I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

windword
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity





You seem to think that abortion is a new invention,

NO kidding, all the more for one to assume as a civilization we could move ahead not backwards.

Once again back in those days there was the lack of modern science and technology.

There certainly weren't abortions in the numbers we see today.

reply to post by stormdancer777


The fact that safe, accessible and legal abortion still exists doesn't indicate that society is moving backwards, but the amount of people who want to punish women for their sexuality, by forcing them to give birth to unwanted children, does.

Some general comments?

It appears to me that, so far at least, there have been powerful emotional arguments made for freely allowing abortions. None, however which are rational.

Contradictory examples have been presented showing that viability isn't the test, nor is lack of dependence on the mother. Breathing air on one's own can't be the test either, or use of a respirator would require one to give up their claim to personhood.

We seem now to be at the argument that a mother's right to be free of a pregnancy tops the unborn's rights.

One explanation is that the mother is more fully developed, so her rights prevail. That explains why 40 year olds are allowed to have rights over 18 year-olds? Or 14 year-olds over 6 year-olds? That doesn't seem to work.

And look at what that thinking leads to. The mother has a right to avoid discomfort and inconvenience, (Where in the world does that come from? No one has that right or ever has. Life is discomfort and inconvenience.) and that right is greater than the unborn's right to everything, including life, the first of all rights.

So the argument is the mother's "desire" to avoid inconvenience, is greater than the unborn's "right" to life. How can that conclusion be maintained? By saying the unborn isn't a life. But that was the original claim of the pro-choicers, not a reason. It makes no logical sense to say :"I can kill the unborn because it doesn't have a human life. How do you know it doesn't have a human life? Because I define human life to be what the unborn doesn't have."

I'm really torn. As another poster has pointed out, there are many strong motivating factors for an abortion. Some women believe there is no other choice. But a number of inhibiting factors have been removed, medical care is better for when the abortions go bad, and there is no longer the hurdle of illegality. It also doesn't help that Planned Parenthood has been caught minimizing the risks of abortion and discouraging women from getting hospital care when abortions go bad.

On the other hand, nobody has shown that the unborn is not a human life worthy of protection, it's just been claimed by some and disputed by others. If we're not sure whether it's a life or not, surely prudence dictates that we don't kill it until we know for sure what we're killing.

windword
reply to post by stormdancer777

 

The fact that safe, accessible and legal abortion still exists doesn't indicate that society is moving backwards, but the amount of people who want to punish women for their sexuality, by forcing them to give birth to unwanted children, does.

edit on 19-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Some people equate legal with morally acceptable. This has become what it referred to as the abortion mentality. If you consider the gift of life a punishment I truly feel sorry for you.

My kids were the best thing that ever happened in my life. Being a parent is the greatest, most rewarding job on the planet.

I am one of nine. Unplanned, heck most of my generation were unplanned. In most cases we were loved.

The problem lies in the degradation of the dignity of human life. Humanity suffers when we think it is okay to kill our offspring. The absence of love for what we created does indicate a decline in the morality of our society., especially when this goes to the extreme of willingness to commit the most violent act one person can do, destroy human life.

I have a friend whose dog ate it's puppies. I never heard of such a thing. I mentioned it to my veterinarian, he said some dog's aren't right in the head. I keep thinking of this and abortion. Where is the maternal instinct to care for our offspring that should be part of our genetic makeup?

I understand feeling trapped, hopeless or pressured into aborting, but how the # can anyone feel good about this decision?

Our Constitution speaks of our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion negates the first and most important right, life. Without life the other rights can never be.

If reproductive freedom infringes our on self-evident right to life it is a grave travesty.

Charles, what is being killed is a human being. I know you know that. God Bless & thank you for taking the time to make this post.

The pro-life community believes, erroneously, that they can, and should, decide whether or not to allow women abortions. In their desperate attempt to justify their reasoning to control the choices that women make regarding their own bodies, sexuality, morality, health and future choices, they accuse her and those that defend her right of choice of selfish and illogical reasoning.

What they are really doing is seeking to find logic in their own position.

Their agenda, to strip women of their natural right to make reproductive decisions, requires people to believe that biology and biological mechanism are sacred and holy and shouldn't be interrupted. They push pseudo-science that infers some magical process that creates life where there once was none.

They need you to believe that one fertilized egg cell is a person with rights that supersede the rights of its host. They need you to believe that interrupting this biological process is tantamount to murder. If you believe this, then you must also be against most contraceptive methods that are being used today, and expect a lot more unwanted pregnancies to deal with.

