.

Sam L
Nov 15th, 2004, 04:35 AM
But, she also can choose to lose this right PARTIALY and temporarily (only nine months) when she becomes pregnant. And, she doesn't lose it to anybody else but to her own baby. That's not so bad now, is it?
All life forms are the same. As a woman, you should have the right to abort/eliminate any life form in your body whether it be human, alien or bacteria.

Just because you have a child in your body, it doesn't mean you owe it anything. It owes you. :confused:

And once again, it's an individual choice. Why are you people so concerned with what someone else does with their body?

Sam L
Nov 15th, 2004, 04:38 AM
Eh, wrong. If someone chooses to have unprotected sex knowing full well of the consequences, then they should not get to cop out. I wont say that a woman has no choice over her own body, because she does. BUT if she has another life inside of her than her choices should not be allowed to harm this life in any way, shape, or form. And you cant be irked with me, I'm still a virgin. ;)
Ryan you can't tell another person what they should do with their body. That is the bottomline. A baby is a part of a woman's body.

Sam L
Nov 15th, 2004, 04:43 AM
My own sister had the same dillema posed to her when she had her first baby. The doctors determined from several test results that the baby, if born, will have a high probability - I think more than 70% chance - that she will be autistic. I went with her to one of her appointment with the doctors. It was the most difficult thing I had to observe as she cried non-stop while the doctor explain to her her choices - one of which was abortion. She, nevertheless, chose to have the baby - tbh, I don't know why and don't presume to understand her reasons. Anyways, after a torturous seven or eight months, she gave birth without enjoying her pregnancy, as other woman might do. Well, the baby is fully grown up and she is one of the smartest kid amongst my four nieces and nephew, she could speak by the time she is two, started writing words before she even went to school. In terms of social skill, she is as friendly as any other kid.

I am describing all this to show that the doctors are not always right (tbf, they only give you the probability of a disorder happening to the baby in the first place) and not to judge the woman you described in your post. Some people might say that being born with autism is not a disorder - its just how society treats such people that is the main disorder. Others might ask where would it stop if we start preselecting what type of children we choose to have? But, I don't dare to judge a person in such positions after going through it with my sister. Anyways, I would presume this woman you described make her choice because her child is better off unborn and not due to the inconvenience it might bring or not because she is not ready to have a child. In short, she didn't put her career or convenience ahead of the baby she is carrying. So, I have no quarrel with her decision. So you would have a quarrel with her if she put her career or convenience ahead of her? Why? Why is your business? :confused: Seriously, if you're so concerned about children, there are millions in the world who are living in poverty and are abused. Do something about that.

Why fuss about a child that's not born yet, and that's a part of another person's body? It's their domain and it's their right to choose what happens to it.

BTW, great new for your sister. But like you said, she made a decision. You respected that decision right? So respect another human being's decision too.

Ryan
Nov 15th, 2004, 10:36 AM
Eh. As has been touched upon, we could get into a very long "when does life begin" debate based on comments like this. But... I don't want to be bothered. All I know is that if I ever need to have an abortion, for whatever reason, I don't give a flying fuck what people who could NEVER POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A PREGNANT WOMAN thinks. Those are most definitely the last people that I would be taking advice from, that much is certain (erm, unless I was say, MARRIED) :)

That said, I'm abstinent, so unless, God forbid, something happens to me it's unlikely that I'll be having an abortion anytime soon.

I don't presume to give you any advice, because I would never tell you what to do in such a situation. I'm merely giving my view on the issue, but if it's only for those who can 'potentially become pregnant' then I'll leave. ;)

Hulet
Nov 16th, 2004, 03:41 PM
So you would have a quarrel with her if she put her career or convenience ahead of her? Why? Why is your business? :confused: Seriously, if you're so concerned about children, there are millions in the world who are living in poverty and are abused. Do something about that.

Why fuss about a child that's not born yet, and that's a part of another person's body? It's their domain and it's their right to choose what happens to it.

BTW, great new for your sister. But like you said, she made a decision. You respected that decision right? So respect another human being's decision too.
Sorry, for bumping this thread up again. :) But, I have to clear this point. Although I don't support abortion, it doesn't mean that I will pressure other people to accept this point: I won't protest outside abortion clinics, I don't support anti-abortion organizations, and I won't push my opinion forward on anyone unless I was asked to do so. In short, this issue is not something that keeps me awake at night.

Helen Lawson
Nov 16th, 2004, 03:50 PM
Life was so much simpler and easier in the 1930's and 1940's. You either did what I did and make the creep marry you, support him for 10 years, and then dump him and get sole custody. Or you do what Loretta Young did and when you're like 5 months pregnant, you go "on vacation" out of town for several months, and then come back with a baby that you "found" at an "orphanage" while you were "on vacation" and decided to "adopt."

Hulet
Nov 16th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Yeah, Helen, that sounds much more simpler.