A question for people who are pro-abortion

reply to post by James1982


Normally I just like to lurk, but every so often, there's a thread I feel the need to respond to. Let me start by saying you, sir, are NOT a realist like you claim. I believe that if you truly were, you would calculate ALL sides of the subject, and understand them. But if this topic were a coin, you seem to only care about one side, rather than the other.

I am pro-choice, and always will be. I personally believe that in the long run, abortion is a good thing. I shall explain my reasoning for this thought process, besides the standard rape/incest problems. Let me start with one big thing.

Over-population. Our planet is completely over-populated. We, as a race, seem to keep making it worse, too. So many countries with starving citizens, including our own. If we continue down this path, it won't be good for our races existence. Do you even remotely care about our planet, or the human race as a whole? I know it's a silly question, but it stands, do you? Because if you truly did, you would be concerned with over-population.

One thing I learned while growing up in a small town in Colorado, is why hunting exists. It's not always just for food/sport, but also to control populations of certain animals, so it doesn't hurt their ecosystem. If you remove too many predators, then deer can breed so much that it can hurt them as a whole. Same with wolves in certain parts of the country. Sometimes they need to be hunted, to control the population.

Now I know we can't legally hunt humans. lol But that's not the point. The point is, abortion does help to control human population growth(though not enough, our growth keeps getting worse and worse). Even though it may not help a lot, it helps a little. I know it sounds messed up, too, but it's the truth. Humans, as a whole, need to stop having as many babies. Thanks to our scientific advancements, we live much longer, make many more babies, and it's getting a bit out of control. Always bothers me when I hear couples talking about wanting 7-8 babies. But even though over-population is a problem, I guess that is their choice.

Secondly, have you ever factored in the idea of children in foster homes? Does their existence/experiences factor into your equation? They do mine. I've known many foster children, even dated one. All of them suffered from some pretty heavy emotional problems. Now how many children out there end up staying in foster care until they're 18, because nobody either wants them, or they keep getting sent back because they're too unruly for someone to take care of them? Not all, but quite a few.

So if someone out there knows for certain that they aren't capable of handling a child, and want an abortion, then good for them! It's their choice. I personally feel, for quality of life, that doing that is a better option than having the child, and giving it up for adoption. Because then, not only is it another life in an already over-populated world, but it's one that will now have abandonment/love issues.

Now, you will have the people who will abuse this process. They'll sleep around, get pregnant, and get an abortion like nothing is the matter. But hey, if they can continually do that, would you want them to be a parent in the first place? The majority of people who get abortions, usually only have one, and for very good reason(imo). But someone who can continually get one because to them, it's a form of birth control, those are the types I wouldn't want to be parents in the first place. They have very little value on life. But still, it's their choice.

Now I understand how all of this can be avoided. In the perfect world, people would only have sex when in love and married, so when they become pregnant, the child will be wanted. But we don't live in that perfect world. People have sex not only out of love, but lust. Always have, always will. People have always done things in the past to try and get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. It's not new by any standards. Doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't make it wrong.

To answer the questions you stated earlier, would I be willing to do those things to a fetus?? No, I wouldn't. But just because I'm not willing to slaughter a chicken/cow, doesn't mean I'm going to become a vegetarian. That's why I feel your questions are just flat out silly to even ask. They won't change a single mind. Didn't work for every pushy vegetarian.

Now though it may sound like it, I'm not some uncaring, unloving person. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm also very empathic, and can feel people's emotions whether I want to or not. I can also see both sides of the coin in pretty much any situation, including ones where I was wrong(though when mad, nobody likes admitting when they're wrongXD). That's why when it comes to this topic, I'm 100% pro-choice.

When a fetus becomes a person?
Medically I think there is an almost unanimous opinion that before the fetus develop a nervous system is not a person yet, but a growing lump of cells.

Morally, well, that's really a personal matter. I think there is an emotional shift taking place, much like when your casual sex partner change from a simple date to your "significant other".

