The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Wrong.

Once the seed has been planted and given away for free, then the person who's left carrying that seed is the one that gets to decide what to do with it.

Ah well, such is the consequences of making an irresponsible decision.


As a side note:
I'm curious Seabag, have you ever actually sat down and had a heart to heart with a woman who's had an abortion ? You seem to think this abortion thing is an "easy come, easy go" decision for a woman. You might be surprised to find out that most women suffer with haunting guilt for the rest of their lives at the taking of an innocent life due to their own "irresponsibility".

Most of the women I know, wish that they would have made the decision to give the child up for adoption instead. The taking of an innocent life is a lot more traumatic to these women than you think.

You make a very good point
of course the choice of the mother about her body is very important
but your observation actually rises another issue
how many of the would be mothers who wish they had gone through pregnancy and given the child up for adoption wish that a christian fanatic had reached her
maybe the bible thumping actually has an important role on abortion
maybe choice is not the only important subject when dealing with abortion
IMO both sides have valid points

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Are you really one of those people who decry the killing of plants by evil human parasites but says that unborn babies are just organic matter?
Give me a FREAKING break. Yes I typed in caps. Occasionally someone makes me that mad.

No, I surely am not one of those people. I'm saying that we're no different from any other organic matter, be it plants, cows or ants.

At what point do we say it's not ok to take a scissors and snap a living, breathing baby's neck?

We seem to have specific weeks when it's legally ok to do so.

Aside from all that, the intent is a major key here, not choice so much.

edit on 18-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Yes, exactly. There are good deeds, and there are bad deeds, and there are good intentions, and there are bad/evil intentions.

reply to post by Rocker2013

Would it be assault if you CHOSE to have your appendix removed?
Would it be assault if someone knocked you out, and removed your appendix, without you being able to protest?

If left in place, your appendix will not exit your body and outlive you!

Comparing a child to a useless organ in your body shows you don't value human life.

The OP is clearly biased on this issue, and I don't think anything is going to change their opinion. They have not added this thread to ATS for a real debate on this, they will not be changing their opinion on this issue, they have added it to preach their view at others.

There has been an ongoing debate! The laws are very clear in this instance. Charging a man with murder for aborting a fetus when abortion is legal shows a double standard. This guy is guilty of a lot of things but murder isn't one of them based on the current standard applied to abortion law. The real debate is when life begins and why this decision isn't applied equitably.

This is a soapbox thread, and I think every logical response and point of view has been presented already. It's not going to lead anywhere other than into a ranting 40 page thread about Christian fanaticism and Women's rights - doing nothing but creating negativity and taking up space.

I hope a mod arrives shortly to close it.

So you don't like what I'm saying and you're appealing to authority to shut down my thread?

Coming from someone who thinks that taking a life to prevent an inconvenience is OK, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you have no reservations about silencing people you disagree with.

This is interesting and tragic. I am against abortion, but I too see the hypocrisy, it seems fathers have zero say to keep or get rid of an unborn baby. Pro-choice is clearly only for women. Fathers should have a much stronger say and they don't. Their feelings and opinion mean nothing, only the womans.
This story is sad on so many levels.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This is interesting and tragic. I am against abortion, but I too see the hypocrisy, it seems fathers have zero say to keep or get rid of an unborn baby. Pro-choice is clearly only for women. Fathers should have a much stronger say and they don't. Their feelings and opinion mean nothing, only the womans.
This story is sad on so many levels.

pro-choice is clearly for women...at that stage, so what?.....men have zero say?......when a man ejaculates into a womans vagina, he's made his choice. as a 60 year old man, i would tell those guys to grow up, zip up, and think with the brain above your neck.

reply to post by seabag

Yes,you're completely correct that a man or woman would be equally to blame.In this case,it was a man,i should've said People of both genders can and do screw others over for their own selfish reasons and benefit,all the time.In this case it just happened to be a man that was being grotesquely self-serving.I have no higher regard for women who cannot be bothered to use contraception,and is willing to use abortion as such.

