Those that are against abortion

Originally posted by eletheia

the 'anguish' and 'soulsearching' that went into the reluctant decision to have a termination.

Since 47% of women that have abortions have them again I guess they do a lot of "soulsearching"... lol

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Charmed707

 

You have aparently not read the posts I have oppined in this thread about the religious overtones of and the curse of Eve that the religous patriarchy insists on imposing on women, yet men have done everyhting possible to defy God's curse upon them.

Wow...that's just plain looney.

there are those who will stand up and fight to keep and expand woman's rights,

Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the the rights of women. As I've said, feminists like yourself only fight to keep abortion legal and easy so that you can have a false sense of empowerment to compensate for your immense insecurity.

BIrth control isn't 100% effective

Sterilization is.

in my experience, many men coerce women to not use spermicide or condoms

So? According to pro-choicers, the pregnancy is only the concern of the woman. Men bear no responsibility going by your logic. No one should be such a pushover anyway.

This is dangerous legislation and a real threat to the way fo life and the health of all women today.

I'm a young woman and don't feel threatened by this at all. Women have 100% control over whether they give birth or not-with or without legalized abortion. You're just mad because you would no longer have the ultimate power that men have not been granted by law- the right to take away the life of an innocent human being.

I still say that before we legislate against a woman's right, we should forcibly require all men, when they reach puberty, to undergo mantatory vasectomy.

If pregnancy is purely related to a woman's body, then why do you bring men's sexuality up at all?

I think it's dispicable to suggest that a woman who finds herself in a compromised position and seeking to terminate her pregnancy should face the rest of her life with no chance at giving birth, ever, as a punishment.

"Finds herself in a compromised position"? No, pregnancy is not a situation that you just find yourself in. It's not a curveball thrown at you. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of engaging in sexual activity. Stop with the 'helpless, unknowing victim' rhetoric. If you have an abortion, it's pretty clear you don't want children. It's despicable that you think women should be able to pick and choose which children she wants to live and which ones will be robbed of their life.

They male hypocricy on this issue is thoughly embedded with control and envy.

I'm a female and you're sadly mistaken if you think all or even most pro-lifers are male. Last year in one of my college classes, the teacher took a poll asking who is pro-life and pro-choice. Most people were pro-life and there were more pro-life females than males....and no, it's not a religious school. You wanna talk about control issues? You're the one who thinks you should be able to dictate another person's life.

If a woman has casual sex, she's a slut, a whore, a fluzzie and a Jezzabel, but how do we treat a man about town?

What does this have to do with abortion? Men and women's sexuality DOES differ in general. That's why there has always been a double standard.

it's a long haul as long as we still have these religious nuts trying to pry into our uteri and sexuality.

...coming from someone who thinks pregnancy is a curse.

reply to post by Charmed707


Says a young women with no experience.

reply to post by windword


When all else fails, play the age card.

That's common with senile leftovers from the hippie era.

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by windword

 

When all else fails, play the age card.

That's common with senile leftovers from the hippie era.

Sweety, I realize now, by your circular and inane logic, that you are no threat to me or my campaign, as you have no understanding of the history, the politics or religous implications of this plight, and have no effect on the personal power of those you ignorantly try to depose.

reply to post by windword


You don't have to have lived during a historical period to understand it.

The fact that you derailed our exchange by playing the age card and then randomly comparing agendas shows that you can't prove your 'point'.

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by windword

 

You don't have to have lived during a historical period to understand it.

The fact that you derailed our exchange by playing the age card and then randomly comparing agendas shows that you can't prove your 'point'.

The "exchange" was insulting, circular and insincere. You obviously don't have the "hoostfa" to argue your points. You have no scientific, medical research about the risk of women under the train of thought that you adhere to. You have a cold, judgmental, narrow and calculated hatred for women with experience and a different outlook than yours. I would suggest that you take some "sex ed" at a college level, and do some historic research of the plight of women and reproductive rights before you spew ridiculous rhetoric that you have no personal or professional experience in dealing with.

