Pregnant Woman Perfectly Tells Off Anti-Abortion Protestors

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Why is it when you have miscarry you "lose a child" but when you deliberately get rid of one you, "Abort a fetus" when the end result is the same, ie, Life ended. ?

*Miscarriage* is the medical term for the ''loss of a pregnancy'

in the first 20 weeks ... in medical articles you will see the term

'spontaneous abortion' used in place of miscarriage.

The term 'lose a child/baby' is more from a personal point of view.

A matter of semantics?

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Why is it when you have miscarry you "lose a child" but when you deliberately get rid of one you, "Abort a fetus" when the end result is the same, ie, Life ended. ?

*Miscarriage* is the medical term for the ''loss of a pregnancy'

in the first 20 weeks ... in medical articles you will see the term

'spontaneous abortion' used in place of miscarriage.

The term 'lose a child/baby' is more from a personal point of view.

A matter of semantics?

Ok, lets come at this from a different angle. If a woman is Murdered and at the Autopsy it's discovered she was expecting..the Murderer would be charged with two counts of Murder and rightly so.

I didn't even know the British had these wackos outside their clinics?
It's not a common thing is it in Britain?

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Ok, lets come at this from a different angle. If a woman is Murdered and at the Autopsy it's discovered she was expecting..the Murderer would be charged with two counts of Murder and rightly so.

There have been a fair few cases of boyfriends giving their pregnant

girlfriends abortive tablets under the guise of something else ....

They have been prosecuted rightly for murder. The prime reason being that

she wanted the pregnancy An abortion if she had wanted one

'in law' would have been available to her.

So it appears the sticking point is the 'woman's choice/rights

a reply to: eletheia
How would that work if say your conjoined twin fell pregnant and you both shared the same uterus. She wanted the baby but you didn't.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: eletheia
How would that work if say your conjoined twin fell pregnant and you both shared the same uterus. She wanted the baby but you didn't.

LOL!!!... How many conjoined twins do you know? Indeed how many are

there world wide ... I have only heard of two.

On a silly note ... There would always be three in that relationship.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No think about the social implications if we make it illegal.

1) Women again are shackled to their own body...no choice when pregnant must have that baby.
2) Women who are found having an abortion get jail time for doing so.
3) nearly a million more kids a year just in the US alone.
4) Taxes rise to look after those unwanted kids.

So? I can say something similar about the problems with prosecuting child abusers...

1. Parents are shackled to their children.
2. People caught abusing their kids must serve jail time.
3. Taxes rise to deal with prosecuting child abuse and taking care of the kids.
4. Ergo, we should legalize child abuse.

It's a silly argument

The most important is taking the right away from women to do what they want to their own body, it is against human rights (a fetus is not a human btw).
Womens rights would be put back years.

This is a much better argument, but it has a lot of assumptions

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Ok, lets come at this from a different angle. If a woman is Murdered and at the Autopsy it's discovered she was expecting..the Murderer would be charged with two counts of Murder and rightly so.

Pro-lifers love this argument. This law was introduced by the GW Bush administration by pro-life factions. It was argued, at the time, that this law, designed to protect pregnant women, would be used against women as a tool to try to outlaw abortion and a woman's right to choice.

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
en.wikipedia.org...

Pro-lifers, you have not failed to fulfill that predictions of using this law/act to attack abortion rights.

Now, if we look at from the angle and the spirit in which the the designed, it main thrust still protects a woman's choice. In this case her CHOICE is TO BE PREGNANT. See how that works both ways? It's illegal for force or trick a woman to abort, and to assault a pregnant woman, according to this law, is tantamount to murder!

While I personally disagree with some of the wording the law, and see the double standards it invokes, and I think "Murder" is the wrong charge, I do support the heart of the law. Just like it is illegal to force a woman against her will, by rape for example, to become pregnant, it's equally against the law to force her to NOT BE pregnant.

It's all about a woman's body. Her body, her choice.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No think about the social implications if we make it illegal.

1) Women again are shackled to their own body...no choice when pregnant must have that baby.
2) Women who are found having an abortion get jail time for doing so.
3) nearly a million more kids a year just in the US alone.
4) Taxes rise to look after those unwanted kids.

The most important is taking the right away from women to do what they want to their own body, it is against human rights (a fetus is not a human btw).
Womens rights would be put back years.

1) Women again are shackled to their own body...no choice when pregnant must have that baby.
Most people are shackled to their own body. For some reason it's usually not a problem during sex, however.

