Abortion Debate

Post by Gone

Except that there are many, many videos and pictures on multiple websites of protestors doing just that. Attempting to prevent women entering clinics to get abortions to remove already dead babies. There was a famous one a couple years ago where the father confronted the women who had attempted to abuse and stop his wife, and all they could say was "abortion is wrong, abortion is wrong" despite him repeating that their baby, a baby they WANTED, was DEAD.
First of all, I doubt that anybody on here would try to physically prevent somebody from entering a clinic, even if they are anti abortion. Also I'm fairly sure that the removal of a dead fetus can be done at any hospital, so I don't see how protesters at an abortion clinic would really prevent that procedure from happening.

But what I was trying to say is that if somebody says they are anti abortion, that doesn't mean they don;t support abortion in the context of what you described with an already dead fetus. Not counting nuts of course.

I'm merely trying to get across how I feel, which is that if I ever got pregnant I'd go through Hell or high water to get an abortion. I'm hardly going around screaming "woo, abortion time. Party and cake and balloons! WOOOO! Let's get me up the duff so I can go get a scrape before lunch!"

I know how you meant it, I'm just telling you how it can be read.

Not sure what I did but my quote thingy ain't working...okay half of it is...*shakes fist" dern computers!

You put the slash in front of the first quote bracket. It's quote at the beginning, and /quote at the end. It's easier if you just highlight the text that you want to quote, and then and then click the little button with the speech bubble.

Post by 1108744

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Monday

You threw an extra set of tags around there. They were kind of in an odd place, too =P

This is what it should look like.

Except that there are many, many videos and pictures on multiple websites of protestors doing just that. Attempting to prevent women entering clinics to get abortions to remove already dead babies. There was a famous one a couple years ago where the father confronted the women who had attempted to abuse and stop his wife, and all they could say was "abortion is wrong, abortion is wrong" despite him repeating that their baby, a baby they WANTED, was DEAD.
First of all, I doubt that anybody on here would try to physically prevent somebody from entering a clinic, even if they are anti abortion. Also I'm fairly sure that the removal of a dead fetus can be done at any hospital, so I don't see how protesters at an abortion clinic would really prevent that procedure from happening.

But what I was trying to say is that if somebody says they are anti abortion, that doesn't mean they don;t support abortion in the context of what you described with an already dead fetus. Not counting nuts of course.

I didn't say anyone here would do that. I'd like to believe no one here would do that. But what I am saying is there ARE people who would do that. It doesn't take long to google and find videos or blogs about protestors who have blocked women going into clinics that are just trying to abort dead babies. And while, yes, it can be done at Hospitals, it's also cheaper for many families to go to a Planned Parenthood or something.

And let's not forget that roughy 90% of women going into a clinic aren't even getting an abortion. They're getting pap smears or free BC. Which is why the protesting doesn't even make sense in the first place.

I'm merely trying to get across how I feel, which is that if I ever got pregnant I'd go through Hell or high water to get an abortion. I'm hardly going around screaming "woo, abortion time. Party and cake and balloons! WOOOO! Let's get me up the duff so I can go get a scrape before lunch!"

I know how you meant it, I'm just telling you how it can be read.

Eh...I guess.

Not sure what I did but my quote thingy ain't working...okay half of it is...*shakes fist" dern computers!

You put the slash in front of the first quote bracket. It's quote at the beginning, and /quote at the end. It's easier if you just highlight the text that you want to quote, and then and then click the little button with the speech bubble.

Ah! Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is SOOOO much better! :D

Okay it's readable at least...still quoted funny though XD

Edit: Oh, and while we're at it, can I get a source on that "90%?"

Post by 1108744

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Skreeran

This topic has been debated ad nauseum, and in the end it comes down to one thing, which is what stage people consider a fetus a person at. For those who believe life starts at conception, abortion will never be acceptable, for those who don't believe a fetus is a person, anti abortion laws deprive them of a fundamental right.

This debate will never change, and we will never reach a point where everybody is on the same page. All we can do is ride it out until technology develops to the point where we can recreate the conditions of the womb, and prevent birth defects, then it will maybe become a non issue.This is pretty much the crux of the issue.

I don't believe in a soul, so I think it's more of a gradient, where there is no definite point at which a fetus becomes a person. Thus I generally find all abortions unsavory, but they are less and less palatable to me as the pregnancy goes on.

A morning-after pill is basically a non-issue for me, and I see late-term abortions as more and more similar to killing a newborn infant.

I think erring on the side of not killing unborn babies should be standard. Because if a fetus at 24 weeks is not a person and you don't kill it, then the mother does have to go through the pain of childbirth, but (assuming no risk to the mother, since I think that's an extenuating circumstance) no one has been killed. If a fetus at 24 weeks is a person, and you kill it, then a person has been killed and that is wrong.

Were I a lawmaker, I would allow free contraception to prevent pregnancy, but reserve abortions solely for cases where the mother was raped or is in danger. If you choose to have sex without contraception, then you must accept the consequences of your actions. I don't mean that vindictively, but simply because the alternative is killing a fetus which may or may not be a person.

