Pro-Choice “Facts”: Fetal Development

originally posted by: dawnstar

Below are some very disturbing facts about why some women may feel pressured into getting an abortion.

64% involve coercion. A study published in a major international medical journal found that 64% of American women who had abortions felt pressured by others. Coercion can include loss of home, job or family, and even violent assault.

Up to 83% wanted to have the baby. In a survey of women who sought help after abortion, 83% said they would have carried to term if they had received support from the baby’s father, their family, or other important people in their lives.

In 95% of cases, men play a central role in the decision to abort according to a survey of women at abortion clinics.

Husbands and boyfriends threaten women at the clinic A former abortion clinic security guard testified before the Massachusetts legislature that women were routinely threatened and abused by the husbands and boyfriends who took them to the clinics to make sure they had abortions.

Please take note ^^^^^ all men who are constantly pontificating about

women making these decisions lightly, and the myth that women use abortion

as a method of birth control or use abortions for frivolous or selfish reasons.

Contrary to popular perception women take the descision to have an abortion

very seriously ..... after all just one pregnancy is not just 9 months but around

20% of her whole life!

Dangerous consequences if she resists. Coercion can escalate to violence and even murder. Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women. The “Forced Abortion in America” report includes examples of molesters posing as fathers to procure cover-up abortions and women being fired, beaten, shot, stabbed, tortured or killed for refusing to abort.
prolifemen.publishpath.com...


and please note that this is from a site called Pro-life MEN but I've seen similar statistics elsewhere...
it seems that men are having a pretty big impact on women when it comes to abortions!!

@slapmonkey your views

Research indicates that relief is the most common emotional response
following an abortion, that psychological distress appears to be greatest
before, rather than after a termination.

5aa1b2xfmfh2e2mk03kk8rsx-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com...

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
To argue that someone should have control over another persons body because of how they feel is completely ridiculous ...

Okay, here we go--let's go through this yet again.

Here's my stance on it, and science backs up my point of view, so it's not just based on feeling or a bunch of I-thinks...

I espouse many libertarian ideals, but that doesn't make me a Libertarian proper (although I'm registered as a Libertarian for voting purposes). The way that I approach abortion and human development is based upon the reality that, even at the zygote stage, a developing human being already has its own unique, HUMAN DNA--it is a created human being. Being as such, and espousing libertarian ideals, I feel that it is my duty to protect that tiny human being from being snuffed out of existence, even though it cannot speak for itself yet.

You see, all living creatures have an innate drive to survive, and many will fight to the death in order to do so. Just because a small, developing human being cannot affirm via its own voice that it wants to survive doesn't mean that we should accept abortion as being the right of the mother. Even though it's the reality of most mammals, it is not the fault of the zygot/embryo/fetus that is must develop within the body of the mother--if it were, say, laid inside of an egg and left to develop outside of the mother, would smashing the egg because of the mother's desire not to have the child still be considered a bodily-integrity issue, or would you be preaching about autonomy or self-determination? The end result would still be the same--and unique living being would be killed, and the end result of that reality is what I'm arguing against.

The fact is that a pregnant woman is not one body, she is two, even if the other is contained within her own. So, to argue that abortion is an issue of the three things that you mentioned, I'm just not going to buy into that argument, as I see it heavily flawed and, honestly, a strawman argument meant to distract from the reality that there is a unique human being inside the womb of the mother, not just another part of her body, like an arm or an ear.

The mother has more right to self-determination because she can self-determine, the fetus cannot. The fetus, at that point, is wholly dependent on the survival of the mother.

Okay, here's the flaw in your argument here that I can readily see: Just because someone cannot speak out or defend themselves does not mean that they are indefensible and should not be protected. A "vegetable" human being who is in a hospital wholly dependent upon the hospitals machines to live does not create a scenario where someone on the hospital board can just go in and kill that human being, simply because that individual cannot self-determine for themselves. There are laws against that, and I'm okay with that.