reply to post by CranialSponge

You are correct,i had a best friend who's had several abortions in her life,and she was often haunted by guilt and horrific sadness.Which to me personally signifies that on some very deep spiritual+metaphysical level,WE KNOW IT IS WRONG.No matter how much+how many others may try and pass it off to be as inconsequencial as having a mole removed.I never said any of my feelings on the subject to her-it was very evident that she was tortured by her decisions,the tears streaming down her cheeks whenever she spoke of her remorse-and the bleak haunted emptiness in her eyes spoke libraries full of truth.I never did think that All women did it in a spirit of selfishness and arrogance only-unfortunately in this day and age,abortion SHOULD be obsolete,for the ones tortured by their decisions in the past,and for those who don't feel a thing about their decisions.
I don't see women having anything interfere with their trips to shopping malls,the hairdressers,parties,restaurants,fun outings,etc.So i really can for the life of me not see why getting to a clinic/doctor/drug store A MEASLY ONCE IN 3 MONTHS TO GET A SHOT OF DEPO-PROVERA eg,should seem to be such an arduous task.

Originally posted by Rocker2013
[Snipped most of the post as the part below is what I'm responding to. JM]
The OP is clearly biased on this issue, and I don't think anything is going to change their opinion. They have not added this thread to ATS for a real debate on this, they will not be changing their opinion on this issue, they have added it to preach their view at others.
This is a soapbox thread, and I think every logical response and point of view has been presented already. It's not going to lead anywhere other than into a ranting 40 page thread about Christian fanaticism and Women's rights - doing nothing but creating negativity and taking up space.

I hope a mod arrives shortly to close it.

Well, at least one mod has been following this thread all the way along. I've read every post.

I notice that you gave your own opinion on the OP subject matter before you then expressed the hope that the thread be closed – even though doing so would deny others the right to express their opinions.

Also, I see no evidence that this thread is descending into a ranting one, either on Christian fanaticism, women's rights or anything else. And given the overall standard of the members' posts to date, I see no reason why it should. What I do see is members speaking their minds and addressing themselves to the thoughts of others.

You've even expressed your opinion that the OP will not change their opinion on this issue. How you are able to know in advance what another person might or might not decide in respect of personal beliefs is beyond me. But besides that point, whether an OP changes their opinion or not is no basis for closing a thread.

All we ask is that members stay within the T&Cs and it seems to me that everyone has done that. Okay, some posts were a bit borderline, but not one single post in this entire thread has had to be actioned by staff as totally off-topic, bad manners, or an extreme T&C violation. That's pretty remarkable and hats off to everyone for that.

I think the majority of participants and readers would be happy to see the discussion continue. I can't contribute opinions on the subject matter because I've opted to take a moderating role here, but there are still some points germane to the discussion that have not even been considered yet and I hope they will be.

~Mike

reply to post by JustMike

I think the majority of participants and readers would be happy to see the discussion continue. I can't contribute opinions on the subject matter because I've opted to take a moderating role here, but there are still some points germane to the discussion that have not even been considered yet and I hope they will be.

You've peeked my curiosity now. I wonder which points haven't been considered.

Other members have pointed out why my title is a bit misleading. It was in fact pro-life Republicans that pushed for a murder charge against those who kill the unborn during the commission of a crime (I agree with that stance). I think it was a step towards overturning Roe Vs Wade.

The reason I took the position that this is pro-choice hypocrisy is because the pro-choice argument (that life doesn't begin until birth) contradicts this law and many pro-choice supports advocate for a murder charge against this man. In fact, it took democrat (pro-choice) votes to pass this law. If you want this man to face 'murder' charges then you admit the fetus is LIFE, which negates the pro-choice argument.

reply to post by seabag

If you want this man to face 'murder' charges then you admit the fetus is LIFE, which negates the pro-choice argument.

I know of no pro-choice stance that asserts that no life is extinguished during an abortion. The question isn't "if there's life" the question is when is that life" viable". Potential isn't viability.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This is interesting and tragic. I am against abortion, but I too see the hypocrisy, it seems fathers have zero say to keep or get rid of an unborn baby. Pro-choice is clearly only for women. Fathers should have a much stronger say and they don't. Their feelings and opinion mean nothing, only the womans.
This story is sad on so many levels.

Yes!

As a single father of three, I agree with this on so many levels. On a personal note, my ex was seriously considering an Abortion with one of my children. Clearly I am blessed that she didn't go through it, even though she could have without me having ANY say in it.


