 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are you pro-choice? |
| Yes |
|
75% |
[ 135 ] |
| No |
|
25% |
[ 45 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 180 |
|
| Author |
Message |
shopaholic
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Posts: 619
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
A miscarriage is a tragic natural event.
An abortion is a deliberate decision to kill another person.
The two are not the same thing.
A person's genetic makeup, i.e. what makes them unique, is determined at the moment of fertilisation. Whether or not that fertilised egg implants & develops into a baby is a a natural event, not one that we should decide.
By having sex, a woman is (usually) making a conscious decsion to risk getting pregnant (the size of the risk being determined by what, if any, precautions are taken).
If the possibility of pregnancy, taking into account the degree of risk, is unacceptable to her, i.e. meaning that she would decide to have an abortion if she got pregnant, then she should choose not to have sex.
That is the message that should be taught to our children in schools. The real problem here is the "permissive society" that teaches our children that it is OK to have sex whenever & with whoever they want, and if they do get pregnant, well then they can always get rid of it.
The baby (NOT "potential baby"!!!!!) has EQUAL rights to the mother, not fewer rights, (or more rights as you seem to think I am arguing). Thus if it is an issue about saving the life of the mother, and the pregnancy has to be terminated, it should be done in such a way as to save the baby as well - surely this is what would always happen anyway if the baby was a wanted one? If this is not possible, then if the mother died, so would the baby, meaning that the baby would die either way - thus the choice is of saving one life or neither.
And no, it is most definitely NOT a "private decision between a woman and her doctor". Why does any woman have the right to expect someone else to commit a murder on her behalf? A doctor's job is to preserve life, not to end it, and no doctor should have to be put in this situation.
Abortion violates another person's right to life. That is why it should be illegal.
The one thing I really find impossible to stomach is how may aspies have fallen for the propaganda. If I expected anyone on this earth to agree with my views on this subject, it would have been the people on here.
I am really grieved & disappointed in you all from the bottom of my heart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Purplefluffychainsaw
Deinonychus
Joined: Jul 28, 2005
Age: 20
Posts: 345
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DevonB wrote: | Abortion is as old as old can be. Historically they used herbs and tinctures and other devices to bring on a miscarriage. It shows that women over time immemorial have chosen to terminate their pregnancies, regardless of the reasons.
Before abortion was legalized it was horrific. Women died, were outright murdered by butchers who worked in unclean conditions, sometimes with nothing buy a coat hanger. They would bleed out, get infected, or the least of which is suffer the indignity these places suffered upon them....
Should we go back to those horrible days of butchery and death? Obviously women believed they deserved a say over their own bodies....shouldn't we make it at least safe? |
This is one of the reasons I'm pro-choice. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and it would put people in danger.
It's a personal choice. I sympathise with people who are pro-life, and completely understand their points about murder. But people should have the choice. If they feel that they can cope with the moral implications, then that's their decision. This goes for doctors and such who are involved in the procedure as well - they need to be able to decide if they can do it or not.
I don't agree with foolish children using abortion as a form of contraceptive. I do agree with abortion where the parents have actively tried to avoid pregnancy, or where rape or a serious illness is involved.
_________________
I would be the laziest girl in the world, but it's too much effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
shopaholic
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Posts: 619
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Purplefluffychainsaw wrote: | | But people should have the choice. If they feel that they can cope with the moral implications, then that's their decision. |
So why is murder illegal then? Presumably murderers are perfectly happy to cope with the moral implications of what they do. Using this argument, we have no right to stop them because they are living in accordance with their own morality.
As for the back-street abortionists, obviously they should be hunted down & punished in exactly the same way as all other murderers - surely much easier to do now in the "information age"!.
And never for a minute am I saying "Make abortion illegal" as a statement to be taken in isolation. There would have to be, as part of the culture change, a massive increase in help and support for women with unwanted pregnancies, as well as a radical change in the adoption system to make it much easier to match babies with prospective parents.
In some cases, "open adoptions", where the mother would be able to remain in contact with the couple and the baby throughout, may well be appropriate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shopaholic wrote: | A miscarriage is a tragic natural event.
An abortion is a deliberate decision to kill another person.
The two are not the same thing.