That is what you're arguing, in essence--that dependency for life and ability to self-determine dictates whether or not the one providing life support can determine your ability to live or die. This is not, at all, a tenet of libertarianism, nor should it be an accepted practice in a civilized society. But, sadly, the latter is just my opinion, but it's something about our American society that I think needs changed.

There will always be anecdotes to the contrary, but I firmly agree with the notion of bodily autonomy and how important it is to have in a free society.

Abortion is only a necessary evil with the life of the mother (or embryo/fetus) is in jeopardy, or possibly an elective situation from a pregnancy resultant from a rape. I consider the sanctity of life to be a much more paramount importance to a free society--we live under the belief that all people are created equal and with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Elective abortion negates all three of those promises to an individual, and I'm not okay with that.

originally posted by: eletheia
I dont need to re read your post I quoted it for accuracy.

Then you missed the reality of what I said--must be a reading-comprehension issue at this point, then.

I dont need lessons on contraception ....thank you however if you checked the link in my post you would see

Fact... Half of ALL women getting abortions were using contraption the month in which they conceived

perhaps you need to preach to the men? so as to stop the dead beat women
from having termenations.

I'm not sure that I trust the information contained in a link that you quote (for accuracy, I assume) that calls "contraception" the word "contraption," instead.

Yes, all men should be wearing a condom (or, like me, undergo a vasectomy when you know that you are done wanting the option of having children) when having sex, but it's also the responsibility of the woman to ensure that happens, too. It's one of the few things that both couples can verify is used just by looking at it before sex--guys shouldn't trust women who claim that they're taking birth control, and women shouldn't trust guys who claim sterility.

So, it's highly possible that the women you cite were not using the birth control properly (remember, I'm married--I understand that it can be taken incorrectly, as my wife has pointed out more than once and we would take extra precautions), and when it's not used properly, it's not (as) effective. Plus, not all birth control works on all women equally, but the reality is that it has a very, VERY high efficacy rate, so there's something more going on than just failed birth control in that "fact" that your link cites.

It is more the reality than anything you have quoted even if it is at the top end of the scale of deadbeats. However you dont need to take these things to heart its never going to be your problem ....Bottom line is ...

( She) is not your problem Her body her choice

Ah, well...since you said it's the bottom line, I guess that I have nowhere to go with my argument.

You have an unhealthy way of looking at a pregnancy, but keep on keeping on, I guess, because a pregnancy DOES affect more than just the woman, even though she has the natural burden of the physical and hormonal changes that accompany said pregnancies. But to claim that a pregnancy is never going to be my "problem" is asininity at its worst--It's only not my "problem" if I'm one of the deadbeat jackasses that you cite as being 'more of a reality than anything that I say.' But like I said, keep on keeping on, because you claimed the bottom line of the argument, so you MUST be the end-all opinion on the matter.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

ya know, there's a few major differences between a comatose patient in a hospital and a fetus, right??
like..... the caregivers of that comatose patient can work their 8 or whatever hours and go home, leaving that burden for someone else to care for. they feed that patient through feeding tubes, not intravieniously drawing the nutrition straight from the patient. the people working in that hospital are there because they chose to be there, and if for any reason they find it overwhelming for them, they probably can get transferred to another department of the hospital or change employers. the caretaker isn't sharing their biological system with a comatose patient, their hormonal systems aren't affected, they aren't being drained of the vitamins, minerals, and calories from the food they eat. if they bend over and tie their shows on the first day of their job, they more than likely will be able to the last day also! their weight isn't shooting up from 110 to over 200 lbs within a nine months timespan.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Hecate666
I am sorry, it is solely down to the one putting their health and life at risk to have the last say on this.

I have a wife and know other women in my life who disagree with your assertion. That's a nice opinion that you have, there, but in the end, it's just an opinion--

So yes, it is solely down to her, no man can FORCE a woman to go through that just because they 'want' something they could make really quickly with someone else.
Sorry men.