I also agree with the OP that this is clear hypocrisy, as the only time life is justified as living, is when there is a need to make precedence in cases like this.

reply to post by windword

I know of no pro-choice stance that asserts that no life is extinguished during an abortion. The question isn't "if there's life" the question is when is that life" viable". Potential isn't viability.

Well you can move the goal post more if you’d like.

Funny thing….I didn’t hear the question of “viability” raised in this case. Nobody asked “How far along is this woman? We need to know so we can decide whether or not it’s murder.”

She became pregnant in late February and this incident happened in late March I believe.

According to court documents, the couple met in mid-2012 and became romantically involved. Lee became pregnant in February 2013 and was elated about her pregnancy when she told Welden the news. Welden, however, urged Lee not to have the baby.

In late March, the records say, Lee went to the office of Dr. Stephen Welden, her boyfriend's father, for an exam.

Lee was six weeks and five days pregnant.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

This is CERTAINLY well within the normal range for elective abortions, so obviously it can’t be considered “viable” by the pro-choice crowd at that stage.

The earlier an abortion is provided the safer it is, because earlier abortions are less complicated. Therefore, it is important that women who decide to get abortions can do so without unnecessary delays. In fact, 88% of all abortions in the United States are obtained within the first 12-13 weeks after the last menstrual period (LMP). Sometimes, however, women have compelling reasons to obtain abortions in later weeks.

www.prochoice.org...

reply to post by seabag


I guess nobody asked how far along she was, because it's clearly stated in the article. I know that my posts in this thread has addressed it when I said this:

A 6 weeks fetus has no mind, no thoughts, no hopes and dreams for the future, no intention or self determinism and can't survive if not for the housing and nourishment gleemed from its host.

For the record, I don't think that the man should be charged with murder.

I had no intention of moving the "goal posts". They're already in place, for most states the cut off for abortion is between 20-22 weeks. After that, I wouldn't protest the murder charge.

The flaw in the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is that it has no such goal posts. The "Life begins at conception" crowd asserts a fertilized egg is a person, with sovereign rights, and would make a large portion of contraception options illegal. It's a can of worms.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by JustMike

 

You've peeked my curiosity now. I wonder which points haven't been considered.

Is it murder or not? Certainly it could have that impact. Is basing an entire pro-life one up point on this definition in any way addressing the full scope of the issue? No, I don't believe so.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that very few people are actually pro-choice or pro-life.

It's why I tend to be quite short as soon as a person starts talking in these types of absolutes. There are far too many instances when a 'pro-lifer' would pull the switch in the right circumstances and a 'pro-choicer' would be mortified by someone's reasoning for not having a child.

* Whose life is more important, the mother or the child's?
* How risky does a birth have to be?
* How sick does a child have to be?
* Does the capacity for a woman (and family) to suffer trump the child's future?
* How will such a birth change the future?

It's quite clear that a very early stage unborn child has less capacity to suffer in comparison to a born person, though it's also quite clear a child's life is very important. I couldn't do it myself.

That said, pro-life persons I don't connect with either. They say a person doesn't respect life, or that they dispose of children like waste or a hand bag. I can only hypothesize why people assume and talk like this and focus on these scenarios.

I guess the scenario of an unplanned child born to a problem parent doesn't have the same easy clean cut judgement on it.

Adoption won't happen. Your mother tells you that you were unplanned, and that's why your parents divorced. Your mother resents you perhaps. Some of your siblings are sent to boarding school, both your parents suffer significant stress, depression, and other issues. The family separates. You suffer from years of guilt and depression and whilst in that state you're not a nice person to be around. You're missing moral and educational support from loving parents, and you make some bad choices without that link to those who have knowledge of your being to guide you.

No one cares how you grew up so it echoes through your entire life but it's nothing you will ever get a medal, pat on the back, or apology for. Its just how things are.

Are you worth it? How do you feel about it? Would your family have been better off without you?

I'm totally awesome, and an incredibly happy person. Am so happy my head could explode some days. I wouldn't end my life. I would need exceptional reasons for an abortion ... I certainly couldn't do it myself, but sometimes I wonder if my mother should have.

reply to post by seabag

Piqued curiosity is almost always a good thing.

