One Simple Question Makes Pro Choice Activists visibly uncomfortable

a reply to: windword

I never answered when I think it should be illegal...because I'm pro choice but also pro-life. I think abortion is a necessity for an uncivilized population...when(if) that population becomes civilized, abortion would then be abolished because there would be no need.

Like I have mentioned previously...abortions happen for numerous reasons...all of which stem from uncivilized behavior....when humans behave in a civilized fashion with each other then there is no need for a prison system...or abortion...or any of that....but it's the 21st century and we still don't have our @#$% together, and doubtfully ever will.

Bottom line: Until human behavior is corrected, abortion should remain a tolerable means to rectify the issues that may arise.

A2D

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: frostie
a reply to: KingKelson

In response to the OP,

No man, women, law, policy, order, or any authoritative action or figure,

Should EVER, EVER, tell a woman what she can or cant do with HER OWN body.

1) A baby is NOT a woman's own body. It is an autonomous organism that is genetically distinct from the mother.
2) The female human body is specifically designed to nurture, support and protect a developing baby. It ovulates once a month in preparation to be impregnated.
3) The woman has no individual control over her pregnancy once impregnated. Her personal control over the process ends once the male manages to inject sperm. In other words, she has control over keeping her clothes on and legs together.

These are all true statements. Are you saying they cannot be told to any woman? She should know the facts, right?

Unfortunately not every women is blessed with good judgement 100% of time, or the luxury of a wanted pregnancy.

Were human, lets allow for mistakes, and lets allow for choices to be made.

a reply to: frostie

So...allowing for mistakes...how many abortions is that? Is the first one a mistake? What about the tenth?

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Thats up for user interpretation.

Not my place to infringe on others rights.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

1) A baby is NOT a woman's own body. It is an autonomous organism that is genetically distinct from the mother.

No it's not. An embryo or a fetus is not autonomous by any means.

3) The woman has no individual control over her pregnancy once impregnated.

You couldn't be more wrong.

a reply to: KingKelson

I have always felt that choice is necessary. I will stand by that until someone can accurately identify exactly when 'human' life begins. Keeping in mind the legal issue of defining "potential', you can only legislate fact, not possibility.

Two cells is not a human being. Those two cells have the potential to grow, divide, and eventually become a human being. But they also have the potential to be naturally aborted - miscarriage. The critical aspect is determining exactly when human life begins. After that abortion should be avoided unless there is danger to the mother's life. I can understand not wanting to go full term in a case such as rape though. I could agree to make that an exception.

a reply to: avgguy

And my question to you is when do those, or whatever one comes first, come about?

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

You make it sound as if women that have to undergo an abortion do so lightheartedly. You gravely underestimate the physical and emotion impact. It's by no means a form of contraception, you should see it as "damage control". Our society tries to prevent them if possible, though they are legal (and it works, the numbers are dropping). Also, they are costly. So, nobody will simply have 10 abortions in a row, that's ridiculous. But even if that were the case: it's between the woman an her doctors to decide and eventually it's the woman's decision.

Also, statements like "she can keep her legs together" are gross. Alas, there is rape. Incestuous rape sometimes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

Ok. Fair enough. Sounds reasonable. I guess your original wording just confused me since it seemed hypocritical.

Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes my mind and my fingers don't get along well.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Some women DO go through abortions lightheartedly. Granted the majority do not, and I never implied that they do. I don't underestimate anything, perhaps maybe you overestimated your ability to know someone that you just met on the internet....also, for many, cost is not much of a factor as medicaid covers abortion in 15 states, and many clinics in various states offer low cost abortions(discounts) for medicaid users. You may think no one will have 10 abortions in a row, but they do. My only point was to show that at some point, you have to stop classifying the abortions as "mistakes" and start to notice that it's a behavioural pattern.

Fix the behavior (having unprotected sex), fix the problem (having unwanted children).

(You may think it's gross, but I only speak the truth. I've also already mentioned what I think of rape....)


You guys seem to have your feathers rustled because I'm both pro-choice AND pro-life, but I'm more PRO-prevention. So let me ask you...If a pregnancy can be prevented, why shouldn't it be? It's much easier, physically, mentally, financially, and emotionally to prevent a pregnancy than it is to abort one....

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

So let me ask you...If a pregnancy can be prevented, why shouldn't it be? It's much easier, physically, mentally, financially, and emotionally to prevent a pregnancy than it is to abort one....

Agree.

But,

You over-estimate the human race.

Sex is like driving a car,

Most of the time, most drivers are safe. They use their turn signal. They drive defensively. They follow traffic laws.