Post by 240140

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Gone

Whenever the rape thing is brought up, I always imagine the $%^&storm that would happen when trying to prove rape. How does it go, off of a rape accusation? Off of a rape conviction? What about cases where the woman didn't know her attacker?

First off, you know there would be these radicals shaming rape victims and accusing them of lying, just to stop them from terminating the pregnancy. Since rape shield laws are only applicable in criminals trials, a lot of rape victims would also likely have their entire sexual history aired for everybody to see. I can see these fanatic websites popping up in my head so easily.

Then you have the other side of the coin. I'm sure there would be women making false rape allegations just to abort a pregnancy that resulted from a consensual sexual encounter.

As to EluraE's question? I tend to agree on both. If abortion restrictions were to be put in place, there should still be exceptions if the mother's life is in danger or if she was raped.

Post by 1108744

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 1108744

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Gone

Like I said in my comment upthread, saying abortion in cases of rape or life endangerment is a narrow view.

Saying anything to the absolute is a narrow view. You saying it should 100% always be the woman's choice is just as narrow as somebody saying that the fetus should always 100% come first. You see here, neither allow for concessions from the other side. Comparatively, what Skreeran was saying about allowing abortions in some cases but not in others, gives ground to each side of the argument.

Should a woman be forced to carry and birth a child she doesn't want because her pill didn't work or the condom split? To which a pro life person would say, "Should an innocent person have to die just because of a malfunction with birth control? A 9 month inconvenience is small compared to a person's entire life."

Like I said earlier, it all comes down to a persons individual views. Both sides of this argument can be fully aware of all the facts, and still disagree, because it comes down to one very subjective and non-quantifiable view. Is the fetus a person?

This already happens. Look at any high profile rape case, it's always about proving the victim is a s--t or that the rapist is a "great guy he's just being attacked" women are asked about past partners or what they were wearing. Just look at Men's Rights Activists to get an idea (yes they're insane but a good example about how society treats rape cases)
Idk about the UK, but in the US there are laws protecting victims from this kind of treatment. Yes it still happens anyway, but my point was that outside of a criminal trial it would be worse. Plus instead of just one attorney going after the rape victim, they would have an entire movement of extremists after them.

Post by 1108744

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Gone

Why does a foetus that cannot survive without feeding off of the mothers body get equal right to "life" over the woman?
First of all, nobody ever said that a fetus and a woman should have equal right to life in the last few pages. Everybody who's commented on it has said that if the mother's life is in danger, it should be her choice on an abortion. The argument here is whether a fetus has any right to life at all over the mother's will, not her life.

Second, the ability to survive outside the womb is a poor argument. There are many people that are given full rights as human beings who can't survive on their own. The terminally ill, the physically and mentally crippled, people on dialysis, people on life support, etc. The difference is that a fetus will eventually be able to survive on it's own, while many of the people I listed will not. Do you have any idea how much money the US and Europe spends every year just delaying the deaths of people who are terminally ill for a few more years? With the money we spend keeping a handful of people in hospital beds for another year, with no quality of life, we could feed thousands of people in Africa and other impoverished places. Does this mean that these people don't have the right to life over others?

-snip-
All of this is, again, ignoring the pro life belief that a fetus is a person. To a person that believes this, there is no difference between a woman getting an abortion because she didn't have adequate access to birth control, and a woman drowning her children in the bathtub because she doesn't have enough money to feed them and pay for health insurance. All the things that you mentioned, changing body, money, abuse in the system, is inconsequential compared with a human life, which is why those who consider a fetus a human life will never accept any of them as valid reasons for abortion.

This lack of ability to see things from the opposing perspective is exactly what brings every abortion debate to a screeching halt.

You live a really sheltered life if you think women are "protected" from having their faces plastered on websites or in papers. The Media has never been known to be fair and before trials even end most Papers are reading that the woman deserved to be raped because she was wearing a skirt. There was even a case here in the UK where, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, a man was let go because it was decided that he couldn't have raped a girl because she was wearing skinny jeans.
You accuse me of living a sheltered life, when all of your arguments seem to be centered around what happens "in the UK." I feel like I'm arguing with Piers Morgan or something.

Idk how things are in the UK, but in the US there are laws that prevent the publication of a rape victim's identity and using an alleged victim's sexual history as a ploy in any kind of hearing. Rape victims are still abused by the media despite this law, but my point is that without it, things would be worse.

And in America, the only law preventing the people entering clinics and PP is the one that says protestors cannot stand on the clinic grounds. They're free to harrass and block people as long as they stay on the curb. But even when they break this law and go inside the building the police often do nothing.Why do you keep bringing this up? Nobody here is advocating protesters bullying those that enter a clinic. You're either straw manning or are just way to hung up on that one issue.

Post by 1108744

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Gone

I love it when somebody says "I'm done with you" or "I'm not debating this anymore," and then post a response anyway...