They use misinformation, guilt, shame, emotional appeal and intimidation to gain public support in creating an unfavorable image of those who support and those procure abortive services. They intimidate and set up unnecessary roadblocks to prevent women from obtaining these medical products and procedures.

The pro-life community stands fast with the concept that life begins at conception, and that single cell is worthy of being classified as a person with the right to be born. Therefore, all abortion is murder, including contraception's goal to block implantation.

Because these people know that they don’t have the support to ban abortion altogether, they try to whittle away at the current legally supported and socially acceptable time line, granted women to receive medical assistance in procuring an abortion. But this is where their argument falls apart.

“Well, if it isn’t a person at conception, when is it? Is it at implantation? If so, we must ban abortion from implantation.“ “Can we agree that it’s a person when there is detectable heart beat? If so, we must ban abortion from the 6 week heart beat.” “ Is it viability? If so, then we must agree to ban abortion from viability.” And, that’s where we’re at now. Elective abortion is banned, in the US, after viability, except in extreme cases. (That’s another subject)

What I wonder is. how the pro-life community can justify this? How is prohibiting fertilization, thus prohibiting a potential person, less of a crime than prohibiting implantation? How is disrupting an embryo from the uterine wall less murder that surgically removing a 16 week fetus. The rational around this tactic is to get you, through emotional appeal and pseudo science, to admit that at some point, before viability, abortion is the murder of a person. If they can get you to believe that, they can walk it back, logically, to conception.

At the very least, if they can get you to admit that you don’t know when the right time IS to exercise your right to dictate what another human being should do with their body and their life and their reproductive decisions, then you must err on the side that agrees that the single cell is a person, and therefore, all abortion is murder, and no elective abortion should ever be allowed.

If a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, too bad. She’s forced to give birth whether she wants to or not. For the pro-life community, it’s a slippery slope from murder to slavery for women who have sex without the desire for children.

Murder or slavery. Pick your poison.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

Some people equate legal with morally acceptable. This has become what it referred to as the abortion mentality. If you consider the gift of life a punishment I truly feel sorry for you.

My kids were the best thing that ever happened in my life. Being a parent is the greatest, most rewarding job on the planet.

Does that give you the right to dictate your morality onto others? Because you love being a mother, do you think that everyone will?

I am one of nine. Unplanned, heck most of my generation were unplanned. In most cases we were loved.

In those days many children weren't welcome additions to the family and many women died in childbirth. Do you really want to go back to those days?

The problem lies in the degradation of the dignity of human life. Humanity suffers when we think it is okay to kill our offspring. The absence of love for what we created does indicate a decline in the morality of our society., especially when this goes to the extreme of willingness to commit the most violent act one person can do, destroy human life.

There's nothing dignified in force birth, poverty, hunger and hopelessness.

I have a friend whose dog ate it's puppies. I never heard of such a thing. I mentioned it to my veterinarian, he said some dog's aren't right in the head. I keep thinking of this and abortion. Where is the maternal instinct to care for our offspring that should be part of our genetic makeup?

Nature does things that we find repulsive. It's natural. Nothing was "not right" that dog's head, more likely the puppy wasn't viable and the mother ate it for nourishment. I've seen it many times. To compare a woman seeking to abort with a dog eating a dead puppy, and not right in the head, is more than insulting.

I understand feeling trapped, hopeless or pressured into aborting, but how the # can anyone feel good about this decision?

It isn't your decision to make. Sometimes abortion is most responsible decision, and women feel a sense of relief afterward.

Our Constitution speaks of our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion negates the first and most important right, life. Without life the other rights can never be.

No it doesn't. The constitution guarantees people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not potential people.

reply to post by charles1952


One of the blaring hypocrites is that the father has no say so concerning the unborn child. If the woman wants to terminate it she can and the father has no say so, but if she want to keep the child the man is responsible financially.

reply to post by guitarplayer

Dear guitarplayer,

One of the blaring hypocrites is that the father has no say so concerning the unborn child. If the woman wants to terminate it she can and the father has no say so, but if she want to keep the child the man is responsible financially.

Thank you for that post. It's an example of one of the things ATS does for me.

I have to be completely honest and say that you are not the first person to have made that point, but for whatever reason, it jump started a thought.