Then there are the F# head drivers. They speed. They drive aggressively. They arnt processing the full consequences of getting into a car accident, and they dont think their driving is unsafe.

There are also drivers all over that spectrum.

Most people are cautious, and take the preventative measures of being safe.

Everyone has their bad moments driving thought. Even the best drivers will speed on occasion, or drive recklessly. Im sure their late for picking up their kid and arnt processing the dangers in driving carelessly.

Well thats why we have insurance. The one time the good driver (or bad) F#s up and make a mistake.

Thats what abortion should be. Insurance in case somebody craps the bed.

Because everybody, good and bad, whether it involve sex or not, will S# the bed at some points

Abortions should NEVER be a means of birth control, or taken lightly.

a reply to: frostie

Using your analogy....if a particular driver gets in accidents or breaks the driving laws frequently....what happens? Do the same or similar consequences apply to those who fail to use precautions on a regular basis when it comes to sexual activity? Why or why not?

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

They get their license revoked, or super high insurance.

So maybe frequent "Mistake Makers'' should loose government support and have to pay a lot more out of pocket.

Maybe they should be forced to get sterilized

Im not the best with solutions, any ideas?

a reply to: frostie

That's the problem...none of us are really great with solutions.

We impinge on individual rights and liberties daily....we restrict what people can buy...we restrict where they can go...we restrict what they can do...we restrict how many times you can do a particular thing...

But when it comes to reproduction...anything and everything goes and there is little to no consequence....at least here in the United States....Go to North Korea however, and they WILL FORCE an abortion upon you if they deem it appropriate..

My suggested solution?(although it's not complete, just a quick example of viable options)

(1)Giving birthing mothers more options, including advanced methods of meeting adoptive parents. (2)Fine or sin tax placed upon abortion procedures to reduce the occurrence.(3) Compensate birth mothers who choose adoption(first time only). Additionally, mandatory 60 year sentencing for convicted rapists.(call me harsh...)

These 3 together, along with many others I didn't mention, such as better sex education, I think could limit the occurrence of abortion procedures greatly...

What's absolutely clear is that the way to prevent or reduce the occurrence of abortion is NOT to make it illegal...that just won't work.


A2D

a reply to: Peeple

"There are many good reasons."

No there are no good reasons, only selfish reasons.

"still not a real baby."
wow..

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

We impinge on individual rights and liberties daily....we restrict what people can buy...we restrict where they can go...we restrict what they can do...we restrict how many times you can do a particular thing... But when it comes to reproduction...anything and everything goes and there is little to no consequence....at least here in the United States....Go to North Korea however, and they WILL FORCE an abortion upon you if they deem it appropriate..

Why do you think that the government should stick its nose in the regulation of human reproduction, or how many abortions any one woman is allowed to have?

If sex is like driving a car, and abortion is insurance for accidents, then you should take into consideration that accidents are NOT illegal. Drunk driving, reckless driving....ARE illegal and cause for arrest and mandatory insurance increases or revocation.

The commerce laws that regulate the sale of alcohol, for example, may designate when, where and who can buy and sell alcohol, but once legally sold, there is no law saying how often or how much anyone can drink. People's insurance isn't revoke because of their kidney problems, due to excess drink.

One of those women is Jessica Mann, whose Michigan Catholic hospital refused to perform a tubal ligation despite recommendations from her doctors. Mann has a dangerous brain tumor, and getting pregnant again could pose serious health threats. In September, ACLU of Michigan sent a letter to the hospital urging them to reconsider the refusal. The hospital stood by their decision, citing the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Facilities.

“Rejecting us seems arbitrary and cruel,” Mann’s husband wrote in an essay published on Refinery 29.

In December 2013, ACLU sued the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on behalf on Tamesha Means, whose water broke when she was 18 weeks pregnant. Instead of terminating the pregnancy and safely completing the miscarriage, Means said the Catholic hospital gave her false hope that the fetus could survive. After getting sent home twice, enduring “excruciating pain,” and developing an infection, Means finally miscarried the fetus in a painful, prolonged delivery, according to the lawsuit. That case is currently on appeal.

www.slate.com...

In a shocking investigation for the Guardian, Mother Jones alum Molly Redden describes a Catholic hospital in Muskegon, Michigan, in which hospital policies concerning reproductive health were guided by recommendations from the US Conference of Bishops. This resulted in a 17-month pattern whereby women who were miscarrying were refused medical intervention, resulting in dangerous cases of sepsis, emotional trauma, and unnecessary surgery.