You have a really deranged way of looking at pregnancy. Most men want a baby (not just a "something") with a woman that they love, with whom they believe would make a wonderful mother and help raise great human beings, and with whom they see themselves spending the rest of their lives.

To whittle down a man to something akin to 'a guy who just wants something that they can make with any woman really quickly' is a pretty asinine statement to make, and really a poor reflection of how you view relationships, having children, and what you think of men in general.

Yup, my opinion is that no human can force another [for whatever reason] FORCE another to go through a pregnancy, ESPECIALLY if you love that person.
May be rare but what IF after you FORCE a woman to have a pregnancy she doesn't want, she dies?

Are you going to say "meh, was wortha try"?

As to my warped opinions about preganancy and relationships, youa re speaking with a woman who had a molar pregnancy aborted [after 4 months] as otherwise I would have died. I had to go through two years of follow ups like cancer patients because any cells left would have turned cancerous and could have killed me.

And I am happily married for 25 years and going strong.

Never let assumptions get in the way of trying to be righteous.

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm uncertain that you understand my comparison, but since you asked, yes, I know that there are differences. I also know that there are similarities to the situation as a whole as I presented it in my comment, so while your snarky comment is accurate, it doesn't appropriately address the overall point that I was making by using it as a comparison.

originally posted by: Hecate666
Never let assumptions get in the way of trying to be righteous.

I'm not assuming anything--the way that you describe pregnancy and abortion are, to me, almost sociopathic in nature. But, that's just my opinion, and I may be wrong. But, when you imply that 'being righteous' is to just be okay with women electively killing their (and the fathers') unborn children, I think that it only bolsters my opinion of your view of pregnancy and abortion.

I'm very sorry that you had to undergo what you did, but your anecdotal scenario, as tragic as it sounds to have been for you and your body, is not the same as a regular abortion of a properly developed zygote/embryo/fetus. From what I understand, a molar pregnancy is not a fertilized egg that carries the appropriate amount of human DNA to create a human being, therefore that is not necessarily a pregnancy as I'm discussing in this thread and concerning abortion.

Again, I'm sorry that you had to go through that ordeal, but it does not have any relevance to the types of abortions or pregnancies about which I am directing my conversation. Please don't take that comment as me trivializing what you had to go through.

Congratulations on your 25 years! I'll be turning the 15-year mark coming up this March.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Okay, here we go--let's go through this yet again.

Here's my stance on it, and science backs up my point of view, so it's not just based on feeling or a bunch of I-thinks...
I espouse many libertarian ideals. The way that I approach abortion and human development is based upon the reality that, even at the zygote stage, a developing human being already has its own unique, HUMAN DNA--it is a created human being. Being as such, and espousing libertarian ideals

A zygote/embryo/fetus having its own unique DNA doesn't qualify it to being

a human being/citizen until it lives independently. No amount of

libertarian ideals will alter that fact!

I feel that it is my duty to protect that tiny human being from being snuffed out of existence, even though
it cannot speak for itself yet.

It is not your duty to infringe your *libertarian ideals* on another

person, or another person's body.

Scientific Fact....Doctors define the viability of a fetus as being

24 weeks of gestation. 24 weeks is the cut off point when doctors will use

intensive medical intervention to attempt to save it. So it is a scientific

fact that a fetus/baby is incapable of having an independent life

before that. So at that stage it is only a potential *life* therefor it cannot be

snuffed out, because its very existence is not possible.

Check the LINK
www.verywell.com...

Just because a small, developing human being cannot affirm via its own voice that it wants to survive doesn't mean that we should accept abortion as being the right of the mother.

And who else could possibly have that right!! Why shouldn't she have full

autonomy over her own body? The same as every one else has over

their own body... including you.

Technically speaking it is a parasite till it gets beyond 24 weeks.And science

backs that up.