Perhaps, if only one parent wanted the child to be born, custody and responsibility could be awarded to that parent. I grant you that this idea isn't only half-baked, I haven't put it in the oven yet.

I know windword and others would be opposed because the woman still would have to carry to birth or viability, but it solves some problems. In those cases the child would be a wanted child, and least by one parent, and that's all many children have now.

It would eliminate the idea that the woman has a say and the man has none. Certainly a more fair situation in many people's minds.

It would save some babies' lives, that's a plus.

I don't know, I have to mull it over, but at first glance it seems like a real improvement.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by windword



Potential people?

Human life begins at conception this is a scientific fact. This is not a potential human life, it is a human life.

When a person is created they are not made as dogs, cats or locust. They are humans.

Horton nailed it when he said: "A person is a person no matter how small."

Every person has the right to be treated with dignity.

If you think I am forcing my morality on you, look in the mirror. You are demanding the right to destroy human life for reproductive freedom. We are all brothers and the innocent ones with no voice have zero choice in whether they get to live or die. If I did not speak out on there behalf I would feel as an accomplice to their demise.

You ask a 3 year old where the baby is and they say: "In Mommy's tummy." (Close enough). How come adults have to complicate the matter a child can so easily understand?

Nobody promises you a rose garden or said it would be easy or fair. The moment you make yourself more important than the life inside you throw equality out the door.

Life is a series of choices. Choices that impact us and others. Choices have consequences that have to be lived with for a lifetime. I really hope all here make choices that help us grow to be our personal best. What may seem like the easy way out might be anything but.

reply to post by windword



I personally would like to acknowledge and applaud your so succinctly written posts on this thread
(This is where I miss the thumbs up emotion)


Its too simplistic to believe that there is only one reason for a woman to seek an abortion eg. as
in ... "its an inconvenience" This disingenuous assertion is trotted out with regularity by the
pro life brigade when there are a hundred and one other reasons. In any event it is legal, and who
has the right to police another's morals? more often than not they should be remembering "He who
is without sin cast the first stone!" I always imagine what I refer to as the 'tipping point'...an
overfull life boat with another passenger dangling to be taken on board - the conundrum being ...
if that one is taken aboard, someone already aboard will have to be tipped over the edge?
Although there are statics available for the number of abortions, there are no statics for the
reasons, which will be many and very varied.

Surely any new 'baby' citizen is entitled to a 'quality of life?' An example here ... A 16 year old
is pregnant still at school from an extremely poor family, no means of support unable to complete
education decides to have an abortion. She goes on to complete her education gains
qualifications with honours....good job, stable relationship, four children enjoying a good life .....
due mainly to the stability of having been able to finish her education. A steady home life and relationship two of her children go on to be the equivalent of a Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur or Albert Einstein. I'm probably a lone voice here but I would call that a success story! For all
those I have offended out there it was only a 'story.'

It seems to me we now have "Morality Nazi's" to join the "Grammar Nazi's" on ATS

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady




Your statement referring to the foetus "Quote"

"Every person has the right to be treated with dignity"


I wish more people would remember that statement when that foetus is a feeble, fragile,
old person!... It is my experience that when they get there they are confined to the garbage bin of life.
I suppose you could call it a late abortion!


But then that's another thread.......I digress

beezzer
reply to post by charles1952

 

It's a point where one persons rights supercedes anothers.

The right of the mother over-rules the rights of the unborn.

I found it ironic that gay rights supporters spoke of the rights of the individual, yet those self-same people disregarded the rights of the unborn individual.

Like slavery, the rights of the white people over-ruled the rights of the black person.

Slavery concluded that a person could determine whether or not a person lived or died.

Same as abortion.

Really... You don't see a difference here? None whatsoever?

If you do - you honestly find it practical and/or justifiable to make such a comparison?

Just asking.

I think the parents should have the right to choose, within a reasonable timeframe, whether or not they want to have an abortion. I think ultimately it should be the woman's choice, but the father should also have his opinion heard and seriously considered.

I know, I'm the worst kind of person.

stormdancer777

windword
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity





You seem to think that abortion is a new invention,

NO kidding, all the more for one to assume as a civilization we could move ahead not backwards.

Once again back in those days there was the lack of modern science and technology.

There certainly weren't abortions in the numbers we see today.

You know what assuming does, right?

In those days you were commanded by scripture to stone your own children to death for disrespecting you. Literally. Per the Bible.

charles1952
I wouldn't be comfortable trying to defend that unscientific position, but our system allows the contradictory conclusions displayed here.

