Women 'using web for abortions'

Think of the mother fights tooth and nail - to the death; to protect her child.
(most would make a bear think twice, and they have)

Now think of the mother who fights tooth and nail for the right to kill her child.

I believe that women who have abortions should be given amnesty, just in case an unkind government comes to power.... and decides they committed infanticide (which women have been doing since the dawn of time, as have men), they should have a measure of protection allowed to them.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

I disagree, and state that your own point is moot and silly.

One's life is not pre-destined, therefore, a man who grows up to be a murderer had just as much chance of becoming a societal genius.

Some Christians would disagree--that our actions and lives ARE pre-determined because they are known by God before we are even concieved. Man, that's a mess to untangle--how God can send someone to Hell when He knows exactly what actions will lead them there, and supposedly has the power to nudge them away from that course of action, yet He does not and still punishes them--like Lewis Black I'm at the point where I say to Hell with it all, because if God exists he's an illogical monstrosity.

So, what does this mean in the greater picture?

It means that choosing an abortion because the father is seen as cruel and psychotic is somewhat naive.

We should be happy in the least that that man is not going to have a say in how that child grows in the world.

The above mentality, that of denying a person's right to existence because of his father's actions, seems to me more like accepting the world as it is, and refusing to do anything about it by denying the world new life.

Except for someone who is a victim of rape, forcing that person to carry the product of such abuse to term is like raping them over and over and over again, essentially punishing them for being a victim.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Except for someone who is a victim of rape, forcing that person to carry the product of such abuse to term is like raping them over and over and over again, essentially punishing them for being a victim.

Which is why i believe in pro-choice.

People should have the right to deal with their suffering however they please.

Well, other than taking it out on other people, of course.

If you really want my opinion, i think that abortion should be a viable option not only if the mother is going through serious mental trauma from having been raped/subverted by a psychotic a$$hole, but also if the child is so physically deformed that he cannot function as a human being.

I'll admit i'm being rather cold, but it's a rather cold procedure...

reply to post by gray-matter


It's not that we pro-choicers don't understand your side of the argument, pro-lifers.

We just understand that many women who aren't ready to give a child a proper life, are going to abort regardless of what the law says. If they know that the child's life, and their own, are going to be hell from birth on, they aren't going to hesitate to abort.

Aborting illegally is dangerous, aborting legally means you have a safe medical facility. They're going to do it regardless, and all the "but it's a life" in the world isn't going to stop them.
It's best if they can do it in a medical facility, instead of puncturing themselves with coat hangers, and screwing up their chemical balance with drugs.


I'm still not sure why the pro-lifers, when arguing that aborting is murder, say it's ok for rape victims. Isn't that still murder? Or is that kind of a compromise in light of the circumstances?
Give them the right to abort, only when they've been tortured?

I'm not trying to put you down for it, I just can't see eye to eye with it.


It's not like women who live in abortion legal countries decide "okay, on friday, I'm going to go get knocked up, and then later on, I'll go get it aborted."
Abortions are still viewed in the same light as operations and such... and nobody decides they're going to break their leg because theres someone waiting to patch them up.

And while I am sure most here know this, but FYI regular birth control pills can be used as morning after pills as well. The directions can be looked up online quite easily (have to get the right combo of days and doses from the monthly package).

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Sonya610]

Something has just occured to me about a particular method of contraception and how it relates to this discussion:

Should the "morning after pill" be considered in the same light as an abortion?

Originally posted by johnsky

I'm still not sure why the pro-lifers, when arguing that aborting is murder, say it's ok for rape victims. Isn't that still murder? Or is that kind of a compromise in light of the circumstances?
Give them the right to abort, only when they've been tortured?

I'm not trying to put you down for it, I just can't see eye to eye with it.

Right-o, i'm not a pro-lifer (although i can see the cold, hard logic behind it too), but i can try and put myself in their shoes.

I think it is a compromise, and that depending on your standpoint (like a religious one) the compromise is essential to preserving public order and ultimately i see it as an act of kindness.

Naive kindness.

The kind of kindness that comes back and hits you in the face when people start asking questions like the one you just did.

reply to post by budski


Well if life begins at the moment of conception then yes, morning after pills are "killing" and IUD's are "killing" too. Some types of birth control pills are also murder (progesterone based) because they do allow the possibility of a fertilized egg but they make it nearly impossible for the egg to attach to the uterine wall.

The morning after pill has caused a stir among some pharmacists, women take their prescription to a pharmacy and sometimes they are turned away. Wonder of those moral crusaders also refuse to provide progesterone based birth control pills as well?


[edit on 11-7-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by Sonya610
And while I am sure most here know this, but FYI regular birth control pills can be used as morning after pills as well. The directions can be looked up online quite easily (have to get the right combo of days and doses from the monthly package).