Abortion is only a necessary evil with the life of the mother (or embryo/fetus) is in jeopardy, or possibly an elective situation from a pregnancy resultant from a rape. I consider the sanctity of life to be a much more paramount importance to a free society--we live under the belief that all people are created equal and with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Elective abortion negates all three of those promises to an individual, and I'm not okay with that.

That is an OPINION .... your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But what you

are not entitled to is foisting your opinion on the autonomy of another person.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

but what you seem not to want to recognize if the fact that even what seems to be an average normal pregnancy poses risks to the mother and any pregnancy will leave the mother's physical condition permanently altered. you want the fathers to have a say, are you also willing to force the fathers to man up and pay for any damage that might occur if those alterations are severe enough to cause permanent disabilities that cause the women not to be able to full fill the responsibilities that she shoulders? ya know, since she can no longer work to earn the money that feeds her kids, then he should provide her a weekly check equal to what she was earning? if she is no longer able to fully provide the care to her kids, he should provide a nanny to help her out ect? REGARDLESS of weather she chooses to stay in a relationship with him or not???

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are a selective reader of posts .....

I gather by your replies that you never read provided LINKS?

My post at the top of this page outlines from the LINK on

dawnstar's post that the majority of abortions are

coerced by the men in the lives of the women who get an

abortion.




@ Hecate666
*Never let assumptions get in the way of trying to be righteous*

Love, love it!!

a reply to: dawnstar

Honestly, my opinion on what the man does is irrelevant to the this thread, apparently.

I have spoken out against the deadbeats who make babies and leave, and I got berated for that. I have claimed that men should only want to have children with women who they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with and want them to be the mothers of their children, and I get argued against that.

Who cares what my opinion is on what the man does? Apparently it will get argued against, either way.

The gamut of opinionated people on this topic make it nearly impossible to have a discussion with having to repeat one's self ad nauseam--I think I'm just bowing out of the conversation. I have to go eat lunch with my family and in-laws, anyhow.

Best regards to both you and Eletheia, but I'm done with this thread. I have my own thread, now, that I'm sure will spiral out of control in the same way, sadly.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I find it hard to believe that people in good healthy relationships don't sit down and discuss their problems and come to some sort of agreement when it comes to the actions that should be taken to solve their problems, weather we are talking about an unplanned pregnancy or a problem with the finances. and in those types of relationships, which you are blessed to be in one, if they can't come to an agreement or compromise, one partner will cede to the other... and according to that link that I posted above, it seems that women are more apt to lay their view aside.
but not every pregnancy is a healthy pregnancy filled with joy and not everly relationship is a healthy relationship being driven solely by love... we are after all, only human.. each with our own weaknesses.
and there probably isn't that many, but I can honestly see a few men out that would have their new wife lined up and see that so carolina law as a godsend and refuse to allow an abortion and allow his wife to die, just to avoid an expensive divorce settlement.

Look at how successful regulation of personal choice works.

If abortions were made illegal today the only difference would be the safety of the abortions carried out.

Regarding the man's input. It's important that a woman knows her partner's thoughts beforehand so she knows whether she has support or whether she has to lie about a doctors visit or not.

a reply to: seasonal

The article is right. It is a shame that many women are being led to believe that they are free by killing the most precious and innocent human lives. Unborn babies/unborn human fetuses are alive, and they are human. But the pro-choice crowd claim human fetuses/unborn babies are neither human, and they are the same as viruses, and other incoherent claims...

But then again, what else could you expect from the same organization that started with a woman, Margaret Sanger, who believed that assassinations of certain political people at her time was ok simply because they disagreed with her and her minions?... Sanger supported the use of assassination to get rid of influential people who disagreed with her views.

www.nyu.edu...

Make no mistake, Margaret Sanger was a far left extremist (communist) who advocated the use of violence and murder to get her way. To these types of people unborn babies are nothing, and they believe even adult humans who disagree with them don't deserve to live.

That's the "woman rebel" that the pro-choice crowd cheer to to this day.