I am done with you now.

reply to post by windword


The exchange was circular because of your repetition of logical fallacies and emotional rhetoric. I never insulted you except for maybe when I said that you thinking pregnancy is a curse from God is looney, which most sane people would agree with.

It's funny how you're suggesting that I should take more sex ed courses when you're the one suggesting that pregnancy can come as a complete shock after sexual activity.

As I've said, the rights of women have nothing to do with abortion. Most abortions are NOT done as a result of rape or a threat to the mother's life.

Originally posted by amazed

Where did I say "socialism guarantees life"? ahh, I did say "assure". Let me rephrase that to clarify my meaning. HELPS assure life. One word does help clarity the complete meaning.

Yes one word can always change the meaning though I would still argue the greatest help would be individuals standing up for each other instead of relying on a government.

You stated that universal health care can take months to get in to see a physician, that doesn't have to be the case as I suspect you very well know.

Especially if we as a society help children grow up healthy and intelligent, with a great education to..... guess what? Become doctors!

It sure doesn't have to be but it is inherent in a universal health care system. Everyone has the right to health care, I just think our current models the world has for universal health care flat out suck. Our system in the U.S. is flawed but anyone who needs care is entitled to receive it. Though now I'm going to have to expand your argument (I'm sure you saw this coming lol) I wonder how many aborted babies could have become doctors or leaders had society helped them!

So, are you saying that only those who can afford health care deserve health care and everyone else can just go dig their own graves? Even those children you claim to care about? Ahhh I see you are a pro-birther not a pro-lifer, got it.

That is not what I said at all... All I said was the systems you brought up don't assure life.

Talk about death panels. If you can afford health care great, if you can't then die, and possibly die a horrendous painful death all because you cannot afford health care, but only AFTER you are born. (sarcasm)

Again, I didn't say that.

Oh, by the way, do you support the death penalty? Good job ignoring that very important question which "helps clarify" a claimed pro-lifers stance.

No I don't support the death penalty. I do support punishing people for their crimes but killing them doesn't help anything. It's an easy escape from their crimes; they need to atone for them, and death gives very little atonement. We need harsh punishment (but not death) other wise people would do whatever they wanted. And by harsh I don't mean torture.

I am pro life. Do I think our world sucks at helping others? Yes. People who believe that the best way is individuals coming together rather than a government system are not against life. We just think more government programs that are inherently flawed aren't the answer. Know what the answer is? We are. Individuals loving, caring, and supporting one another.

I see your signature said harm none. So do you really see a fetus as not being a life?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Since i'm honest and not blinkered, yes. I do find my own existence to be cheap in the eyes of those who make the decisions.

It's about time you removed your own blinkers if you don't think/feel the same. There is a vast difference between how you feel about yourself, and how you feel about those who control you.

T

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by muse7

 

Are you really pro-abortion? Are you really in favor of killing fetuses as a form of birth control? How is this better than abstinence or using a condom?

Where did muse7 advocate using abortion as a form of birth control?

reply to post by jeramie





I would be very supprised if you had ever had a baby "walk a mile in my shoes" comes to

mind.

A baby just doesn't come into being like 'hey presto' i'm here. In reality an embryo, fetus

THEN baby takes it's toll on the mother [hormonaly, sickness, overly tiredness,inability to do

various tasks, discomfort, cravings, indigestion, backache,carring extra weight everywhere,

depletion of mothers own required resources to varing degrees, ad infinitum.....] All these

things undertaken more than willingly when wanted - planned for looked forward to .............

but then nothing, no one [not even you] is infallible MISTAKES HAPPEN !!!

Oh! and i haven't even mentioned the pain It has often been said that if a man gave birth

that would be the end of procreation.

reply to post by Xtrozero





Who are you to judge another's anguish, suffering, distress,misery or torment?

You are obviously totally devoid of any empathy

reply to post by Charmed707




Understanding is no substitute for experience...............


e.g. If you have never given birth or suffered the demise of a child or loved one you can

only 'presume' what it is like. You need to have the experience to KNOW what it is like.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
Good to see some level headedness! I am on the other side of the argument, but it is nice to see some reasoned response rather than many of the highly emotional responses being presented here.