A person's genetic makeup, i.e. what makes them unique, is determined at the moment of fertilisation. Whether or not that fertilised egg implants & develops into a baby is a a natural event, not one that we should decide.
By having sex, a woman is (usually) making a conscious decsion to risk getting pregnant (the size of the risk being determined by what, if any, precautions are taken).
If the possibility of pregnancy, taking into account the degree of risk, is unacceptable to her, i.e. meaning that she would decide to have an abortion if she got pregnant, then she should choose not to have sex.
That is the message that should be taught to our children in schools. The real problem here is the "permissive society" that teaches our children that it is OK to have sex whenever & with whoever they want, and if they do get pregnant, well then they can always get rid of it.
The baby (NOT "potential baby"!!!!!) has EQUAL rights to the mother, not fewer rights, (or more rights as you seem to think I am arguing). Thus if it is an issue about saving the life of the mother, and the pregnancy has to be terminated, it should be done in such a way as to save the baby as well - surely this is what would always happen anyway if the baby was a wanted one? If this is not possible, then if the mother died, so would the baby, meaning that the baby would die either way - thus the choice is of saving one life or neither.
And no, it is most definitely NOT a "private decision between a woman and her doctor". Why does any woman have the right to expect someone else to commit a murder on her behalf? A doctor's job is to preserve life, not to end it, and no doctor should have to be put in this situation.
Abortion violates another person's right to life. That is why it should be illegal.
The one thing I really find impossible to stomach is how may aspies have fallen for the propaganda. If I expected anyone on this earth to agree with my views on this subject, it would have been the people on here.
I am really grieved & disappointed in you all from the bottom of my heart. |
An embryo may be genetically distinct from its mother but there is a time periods during gestation BEFORE the brain is developed enough to become (electrically)activated and during that time the embryo is NOT and cannot be self-aware.
So it has the potential to become a person but what makes a person a person is a Functioning Brain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kaleido
On an extended tea break
Joined: Feb 19, 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 2240
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
My decision when I had the scare with my son was based on the timing. We had gone past the three months, but only just and to me, he had become a baby even not a viable life should he have been born then.
Its all in the timing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mikomi
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 785
Location: On top of your TV, lookin' at you funny.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jat wrote: | | Your 98% figure does not allow for ANY abortions performed to preserve the health or life of the woman. |
My statistics are sound, or I would not have posted them. And yes, my figure does account for those where the mother's health is at risk.
| jat wrote: | | Furthermore, your implication that the lack of or inadequate birth control is somehow a lapse on the part of the woman is unreasonable: there is no fully safe effective birth control available to women. The most effective forms of birth control are not safe for all women, and the safest forms have significant failure rates. Even the most effective forms of birth control (which have significant health risks) have some failure rates, so unplanned and potentially dangerous pregnancies can result. |
PREGNANCY PREVENTION IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH SEXUAL PARTNERS.
Further, there are SEVERAL methods that are safe for women:
1. The rhythm method. Knowing when you ovulate and avoiding the fertile window.
2. Spermicides.
3. Over-the-counter devices such as the sponge.
4. Asking per partner to wear a condom, and keeping one with her in case he doesn't have one handy.
Used in combination (and especially if other birth control is used) these are highly effective. The four above are very safe. Yes, pills and devices like IUDs do carry risk, but so does having an abortion. And yes, even several combined methods can fail - there's only one 100% effective birth control, and that is to avoid sex.
_________________
Curiosity is not a mental illness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
jat
Snowy Owl
Joined: Mar 30, 2008
Posts: 152
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikomi wrote: | | And if a pregnancy would pose a serious health threat, there are surgeries for both men and women to prevent pregnancy from ever happening. Often, if a woman has a condition that a pregnancy could turn into a life-threatening condition, her doctors will recommend she have her "tubes tied"... Cases of a mother having a health or psychological condition, or cases of rape can be identified well before the 12 week marker - and yet so many abortions take place AFTER. |
Medical conditions threatening the health or life of a pregnant woman often arise as a result of a pregnancy, and are not pre-existing conditions. They also are not necessarily recurring conditions. Therefore, having tubes tied is absurd, and identification prior to twelve weeks gestational age is usually not possible. Moreover, the vast majority of abortions do take place before twelve weeks. In fact, most later abortions occur later because women face unreasonable obstacles in procuring services, which lead to later abortions which threaten their health and let folks like you scream about late abortions!
