There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229089 Apr 13, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
You also don't have men caterwauling about how it's their decision and their decision alone. Yet you expect that others should pay for it. IF the choice is yours and yours alone as you claim, then so should be the financial responsibility.
And there goes any argument about 'best interests of the child'. Men are completely free to give up their parental rights, if they don't want to be responsible for their children's financial support. And they do it all the time.

Men have no legal responsibility for a pregnancy. None. Only for their born kids.

Men are as free to refrain from sex, as women are.

If you don't want to be held responsible for your born kids, don't get anybody pregnant.
Milorad Ivovic

Frankston, Australia

#229090 Apr 13, 2013
Can someone explain to me...

At what point does a woman give up her civil rights and become a state-controlled incubator? At which point of foetal development does that occur?
Milorad Ivovic

Frankston, Australia

#229091 Apr 13, 2013
I quite like this new-found power that my sperm has to you anti-abortionists. My sperm takes away women's civil rights, whether they agree or not.

That's some powerful stuff.

It's interesting to me that you so-called "pro-lifers" are so against the living, that you would piss all over their right to govern their own bodies.

To you a mass of nerves less developed than those in your partner's foreskin are worth curtailing someone's civil rights for... If you are really pro-life, then PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE LIVING, and focus a little less on the luxury of protecting some unformed parasite which can't survive on its own.

Don't get me wrong.. A foetus should be protected as long as those protections do not conflict with the protections of the fully formed, legally alive ACTUAL CITIZEN of the state which you would have ignore a civil rights issue.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229092 Apr 13, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
I quite like this new-found power that my sperm has to you anti-abortionists. My sperm takes away women's civil rights, whether they agree or not.
That's some powerful stuff.
It's interesting to me that you so-called "pro-lifers" are so against the living, that you would piss all over their right to govern their own bodies.
To you a mass of nerves less developed than those in your partner's foreskin are worth curtailing someone's civil rights for... If you are really pro-life, then PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE LIVING, and focus a little less on the luxury of protecting some unformed parasite which can't survive on its own.
Don't get me wrong.. A foetus should be protected as long as those protections do not conflict with the protections of the fully formed, legally alive ACTUAL CITIZEN of the state which you would have ignore a civil rights issue.
Thank-you. Very well put.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229093 Apr 13, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
Can someone explain to me...
At what point does a woman give up her civil rights and become a state-controlled incubator? At which point of foetal development does that occur?
Some of the so-called 'pro-life' crowd would say "When she consents to sex with someone who is capable of getting her pregnant." Most of the rest would say, "At the moment the ovum is fertilized," regardless of the fact that 1/3 of all fertilized ova do not implant in the uterus.

Implantation is necessary for conception - and 1/3 of those do not gestate to term, even without an abortion.

The so-called 'pro-life' movement happily ignores these facts, because it is primarily a movement to control women's reproductive choices. It has very little to do with "life".

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#229094 Apr 13, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
Can someone explain to me...
At what point does a woman give up her civil rights and become a state-controlled incubator? At which point of foetal development does that occur?
From the beginning of conception, and is being a "state controlled incubater" any worse than being a murderer?
Milorad Ivovic

Frankston, Australia

#229095 Apr 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called 'pro-life' movement happily ignores these facts, because it is primarily a movement to control women's reproductive choices. It has very little to do with "life".
Thank you. That's exactly what I was fishing for.
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text>is being a "state controlled incubater" any worse than being a murderer?
I don't want to be 'that guy' but just once I'd like to meet one of you that can spell words you're ACTUALLY QUOTING right in front of you. Just once I'd like to have that privilege.

Murder has been defined for you in this thread many times, but perhaps you'd like to consider something.

Let's say you force a woman to carry a child to term, and she dies during labour. Does that make you a murderer? I believe it does.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229096 Apr 13, 2013
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> From the beginning of conception, and is being a "state controlled incubater" any worse than being a murderer?
You'll never know, will you, dear.

Pretty easy to sentence someone else to being a state controlled incubator, when you'll never risk being sentenced to it yourself.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229097 Apr 13, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many women who cannot have children who would love to have the opportunity to raise a child.
You can also do your part by making a difference in your community. Helping the young, single-parent by babysitting, giving her a ride to the store or encouraging her to move forward in her education may not sound like a lot but to that young mom it is.
We can sit and dialog about the ill's of society but until we step out and begin to help those in need we will not see change.
Ella, I was a young single mother on welfare. I had people help me as you describe and trust me, I've paid it forward. I continue to do so today, as I'm in my 50s.

Only 2% of all women are able to go through with giving their child up for adoption. I know I couldn't do it.

Especially today, when we hear the horror stories of what happens to adopted children, I could NEVER give a child away.

For many women, it's simply not an option.