A report that documents five cases of women whose miscarriages were treated in this manner was leaked to the Guardian. None of the pregnancies had progressed past 20 weeks, making viability outside the womb unlikely even in the best circumstances. None of the infants in these cases survived. Redden reports:

www.motherjones.com...

But church-affiliated hospitals following the Bishops' ethical directives may not induce abortion of a live fetus, so doctors have essentially one option: Monitor the woman and wait for her to go into labor on her own.

The problem with this approach is that a woman can develop an infection during this waiting period, says Dr. Pratima Gupta, reproductive health advocacy fellow for Physicians for Reproductive Health, which is a co-plaintiff in the Redding lawsuit.

"A woman's health and safety are being put secondary in a scenario where we have the knowledge, the ability, we have evidence that there are alternatives that the woman should be offered," Gupta says

www.scpr.org...

the problem is we just cannot seem to agree as to when, under what circumstances, abortion should be allowed or the most effective forms a birth control for that matter be delivered for that matter, and some seem to think that it's perfectly fine to place the health and well being of the mother at risk, for the sake of the child... even when they know full well that the child has 0 chance of survival!!!

when should you be allowed to refuse another person the healthcare she feels she needs??? when you have walked in her shoes for a month or so, imagining yourself 8 months pregnant, doing those things that she is responsible to do... listened to the doctor as he explained the risks the fetus is posing, or the care the damaged fetus will probably need in the future and the costs of such care!

a reply to: dawnstar

I may be beating a dead horse but...most women know within 8-16 wks if they are pregnant or not. They should be making the decision soon after that. If the decision to not abort is not made within the next few weeks, is should be assumed that the baby will be born.

So...if a rule was put into place that after 24wks you cannot abort (unless other extenuating circumstances)...I would be ok with that decision.

I guess the issue is with the "extenuating circumstances"...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: ForteanOrgSome women DO go through abortions lightheartedly.

I haven't met any yet. During an abortion there is scraping or cutting going on inside you and woman are (made) aware of that. I don't think any woman can take that lightheartedly. You have to be sedated, spend a while in the hospital or clinic and - as with any operation - there are medical risks. Of course, you should not exaggerate the risks, but yes, there are risks.

Sure enough, there are women that are simply stupid - you know, the types you see on the average dr Phil show: women that are masters of self-deception, not really good at learning and low on social skills. In such cases we'd better be happy she at least asked for an abortion - you would not want a mother like that.

Anyway: if your message is "prevent it if possible, legalise it and make it of high quality and low cost" - we agree.

a reply to: veracity

with me personally, yes, with others not so much so. to each their own.
but I just provided three links to articles where there were some pretty severe "extenuating circumstances" and the women wasn't given the healthcare that they had a right to and this was done by what many would consider one of the most compassionate groups in america... the catholic religion. a women suffering from brain cancer, denied a tubal at the time of her baby's c-section (ya much better to have her endure another operation!), and I think six women who were left to go through the painful process of naturally miscarrying their infants (even though it was well known that the infants would not survive, and the women were showing signs of sepsis.) they are placing the health and welfare of women secondary to non-vital fetuses now! using the constitutional protections for religion as they do it. one of the hospital groups ceo earns far more than the ceo of planned parenthood, these hospitals get the same funding as planned parenthood through medicaid, and where planned parenthood gets knocked for not providing mammograms, these hospitals won't provide some basic lifesaving care to pregnant women!

so just what do you consider extenuating circumstances? being told in the later part of the preganacy that the child has only half a brain and will require millions of dollars in healthcare? is that extenuating enough? what if she was told that the she would lose her sight if she carried the pregnancy to term like the lady in poland was? they denied her and now she is left to care for not only the newborn, but two older children if I am remembering right, blind although probably a little bit wealthier since the international court system ruled in her favor...and decided poland should pay her a nice sum in damages.
what about the women who learns that her occupation is way too risky for the developing fetus and it's her job that is providing the extra money for her living children to have decent clothes and the healthcare they need? just where does the rights of the mother (and those living, breathing persons who are depending on her being alive and well end, supplanted by the rights of the fetus still forming in her womb? could you explain to a child why her mother should risk death in hopes that he/she can have a sibling in the future? or why the family can't afford the asthma medicine the child needs because mom can't work without risking the health of the baby? or why mom has to lay in bed all day, can no long lift up that two year old out of the road that he/she has wandered into?

how do you legislate that, to avoid causing harm pray tell?? I mean poland had exceptions in their laws, but well I guess the chance of blindness just was weighed as heavily as the right of the fetus to live.