My mother lost a child when I was a little kid myself; it was an advanced pregnancy, something went wrong and she lost the child during the sixth month of pregnancy. It was a huge deal for my family, my dad broke all the windows of the doctor who was supposed to save the child, they even gave the child a name and for several years remembered that day. I was always told "I had" a little brother who died before it was born.

Few years later, (I was a bit older and I remember) my mother got pregnant again. This time it was an extrauterine pregnancy; so she went through a surgery, and that was it. Everybody behaved like it was a disease, eager to get through it as fast as possible. Nobody mourned, nobody gave that child a name.

Was the first child somehow special, and the second not? It's only a matter of perception, if you know what I mean. It is a child if someone thinks that is a child; otherwise it's just a fetus for everyone until birth. And even then, some women see it as an undesirable side effect, an error.

Why is that relevant to you? Why is an unborn child more important than the rest of humans who die daily in this world? Kids, teenagers or grownups, they die every minute and every second, as we speak even, from various reasons, some more absurd than abortion. I never understood why is everybody so passionate about fetuses, when millions of kids die of hunger and thirst.

Maybe when we, as society, we'll be able to support all our kids, wanted or unwanted, women won't see a reason for abortion anymore.

Why does the OP make an exception to abortion if the child is a result of rape or incest? Are they less than human as adults as well (that is, can I enslave a person who was a result of rape/incest?) I feel really bad for people that are walking the Earth today, that were the result of rape/incest. For some reason this society implicitly says they are not equal in worth to everyone else.

The only acceptable case is not even called an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy will kill both the mother and child if not dealt with immediately.

Why do some continue to repeat the mantra "a woman has a right to her body"? How is the baby, with its own DNA a "part" of the womans body? The answer is they are not. It would be like saying a leech that is sucking your blood, is a part of your body. Remember, the government has no control over a woman's body, unless she is not wearing a seatbelt, or a helmet, drunk driving, using illegal drugs, smuggling drugs internally, attempting suicide, smoking indoors, not wearing clothes in public, carrying a gun, prostituting, not attending school prior to age 16...................

I've always looked at lung development as to whether a fetus is a human being, verses just the potential for being a human. In the first trimester (and a good portion of the second trimester), the fetus' lungs aren't developed, so they cannot breath air, not even under life support. If you do not have the physical capability of breathing air using lungs, you are not a human, you are more like a fish.

I am pro-choice, but I do find abortion sad -- not because I feel for the "fish", but because I know that the fish has the potential to become a human. But to answer the OP's question, I wouldn't feel any emotional attachment to the dead fish, once it has been aborted. Late-term abortion is a different story. To abort a child who is viable, i.e., it can breath air and has a good chance of surviving outside the womb -- is truly awful.

reply to post by James1982

I'm not one of those people that think 4-5 cells globbed together is a child, but if the fetus has arms, legs, toes, eyes, a nose, etc, it's a child.

So are you saying it is our limbs or shape that makes us persons? That doesnt make much sense. I like your approach because there has to be some point of prenatal development when that blob of cells becomes a child, but Id rather empahsise brain development than limbs..

Would you have any problem feeding this aborted fetus to a cat or dog? Would you have any problem stomping this aborted fetus into tiny bits under the heel of your boot? Would you have any problem throwing this aborted fetus into the air and shooting at it with a shotgun? Would you have any problem with throwing this aborted fetus into a bonfire? Would you have any problem with throwing this aborted fetus out the window of a moving car?

No, just because it is human shaped I wouldnt have a problem with this. Now if it was late term foetus with developed brain cortex, that is different matter..

reply to post by Thundersmurf

This question doesn't work here because the pro-choicers don't believe that a fetus is a person until it's born

Let me just point out that only a small minority of pro-choicers support right to abortion until birth.

While were on the topic of controlling people and their bodies i propose that all men only be allowed to masturbate twice a week and NEVER on a sunday (for religious reasons)

Originally posted by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by butcherguy
I will play devil's advocate a bit.