But sitting on your computer and spouting the bible to back up your beliefs does NOT help anyone but those who believe as you do.

Have you ever considered how many abortions Planned Parenthood PREVENTS? They hand out free and low cost birth control to millions per year. Yes, they perform abortions. But they prevent tens of thousands more via their programs.

Instead of castigating them, encourage teenagers to use birth control and to educate themselves. There are still young kids who believe that if you have sex standing up, you can't get pregnant. Those old wives tales are still in full bloom.

You seem like a reasonable person who cares deeply. I respect that as I do too.

There are many ways to help, mostly by education. Kids need to learn how profoundly having a child will affect their lives.

Today we see the effects of children raising children. It's not always pretty. We can make a positive difference in lives by encouraging EVERYONE, young and old, to educate themselves as to reality.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229098 Apr 13, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. That's exactly what I was fishing for.
<quoted text>
I don't want to be 'that guy' but just once I'd like to meet one of you that can spell words you're ACTUALLY QUOTING right in front of you. Just once I'd like to have that privilege.
Murder has been defined for you in this thread many times, but perhaps you'd like to consider something.
Let's say you force a woman to carry a child to term, and she dies during labour. Does that make you a murderer? I believe it does.
I know what this one's response will be:

"She cannot be forced to gestate - she accepted the risk of pregnancy when she opened her legs."

He feels that way, even if the impregnating party forces said legs open, and forces his way between them.

Hide and watch.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229099 Apr 13, 2013
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> From the beginning of conception, and is being a "state controlled incubater" any worse than being a murderer?
As always, the above is your opinion, not fact.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229100 Apr 13, 2013
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> From the beginning of conception, and is being a "state controlled incubater" any worse than being a murderer?
And gee, by the way, thank-you as well - for freely admitting that women should be controlled incubators.

You're one of the few honest anti-choice folks on this thread - and I bet you take the dishes out of the sink before you pee in it, too.

:)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229101 Apr 13, 2013
LAWEST100 wrote:
Good Afternoon everyone. Just looking in.
Speculum at the ready, no doubt.

Soaked in ice-water, I'm guessing....
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229102 Apr 13, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
The calculus changes if the woman already has children. In that case, it is HIGHLY immoral to risk both her own life AND the care and love that her living children need and deserve just on the hope that a wad of goo MIGHT manage to survive to live birth.
But, in the long run, it is both immoral and stupid for a woman to unduly risk her own life over a wad of goo. If she wants children, she can (hopefully) get pregnant again at a time that she will be at less risk.
You’re talking about the point at which the child is actually endangering the life of the mother. It would greatly depend on the particular situation though whether acting in the self-defense of others would actually come into play in your scenario. This also brings to mind why soldiers in the Vietnam War were labeled “child killers”, when they themselves felt that they were simply acting in self-defense.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229103 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I spent some time last night pondering your question.
Should a survivor of an abortion not only be allowed to live, but extraordinary means taken to help it live. Right?
Okay, so let's think about this. You stated "even if the mother doesn't want the infant to live." So...who will take care of this child? Chances are of it is a survivor of an abortion, it's around 20 weeks which the last time I read about it, gives it a less than 10% chance of surviving, and if it does, it's highly likely to have some profound health problems. Who's responsibility will it be? The chances aren't good it will be adopted. This little survivor has some major battles ahead of it and may need constant care. It's not only a major investment of money, but of time, energy, devotion, and possibly a full time job for two or more caregivers.
Again, it's much more than just "keep it alive." It's afterwards. It's not just the moment of conception or the moment it's born. It's a lifetime.
There are many variables here so there IS no cut and dried answer. I honestly cannot just say "yes" or "no" to this.
I agree with the poster who said "no abortions past the point of probably viability." My personal limit for an abortion FOR ME would be 12 weeks. I cannot speak for anyone else.
What you may not realize is that PRO-CHOICE means CHOICES:
The choice to have a child and raise it.
The choice to have a child and give it up for adoption.
The choice to terminate a pregnancy.
It covers ALL choices. Complete reproductive freedom. The ability to delay parenthood until one is completely ready to be a parent.
Imagine a society where every single child born is loved and wanted.
Isn't that far more appealing than a society where every child is born and many just exist...without love, nurturing, shelter, warmth, and the other things that make life worth living?
Not extraordinary means, just the same means as anybody else that is already born, which would be to do everything that is possible. If you don’t at least draw the line at birth of when an individual should have the right to live, at what point would it be? Should a child be allowed to live only if the mother wants it? Up to what age – five minutes, five days, five years? Should we only give rights to those children that are loved?

The responsibility to care for the child would undoubtedly not fall onto the mother; after all she was the one trying to kill the child.