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Sonya610]

The fact that birth control is seen as just as much an abomination in many religions (Catholicism, for example) should point out exactly what it's all really about--and it sure'n as Hell ain't about "saving babies".

reply to post by Sonya610


In that case, isn't every form of contraception a form of abortion, in that it kills a living thing that has the potential to become a human being?

reply to post by The Nighthawk


Correct.

It's about preserving their religious identity.

Or at least, a battle for the moral high ground among the different religious factions of the world.

Originally posted by budski
In that case, isn't every form of contraception a form of abortion, in that it kills a living thing that has the potential to become a human being?

Well most consider a fertilized egg to be different than just plain old sperm. Some forms of birth control do not allow the eggs and sperm to come in contact (condoms, diaphrams, or birth control drugs that prevent the release of eggs).

I don't know about abortion, I think they should put the time limit for abortion down much more, the latest they can legally abort, the baby is already sucking it's thumb, moving around etc.

I know a lot of women say, "It's my body!"

Well in my opinion, it is not JUST your body anymore, there is someone else inside of you.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Sonya610

 

In that case, isn't every form of contraception a form of abortion, in that it kills a living thing that has the potential to become a human being?

That's the traditional Catholic position, yes. In fact masturbation is wrong because it wastes the potential of the "male component". The Monty Python song "Every Sperm Is Sacred" is funny because it's true.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


On one level I absolutely agree, if there are not serious medical complications ideally the woman should decide within the first few weeks.

But...the problem is abortion is like gun control, or banning specific types of dogs, or many other issues. The opponents want it COMPLETELY banned, and they will keep fighting until it IS banned.

The proponents realize the others will never stop fighting, so if you give in on some aspects you will soon be fighting for the basic rights that you fear losing the most. The anti-gun groups want to outlaw ALL guns, if the NRA gives in on "some" guns they just drew the front lines of the battle closer to their front door.

They will never stop.

reply to post by Sonya610


Just like you said, it all really is a complicated matter.

I'm not an expert or anything, so that's all I can say for now.


Also banning things creates another problem, illegal abortions, illegal selling of guns etc. So it's all very confusing.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The fact that birth control is seen as just as much an abomination in many religions (Catholicism, for example) should point out exactly what it's all really about--and it sure'n as Hell ain't about "saving babies".

Well, I'm sure there are pro-lifers out there who came to their own opinions, but religion does take the same stance as the pro-lifers, but for TOTALLY different reasons.



Now, as far as people having a problem with birth control and morning after pills. I think thats a bit twisted to be honest. You see, birth control and morning after pills simply prevents the life from starting in the first place.
If they have a problem with that, it means they already think of the eggs as life...
... so do they have a problem with women having their periods? Cause thats an egg being discharged. The closest thing to life before it starts to grow.

If that's the case, wouldn't you have to make it law that women MUST get pregnant instead of having their period?

That just opens up a whole train of thought that need not be opened.



Now, I know you don't want to hear it... but there's another take. A much colder, calculated take on the whole choice or life debate. It's not my view, but I have to put it out there, as it does pertain to this debate.

The numbers.

With close to 7 billion people on the planet.
2 to 4 billion we are already having troubles feeding.
That number is supposed to climb to 8 billion in what, two years?
Which would tack on another 1 billion having trouble getting food.
Not to mention, probably start wiping out a few million from starvation.

The cold and calculated decision, tells you to reward those who never have children.

(But then again, the cold calculated decision also tells you to start killing the welfare users, drug addicts, criminals, and disabled people.)

[edit on 11-7-2008 by johnsky]

Originally posted by theendisnear69
reply to post by RubyGloom

 

Same here.

Just the fact that I would have never even had shot at life if I would have been aborted makes me disagree with the whole subject.

The conditions that I was born into were not that great, and I turned out completely fine. So to say that abortion should be ok because the kid might have to live in a foster home is just silly.

It does not matter where you are born, we all have a chance to make something of ourselves.

Sorry i know this quote is from pages back...but anyway...when you say *you* you really are not talking about *you*...confused? Well *you* are simply the result of experiences and memories...so it wasn't really *you* that would not be here....or something like that... ohh and overpopulation is a myth..the human race could triple and we would still be A-okay...greed and unfair distribution of wealth etc is the problem,not the population of the world...

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Lethil]

reply to post by _Phoenix_


I'm going to let you in on a little secret here -

Things are only as complicated as you make them, if you accept that you don't know much about the subject then you are essentially being self-defeatist.

It depends strongly on how you want to approach the subject - do you want to be all light and caring, or dark and cold?

Personally, i try to aim for somewhere in the middle, therefore enabling me to evaluate the options that both sides of the argument are presenting.

As such, i am a firm believer in having the choice to do something as opposed to not having the choice to do something.

The problem is that people are only too willing to make a choice based on availability as opposed to a personal understanding and respect for life.