Neither would I, but it happens. I saw that case in the news; terrible thing.

Happy1
reply to post by charles1952

 

I knew it was only a matter of time with these "abortion pills" this would come up -

I am anti-abortion for the record - and I stupidly had one when I was 16. Abortion is murder.

Forgivable, though. "Stupidly"? Or, because you were perhaps misinformed? There is a lot of misinformation out there. I have always been pro-life, but had an IUD for a time. When I got it, it was described as something that "prevented" pregnancy. They didn't mention that it ended early ones.

beezzer
reply to post by charles1952

 

It's a point where one persons rights supercedes anothers.

The right of the mother over-rules the rights of the unborn.

Sad, but true. I wish every woman or girl considering one would get an ultrasound, or watch a video of one. With our third, I had one at 11.5 weeks. There were issues; the placenta was low, and they were doing it to see what the issue was. We could see her hands and feet, and teeny little fingers and toes, that early. Her face, in profile due to her position, you could ID as her after she was born. Not quite three months, and so clearly a small person!

Cuervo

beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Oh come on Cuervo!

Haven't you commented on war?

Have you worn a uniform?

Are you saying there is a good side to war that is defensible?

There are no fuzzy lines between killing people violently and not killing people violently. It's pretty clear.

Are there fuzzy lines between killing a baby violently and not killing a baby violently? Is there a side to doing this that is defensible?

In a war, it's possible to have a real enemy, that is attacking your home, killing your people, for no reason at all. What threat is a tiny person to a mother? The supposed threats to the health of the mother are so rare as to be almost non-existent, with VERY few exceptions, and that is according to many OB/GYNs.

Come on. Take a stand.

RealWoman

Happy1
reply to post by RealWoman

 

I'm sure it was the right choice for your child.

There is no logic to this comment. This is the kind of wild-eyed, hatemongering hyperpole has no place in the abortion debate.

And yes, it was the right choice for the three children we already had. And before you go off a hysterical tantrum about keeping legs closed, the fetus was the product of sex with my husband. We learned the hard way that birth control can and does fail. He had a vasectomy shortly thereafter.

RealWoman

Happy1
reply to post by RealWoman

 

Hyberbole?

I've already admitted I killed my child when I was 16 years old - I am not throwing stones in a glass house here. Or passing judgment on you -

I'm calling abortion what it is - the truth hurts - it hurts me, it hurts my first child = it hurts a society that doesn't call murder - murder.

You're holding on to your guilt like a security blanket. You really need to stop projecting your pitiful feelings on the rest of society.

Do you actually not see what you just did?

When she stated her opinion, you called it, "wild-eyed, hatemongering hyperpole". So, under that rule, how do you define your own statement above?

HairlessApe
I think the parents should have the right to choose, within a reasonable timeframe, whether or not they want to have an abortion. I think ultimately it should be the woman's choice, but the father should also have his opinion heard and seriously considered.

I know, I'm the worst kind of person.

Hmmmnn...... I see all these posts of the lack of Fathers rights, and the Father taking an interest in
the life to be. But realistically how many Fathers are around when a woman has an abortion?


I'd like to know the statics of how many men are still with the pregnant woman when she goes for an abortion? Mostly if they are still together they would both be making that kind of decision together?


In the OP it was the "Father to be" who exercised his rights without the consent
of the Mother to be to procure an abortion ... makes me wonder about the sincerity of
all the bleeding heart Fathers to be crying over not being consulted!!

Morningglory
The legal right to obtain an abortion never had anything to do with whether we like/dislike the procedure.

It was more about getting rid of back alley medical procedures.

*snip*

Safe legal medical practices are always needed in a civilized society. Irresponsibly misusing/abusing them is more about the society and not the procedure.

If that is the case, then why does the abortion industry protect people like Gosnell? He's not the only bad one in that bunch, by a long shot.

RealWoman
The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

The woman can choose to have sex, or not have it, as well. Why is all the responsibility on the male, in your belief system? What you believe isn't fact. Should the woman not also be responsible enough to use birth control? If it fails, should she not be willing to accept the consequences, that she KNEW were possible?

If the man can't decide on the abortion, why should he pay child support? You can't have all the fun, and accept none of the responsibilities.

Yeah, actually, people can and do live mainly off child support. I KNOW people that do.

Why do you feel that your beliefs on this are any more valid than those of others?