I notice in your pro-choice choices you did not include the choice to kill an already born child, but if pro-choice means choices, does that not also include the choice to terminate a child that has already been born?

The law says that any infant born is considered a person with rights in the United States, but I’m only wondering what you think and not what the law says. Please at least think it over a little more, because I think that you are avoiding the obvious logical answer.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229104 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
It's impossible for both a fetus and a reluctantly pregnant woman to have their "rights." One has to have precedence over the other.
Which is the logical choice? In nature, the strong survives.
If a woman is forced to be subservient to that which cannot survive outside her uterus, what does that make her? What is that saying about a woman's place in society?
Men aren't forced to be fathers. Why should a woman be forced to give birth against her will?
In nature the strong survive, but the logical choice for human beings is to have compassion on those that are weaker, less powerful, and considered less important than we are because that’s what most of us would want for ourselves. I’m sure that a lot of men would also now regret dying so that you could have the right to kill your child. We all have responsibilities, whether male or female to protect each other in a society where we expect equal rights for ourselves.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229105 Apr 13, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Not extraordinary means, just the same means as anybody else that is already born, which would be to do everything that is possible. If you don’t at least draw the line at birth of when an individual should have the right to live, at what point would it be? Should a child be allowed to live only if the mother wants it? Up to what age – five minutes, five days, five years? Should we only give rights to those children that are loved?
The responsibility to care for the child would undoubtedly not fall onto the mother; after all she was the one trying to kill the child.
I notice in your pro-choice choices you did not include the choice to kill an already born child, but if pro-choice means choices, does that not also include the choice to terminate a child that has already been born?
The law says that any infant born is considered a person with rights in the United States, but I’m only wondering what you think and not what the law says. Please at least think it over a little more, because I think that you are avoiding the obvious logical answer.
Okay, HOW many abortions happen when a child is 100% viable and doesn't need any care at all? And WHY do those abortions happen?

Typically it's because the birth will kill the mother. You are focusing on a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions, which affect the life of the mother.

WHY?

And killing a BORN HUMAN BEING is ILLEGAL. Why are you being so obtuse?

How incredibly ridiculous are your questions?

You can think whatever you like about my answers. I Pointed out that there are a lot of variables, not least of which are the laws of the state.

I also notice you ignored my comments about who is to take care of the unwanted child born alive, should it be saved.

Hypocrite.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229106 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will is abusing her.
You accused a woman (me?) of avoiding your question.
You continually avoid the facts of a born human being. That SOMEONE must take care of and take responsibility for that human being for a minimum of 18 years. That the born human being has a right to be loved, nurtured, fed, sheltered, warmed, and valued.
Forcing a woman to gestate against her will and forcing her to give birth do NOT necessarily equate to the above.
You are pro-fetus. You are NOT Pro-Life. There is such a difference.
That people like you think you are "helping" is amazing to me. Do you just shut your eyes when you hear stories of babies in dumpsters? Or children killed by their own parents? Of babies raped? Of toddlers abandoned?
How can you read those stories and continue to insist that every pregnancy should end in a birth, with a child possibly unwanted? Unloved?
Every single child deserves to be born loved and wanted.
So in other words, not letting a woman kill her child is abuse? Sorry, but I don’t see the comparison here. By killing the child you are automatically denying all of those rights to it that you said it deserves. Your logic is that you will prevent child abuse by killing the child. As you said,“every child deserves to be born, loved and wanted”. That will never happen though no matter how many of them you kill, in fact the act of killing them in itself is abusing them.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229107 Apr 13, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. We need to be the ones that make a difference in our society.
Dittos

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229109 Apr 13, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other words, not letting a woman kill her child is abuse? Sorry, but I don’t see the comparison here. By killing the child you are automatically denying all of those rights to it that you said it deserves. Your logic is that you will prevent child abuse by killing the child. As you said,“every child deserves to be born, loved and wanted”. That will never happen though no matter how many of them you kill, in fact the act of killing them in itself is abusing them.
You are twisting my words and assigning your own meaning to them.

Yes, sometimes a woman having an abortion prevents an abused child.

If a woman knows she cannot be the mother the child deserves and knows she cannot give it up for adoption, she is being responsible by having an abortion.

Yet again, you refuse to address the fact that it's far more than the 9 month gestation period. It's a LIFETIME commitment.

Please address that fact.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 15 min WildWeirdWillie 51,730
Skype gay sex (Dec '14) 3 hr c840xba 26
shuh up meathead! 3 hr Doctor REALITY 1
NJ Home Remodeling Contractors Information by P... 4 hr Pangione Developers 1
How many MILLIONS of MEXICAN MEN R N in U.S. IL... 4 hr Doctor REALITY 8
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr Gabriel 991,936
News FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation, so... 6 hr Retribution 88
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 hr Michael 693,160
More from around the web