If it is a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, why is she forced to have a medical procedure to kill a full term fetus, when she could just have the baby and abandon it in a trash bin?

Why go through the joke of delivering the full term fetus backwards in order to snip it's spine with scissors, when a normal head-first delivery is safer for the woman?

It's magically transformed from fetus to baby when the head pops out.

Women are 14 times more likely to die during/after child birth. It's far safer to have an abortion.

Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born. That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.

Source

Interestingly enough, you are completely ignoring the fact that I was speaking of the abortion of a full term fetus. The specific procedure that I was speaking of is what some people call a partial birth abortion.

In that procedure, the fetus is delivered feet first (known as a breech birth). Breech births are avoided during normal deliveries. It is done intentionally for a full term abortion for a specific reason. The reason is, if the fetus is delivered head first, it transforms magically into a baby when the head is outside of the mother. If they deliver it head first and snip the spine, it is considered murder. Feet first, with the head still in the mother, it is a fetus and snip away.... it is just an abortion.

You know what it is all about, don't you? You just directed the discussion away from the difficult question to say that more mothers die giving birth than women having abortions.

See, the question is this: For a full term abortion, why not just deliver the baby head first and throw it in the trash? It would be safer for the mother. Breech delivery is not recommended. As far as throwing it in the trash, why not. If it isn't a baby when the head is in the mother, it isn't after it pops out a second later.

My choice or rather the allowable limit for me has always been before around 3-4 months, during development of brain activity.

After that, to me is just disgusting, i really don't care what others do. Its like after 3months... "hmm i think ill get a abortion"... Abortion is no simple matter, many women are disgusted by it, it is both physical and psychological.... if someone enjoys those kinda things... uggg *shrugs*....


Imo after 3-4 months, if someone decide to get abortion for no good reason(medical, rape, incest, health etc), then they are just someone i see as disgusting.

I think if a woman is raped, involved in incest, or is in severe medical danger, she should absolutely be able to have an abortion.

reply to post by James1982


If you're pro-life, under those conditions you still wouldn't have the choice to abortion, not even if the mother's life was in danger. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. It means it leaves the choice of abortion up to the mother.

Wouldn't you want to have a choice to abort if it was going to end up killing you? How about if you were a victim of a horrendous rape, would you like to have a child who would always remind you of that terrifying incident in your life? Wouldn't you want that "choice" option? How about having a choice to abort a fetus who would end up having a horrendous disability. Would you want to live an entire life needing to be fed, changed, and bathed? Having the choice to Abort is between the mother and her maker. Nobody has the right to decide what you can or cannot do to your own body.

Pro-choice is black or white. There is no gray area. When you declare yourself Pro-Life, you want to preserve life at any cost. So it sounds like you're more pro-choice rather than pro-life.

Here's the hypocrisy of the whole Pro-Life thing...

1. They're the first ones that say they want government to stay out of their life, yet they want the government to
make it a law that declares abortion is illegal and decide on what a women is allowed to do with her own
body.

2. Most Pro-Lifers support capital punishment. Isn't that also killing a living human being? Life is life.

3. Most Pro-Lifers support an invasive foreign policy and are the main supporters of U.S. conflicts and wars.
Again where is the concern for human life here?

4. Most Pro-Lifers prefer private healthcare Insurance that leave millions without healthcare or
preventative medical care. Preserving life at any cost, isn't that the hallmark of Pro-Life?

5. Most Pro-Lifers are hunters, so being Pro-Life doesn't take into consideration the life of animals?

A question for people who are pro-abortion.

Way to make it a PC question. It should be

A question for people who are pro-baby killing. If it has a heart beat, its a life.

Of cource if the mother is going to die then an abortion should take place. but as a birth control, thats messed up.

Oh, to be sure, their are some women who would throw it out of the window and stomp on it.