2) Women who are found having an abortion get jail time for doing so.
for murder..... ya, and?

3) nearly a million more kids a year just in the US alone.
Stop the flood of illegal immigrants in. We should be taking care of our own first.

4) Taxes rise to look after those unwanted kids.
Well it's either for our kids or for supporting illegal immigrants. These should be the choices if we had any sanity left.

The woman, if they really don't want the child, should just give it up for adoption. Incidentally, this can happen today. No laws have to be changed to save the lives of many a baby.

a reply to: MarkJS

Yes and how many kids are all ready waiting for adoption? .
Tell you what sort out the living kids forst then we will talk.
How are you going to force women to carry a child for nine months?.

a reply to: MarkJS

It's easy to have such a hard-line view when judging an situation that can never occur to you because of your gender.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: MarkJS

Yes and how many kids are all ready waiting for adoption? .
Tell you what sort out the living kids forst then we will talk.
How are you going to force women to carry a child for nine months?.

why do people side with convenience and murder so much. It's not necessary with just a little thought. Everybody is accountable in the eyes of God - what side you are on. Murder or life. just sayin'

for 1&2) In the US, divert the monies going to illegal immigrants and use it for orphanages.

for 3) Encourage strongly that women bring kids to term with appropriate laws.

a reply to: MarkJS

It's not siding with murder. It's siding with choice. We are letting the person who is supposed to have the baby make the CHOICE to, in your eyes, murder the child. By the way, it is possible to be pro-choice and also object to getting abortions on your own. I know SHOCKER, choice implies that some people DO say no to getting abortions on their own without being told they can't by government or hate filled Christians.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Believe me, it's siding with murder.

It's great that some babies are born in this aversive climate. It's almost amazing, actually.

Ah... but the people murdering babies are not hate-filled? Well right, probably not. For them it's worse. They are indifferent. Jaded. That's even worse then having murderous emotions....

originally posted by: MarkJS

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: MarkJS

Yes and how many kids are all ready waiting for adoption? .
Tell you what sort out the living kids forst then we will talk.
How are you going to force women to carry a child for nine months?.

why do people side with convenience and murder so much.

No matter many times you call it that, abortion IS NOT murder.

Everybody is accountable in the eyes of God

Which God would that be? Because, that Old Testament God was NOT pro-life.

- what side you are on. Murder or life. just sayin'

I'm on the side of the living, breathing, autonomous woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

originally posted by: MarkJS
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Believe me, it's siding with murder.

Believe you? No I don't believe you, because you are wrong. Someone who is pro-choice but also objects to getting abortions on their own (ie if they get pregnant and refuse to have an abortion because they personally don't agree with it) isn't siding with murder. You see, they are making the choice OWN THEIR OWN.

It's great that some babies are born in this aversive climate. It's almost amazing, actually.

Pure hyperbole. There will always be babies born as long as their are men getting together with women.

Ah... but the people murdering babies are not hate-filled? Well right, probably not. For them it's worse. They are indifferent. Jaded. That's even worse then having murderous emotions....

Well that is their problem, and maybe their god (if it exists). It isn't your problem. It isn't my problem. They don't need you worrying for them. They will account for their own decisions.

a reply to: eletheia

Please answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

If people disagree with the law, they should attack the law makers.

The girl in the video is absolutley right that displays like this outside abortion clinics do more damage than good.

I don't see how this is goign to help end abortion. It only makes the girl/woman feel utterly sh*te about her self, which she will already be feeling. And liek the girls says, you don't know how the pregnanyc came to be.

I work in the care sector and have worked with young adults with learning disabilities for 3 years. Sexual abuse on learning disabled is very common. Twice i have had to support a young girl who was raped by a family member. Another girl who did not even know what she was doing was sex and just went along with it. The older boy had mild learnign difficulties but knew exactly what sex was.

Should these girls be confronted with this like they are monsters?

People have no clue.

It’s funny how people only call it a fetes when they DON”T want it.
But as soon as they DO want it, they call it a baby.

originally posted by: sdubya

There's plenty that medical science can do to keep babies alive post 22 weeks. Would it be ok for the parents to unplug a preemie that is doing well because they don't wish to raise the child?

Is this is the part of the post you are wanting me to answer


Easy peasy .... If the *parents* or *'mother* didn't wish to raise the child

it would have been aborted at or before 16 weeks when it was an unviable

foetus .... thus it wouldn't be 'plugged' into any medical apparatus at post

22 weeks.

Abortion is there so that the situation you outlined doesn't occur.