Wow, in the few seconds it took me to get into my messages to check for responses I was already armoring myself against disappointment. Well, you surprised me and I sincerely thank you for that. I think the rationality comes from my atheist position, so I have to come at things logically, but I do appreciate a reasoned response and am very happy to discuss this with you.

So, LET'S DO IT! (in best WWE voice)

Concerning your point 4), (to me this is the most important aspect of this argument) can you provide any sources for that? I have spent a fair amount of time over the last few days combing through the available literature, and almost categorically the literature for this issue is from before the 1990's, mostly from the 60's and 70's, there just isn’t much research being done in this area anymore. I did come across one more recent paper that was looking at viability of the foetus, but it was dealing specifically with the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

Your research doesn't need to be reposted for me to tell you that you are correct. There seems to be a brick wall in terms of viability before 21 weeks of gestation. However once 24 weeks come, the viability jumps to between 54% and 80% depending on which nation you base the numbers on (these two came from the british and american numbers respectively). We could get into a technical discussion if you want, but this weekend is a bit busy for me so it'll have to wait until at least monday.

I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortion, I am dubious about 2nd trimester abortion, especially in the mid to late stages, but in no way are 1st trimester foetuses viable beings.

This is not an unreasonable assumption, albeit one I disagree with. Viability is not the lynchpin of my position, only one facet. At some point our technology and ability will remove the viability factor, even if we just look at the advances in the past 30 years or so.

Once the foetus is viable, that is the first point at which we can start attributing "rights" to the foetus, before that it is a purely parasitic dependent organism (by definition), so any rights are still solely the woman’s. There is a huge difference between parasitic dependency and post-viability dependency.

In terms of the parasitic nature, a rational case can be made that children outside the womb can not survive alone. This idea does not diminish the humanity of the born children, so I put less emphasis on this point. I think getting into a discussion of where humanity or life truly begins is a losing one for both sides. In my view, it seems reasonable that when discussions of human life are concerned, if there is a disagreement it serves our species best to err on the side of more life.

This is part of the reason why abortion is generally legal, and has been for decades, ever since the academic community came to a consensus on the definitions for life, death and viability decades ago.

I've said for many years that legislative action does not seem to be the best approach to the elimination of abortion for the main reason that forcing women doesn't only seem like something that should be done, but it also doesn't seem like something that really can be done. I feel a cultural shift needs to occur to increase the value of human life.

I shake my head when I read the arguments by each side as Pro-Life, to me, should be a position based on love and not on force or hate (which it has become). I am adamant that seeking to limit abortion as much as possible through positive social change, support, and action will do more to aid these women than anything else. Condemnation is a fruitless tree that is better left unplanted.

I hope I answered your question, but would be happy to discuss it further. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Peace
KJ

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Since i'm honest and not blinkered, yes. I do find my own existence to be cheap in the eyes of those who make the decisions.

It's about time you removed your own blinkers if you don't think/feel the same. There is a vast difference between how you feel about yourself, and how you feel about those who control you.

No, I asked if YOU find your own life cheap... not in the eyes of others...

Do you think everyone sees life as cheap? At what point do we try and change that, and does "those in charge" cheapen life more by deciding that an unborn child is not human but a thing that can be killed at one owns desires?

There is no black and white answer here. If a person values life it doesn't mean that they might one day find themselves in the position to take a life, but as a society we can be like past civilizations where life has no value, or we can at least at a personal level put value to life. Abortion is a personal choice, so whether "those in charged" value life or not has nothing to do with this one.

Originally posted by eletheia

Who are you to judge another's anguish, suffering, distress,misery or torment?

You are obviously totally devoid of any empathy

Lol, ok. Where is your empathy? I do know that women who have abortions end up many times with long term mental illnesses that sit below their conscious thought due to their deeper inner understanding that they just killed their baby, and not the conscious excuses that it is just a pile of cells.

AND I know a way that could easily make sure they don't have all that "anguish, suffering, distress,misery or torment" Hmm it seems you kind of proved a good part of my point... I thank you

reply to post by john_bmth



Any of these human?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Not all of them, no.