Sad part is, they will eventually keep ad raise a child eventually, that's scarier.

reply to post by pacifier2012


Way to try and dehumanise women there

Men will never understand what goes through a woman's mind when she finds out she's pregnant, i suggest you try and keep your loud mouth opinions to yourself rather than trying to be judge and jury with your version of truth.

Abortion is a women's issue and you should leave it to women to decide what's right and wrong.

Originally posted by watchitburn
It is especially not the right of the Govt. to have any say in the matter.

That's not entirely true. One of the primary implied costs we all pay for living in a society run by a government of any kind is that we are all subject to that government. And the government since the beginning of civilization has determined who will live and who will die. That's why we have the military draft, and why we send people away to kill other people, or have police forces that have the right to kill you without punishment, and why we let some people die in nursing homes when we can no longer take care of them.

And why we have laws that say a woman can choose to abort her pregnancy up to a certain point. We've agreed on it as a society and have written it into our government laws. If enough people decide that we don't want to have that happen anymore, our society and government can change the laws. And if a person doesn't agree with it, they can move somewhere else with different laws.

But certainly the government has the de facto right to do what it wants with you.

In the hospital right now this second what determines if a person is alive or not? Pulse. Heartbeat.

As soon as a fetus has a heartbeat it's alive.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
In the hospital right now this second what determines if a person is alive or not? Pulse. Heartbeat.

As soon as a fetus has a heartbeat it's alive.

A heartbeat may mean something is alive, but is it a person? A zygote isn't a person, but it may be "alive".

God is Pro-Abortion, look how many fetuses He aborts.

Although statistics can vary slightly from one source to the next, here is a general account (based primarily on information provided by the March of Dimes) of the frequency of miscarriages in the United States:

There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year.
900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year.
More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks). Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)
Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.
Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.
Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.

www.hopexchange.com...

K~

reply to post by aethertek

God is Pro-Abortion, look how many fetuses He aborts. 

He is apparently pro-death too. Look up the stats for that.
Does that mean we should help him?

Originally posted by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by butcherguy
I will play devil's advocate a bit.

If it is a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, why is she forced to have a medical procedure to kill a full term fetus, when she could just have the baby and abandon it in a trash bin?

Why go through the joke of delivering the full term fetus backwards in order to snip it's spine with scissors, when a normal head-first delivery is safer for the woman?

It's magically transformed from fetus to baby when the head pops out.

Women are 14 times more likely to die during/after child birth. It's far safer to have an abortion.

Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born. That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.

Source

Ummmm....not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that childbirth is more risky than abortion so women should get abortions?

If so......yikes.....seems like a logical fallacy, no?

edit: Sorry....didn't read what you quoted and now see that it was in context to that. My apologies.

reply to post by Thingol


Yet no one addresses the breech birth issue in the partial birth abortion procedure. If you look at the link, they usually end up doing a cesarean section when a breech delivery is presented.
In the partial birth abortion, they fetus is turned intentionally to present a breech birth. This is done so that they can make the fetus nonviable before the head comes out.

James1982, I have a very very serious question for you...


Do YOU have a uterus?? If you do not have a uterus, your point is moot..


Let me ask you another serious question, have you or do you ever go over the speed limit??

if you have ever gone over the posted limit and say blow a tire you could kill folks, more folks then would be likely if you went the posted speed.

if you think either my first question or my analogy that follows is ridiculous, your "moral" high ground just dropped several meters.


Morally speaking, for me, male masturbation is killing MILLIONS of potential children ( except when I do it )

why the exception for myself? I am sterile, no sperm.

Oddly, there has never been a LAW against male masturbation.

No male has a dog in this fight, NONE, only women who can bear children can say one way or another, nor should males even be allowed to vote on it, only Women.


No one should be allowed to tell, let alone force someone else to do something with their bodies that they themselves cannot do.

this SHOULD be a LAW, but it's not.
You can express your opinion, but you should not be able to legislate for or against it.