Every thing I bring up you just say "pro-life, pro-life" why should I even bother trying to have a conversation with you if you're just going to pick and choose from my posts?
Because the things I ignore are either not worth responding to, or have already been addressed.

For example, the bit about the woman with caner dying because she was denied treatment. How do I respond to this? Obviously that was wrong, and nobody here, on either side of the debate will disagree with you. Same with the protesters who physically bar people from entering a clinic. There is no point in even bringing that up because everybody is already on a consensus that it's wrong.

That would be like me bringing up the women who put needles into their stomach at 8 months or leave newborns in a dumpster. It's terrible and we can all agree on that, so there's no pointing in addressing it.

it cannot survive on it's own. It's not a baby.This here is the problem. The fact that you say this, does not make it a fact. You believe that if a fetus cannot survive on it's own, that means it's not a baby. A person on the opposite side of the debate feels differently. You're absolute refusal to look at it from the opposing viewpoint is the problem here. You're essentially saying "I'm right, anyone who disagrees is wrong" then clamping your hands over your ears when I try to express the other side of the argument.

The problem with the debate is that, now try to stay with me here, not everybody considers viability outside the womb the criteria for whether a fetus is a baby or not.

I'll ask again:

There are many people that are given full rights as human beings who can't survive on their own. The terminally ill, the physically and mentally crippled, people on dialysis, people on life support, etc. The difference is that a fetus will eventually be able to survive on it's own, while many of the people I listed will not. Do you have any idea how much money the US and Europe spends every year just delaying the deaths of people who are terminally ill for a few more years? With the money we spend keeping a handful of people in hospital beds for another year, with no quality of life, we could feed thousands of people in Africa and other impoverished places. Does this mean that these people don't have the right to life over others?

And it just proves my point that you aren't reading my posts when you say "all of your arguments seem to be centered around what happens "in the UK."" when I've posted MULTIPLE things about abortion that happen in other parts of the world. Except I said that in response to you calling me sheltered, while revealing your own ignorance in not knowing about US rape shield laws. That comment had nothing to do with abortion.

Post by 240140

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Skreeran

Morning after pill has nothing to do with abortion, just so that's clear. It stops there from being a conception at all, it doesn't terminate it.Pardon me, then. I was under the impression that it was an abortifacient. My point was that a 2 day old zygote is very different, in my opinion, from a 24 week old fetus.

Anyway, wasn't going to be my point. Let's say the fetus is indeed a baby, beyond doubt. If the woman will die if she doesn't get an abortion, which life do you save? Who gets to decide this?I would say the woman's, of course. She would get the choice, of course, like all other medical procedures (unless she's in an altered mental state, like unconsciousness), but if the mother dies, then the fetus would as well. It's the logical option.

I'd assume getting an abortion at the case of rape would be completely out of the question?
I'm really clear in what I believe here (the woman comes first in both cases for me), but I want to know other opinions.Of course not. Rape is an exception in this case (providing the abortion takes place before a certain point; I would argue that past a certain point, the fetus is a person and would have the right to exist.)

Whenever the rape thing is brought up, I always imagine the $%^&storm that would happen when trying to prove rape. How does it go, off of a rape accusation? Off of a rape conviction? What about cases where the woman didn't know her attacker?I would take them on good faith, but like many other hospitals, it would have to be reported to the authorities.

Post by asakawa

If that is the case than you should make that up with taking the responsibility to carry the fetus that your stupidity gave you. And then give it up for adoption.

This statement just isn't right. This sexist notion that only stupid women have unplanned pregnancies and that they should be scorned and punished for that stupidity. Meanwhile the man who was also half of what you're deeming "stupidity" is, at most, forgotten but potentially /highfived by his bros for his awesome fertility and ability to bed women.

Unplanned and inconvenient pregnancies do happen to intelligent and contraceptively careful people. Pregnancy is not the punishment for foolish fun or gay abandon, no matter what the bible might try to assert. The sexism that you're perpetuating is, I think, a major issue. Opinions on abortion aside, we should not be labelling and judging pregnant women in this way.

Whatever one might decide about the rights of the zygote/foetus/baby the woman does also have rights including, I think, not being subject to prejudice and discrimination.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Pregnancy is not the punishment for foolish fun or gay abandon, no matter what the bible might try to assert.
I'm wondering where you're getting that from.

Post by asakawa

I wondered if that might get picked up. I hadn't intended this to derail so I'm happy to remove it to avoid that if requested but I'm talking about the idea that the pain of childbirth was Eve's punishment and that's now a legacy for all women. This, I think, is a societally damaging and disruptive notion that, whether originating from the bible or not, perpetuates sexist opinions of pregnancy. Essentially my issue is with the notion that women deserve to be punished for having sex. The assertion that it has roots in the bible is my own and secondary to my point.

A quick google yields:“To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Calling the pain of childbirth a punishment is not the same thing as calling pregnancy a punishment.

Abortion Debate

Post Reply