Just to explain, my first post was more in the line of "moderating" rather than contributing purely as a member. So, having posted as "staff" I can't really get fully involved in discussing the main subject of the OP.

However, I suppose I can make a rather limited observation. No-one has yet discussed the situation where a fetus is operated on while still in utero -- for spina bifida surgery, tumor removal and so on.

To elaborate any further on how this might relate I'd probably have to offer opinions on the OP subject. But as I really shouldn't I'll just leave it at that. (In other words, no more posts from me unless I have to "be a mod", but you've all been so responsible to one another in your posting that I doubt that'll be necessary. Which is cool. )

~Mike

reply to post by JustMike

Piqued curiosity is almost always a good thing.

Piqued not Peeked!
So much for that coledge edjamacation I gots.

No-one has yet discussed the situation where a fetus is operated on while still in utero -- for spina bifida surgery, tumor removal and so on.

That is an interesting aspect of this debate. The subject of in utero surgery hasn't been part of the debate because much of the innovation in that field was long after the SCOTUS touched the issue. In utero surgery was first performed @81’ while the last Roe v. Wade appeal was @73’.

The abortion issue could once again be before the SCOTUS soon as Arkansas recently enacted a law that could make abortion illegal after just 12 weeks gestation. North Dakota passed a bill that would make abortion illegal after only six weeks. In utero could be used to seriously question the 'viability of life' issue if these cases reach the SCOTUS. According to what I’ve read, it is typically considered unsafe to perform in utero surgery prior to 18 weeks but only because of the size of the fetus. Obviously doctors consider the fetus viable at least as early as 18 weeks if they’re willing to operate. These cases could blow the abortion debate wide open IMO.

Interesting new angle, Mike! Thanks for the input.

Originally posted by chasingbrahman

Originally posted by seabag
Why is it not murder when a woman CHOOSES to have an abortion but it is when I man choses for her? Murder is murder!

Perhaps you've just touched upon the nuance which divides the two sides to this argument: the reason for choice in the first place is that it's the woman's body and therefore, her choice. Not her boyfriend's choice, and not the government's choice.

I'd say this is a reasonably assessment of the crux of the argument for many people. And there is some logic behind it, IMHO.


However, much as I hate to play devil's advocate on unpopular positions, I feel the need to here:


What about the man's choice in the matter?


What if he doesn't want to be a father (/yet)? What if he doesn't want to, or is unable to financially support that child for the next 18 years? Or what if he just doesn't want a legal tie / obligation to that particular woman for the next 18 years?


And I can hear the obvious and logical counter-argument to this already. "Well, bub, it takes two to make a baby and he could have worn a condom!"

Yes, quite true. It does take two to make a baby-- and she could have insisted on that condom. And who knows... maybe they were wearing one, or using some other form of birth control-- that stuff is not 100% effective. There really should be a way to make this whole thing more "fair." Perhaps a man should be able to say "I want an abortion" and if the woman says "no" she has to sign away any and all responsibility the man has for that child....

Would that be fair? If not, why? If not, what would be more fair to all parties, especially if they have such obviously differing interests and desires?

reply to post by iwilliam

What about the man's choice in the matter?

How did we go from a peace loving people who strive for freedom and decry human rights violations into a group of depraved individuals bickering over who does or doesn't have the "choice" to kill a baby.

WE are the problem....as usual.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by iwilliam

 

What about the man's choice in the matter?

How did we go from a peace loving people who strive for freedom and decry human rights violations into a group of depraved individuals bickering over who does or doesn't have the "choice" to kill a baby.

WE are the problem....as usual.

Your question above is an even more convoluted can of worms than the questions I posed-- and that's saying a lot.

The "easy" (and halfarsed) answer is to point out that not everyone agrees that a fetus prior to X weeks or Y stage of development is "a baby." Valid arguments can be found on both sides of that issue.


And of course "we're" the problem. Humanity can barely agree on anything. And if we don't find a reasonable solution to that problem, the issue of when a fetus becomes a human being will become a moot point-- because our species will eventually destroy itself, if we can't find better ways to agree-- or at least "co-habitate" far away from those who don't...


/rant

very informative and i agree it should be done