As to the safety of the birth control you outlined, those methods may be safe, but they aren't particularly effective. Moreover, no one is suggesting that people use abortion as an alternative to birth control. Abortion is a sad back-up (for some people - others have the baby, which is fine - it's their choice) when birth control fails ... and it does fail. Women who are pro-choice don't necessarily believe that they, personally, would ever have an abortion. They believe it is up to the woman, her doctor, and her spiritual adviser (if she wishes to involve that person). They do not believe it is up to the government to decide how they should handle their medical situation. I understand that you consider an embryo a person. Not everyone agrees with that. Not every religion believes that. No one is forcing anyone else to have an abortion, ever. But women who are pro-choice don't believe that they, or any woman, should ever be forced to risk her health or life to carry an embryo/fetus for nine months because she happened to become pregnant due to rape, birth control failure, or whatever the circumstance was. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But if my daughter was (God forbid) pregnant as a result of rape, or in danger of risking her life to carry to term, I would support her decision to abort. In fact, following the teachings of our religion, if her life was at risk, I would insist that she have an abortion, even a late term abortion. If it's between the life in being (hers) and the potential life (the fetus), the life in being (hers) wins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
zee
human wannabe
Joined: Jul 19, 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 1122
Location: backstage
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anemone wrote: | Techically speaking, the child is a parasite (for better or worse), feeding off the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. (It may be a very cute parasite, but it's still a parasite.) The child is not a biologically separate individual until the cord is cut. Then you can consider the rights of the child separate from the rights of the mother. Untiil that cord is cut, if there is a conflict between mother and child, someone has to lose. So who counts more?
I think part of the problem with this debate is that so very few people understand psychological health logically. When it's you, you understand it intuitively, but to reason about other people and what they need to be ok inside seems to be very hard for a lot of people. The mother is really the only one who can decide just how much she can take, and as a self-organizing, self-regulating system, she needs to be the one to decide. It's how people are designed. If you take away the ability to self-regulate, people short-circuit inside, regardless of how it looks to others. |
That's a very good description. I'd also like to stress my opinion that the fetus is a PART of the mother, not only in terms of it's location but also genetically and emotionally. It's something that starts and develops within you, and I don't think some of the people here understand the importance of that, they only see the potential of the fetus as becoming a seperate human like themselves.
I've always been 100% pro-choice, but when I became pregnant at 17 (by accident), I suddenly had very strong doubts about having one. It was no longer a logical decision, but an emotional one, as I felt a strong connection (not the best word) to this thing that was developing inside me, even though I couldn't physically feel it yet. It was always with me, and I couldn't stop thinking about what it would be like if I carried it through, what gender it was, what kind of personality it would have, etc. It is NOT a decision that is made lightly, and I suspect that the vast majority of women who have abortions are haunted by their choices.
_________________
Oh how I wish for soothing rain
Oh how I wish to dream again |
|
| Back to top |
|
Purplefluffychainsaw
Deinonychus
Joined: Jul 28, 2005
Age: 20
Posts: 345
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shopaholic wrote: | | Purplefluffychainsaw wrote: | | But people should have the choice. If they feel that they can cope with the moral implications, then that's their decision. |
So why is murder illegal then? Presumably murderers are perfectly happy to cope with the moral implications of what they do. Using this argument, we have no right to stop them because they are living in accordance with their own morality. |
The thing that makes me pro-choice is because I don't see abortion as murder. While a foetus is a /potential/ life, early in the pregnancy it's just a part of the mother. I think the current abortion limit is too high, because it's impossible to tell with the current technology when the potential life becomes a living being.
_________________
I would be the laziest girl in the world, but it's too much effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zee wrote: | | Anemone wrote: | Techically speaking, the child is a parasite (for better or worse), feeding off the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. (It may be a very cute parasite, but it's still a parasite.) The child is not a biologically separate individual until the cord is cut. Then you can consider the rights of the child separate from the rights of the mother. Untiil that cord is cut, if there is a conflict between mother and child, someone has to lose. So who counts more?
I think part of the problem with this debate is that so very few people understand psychological health logically. When it's you, you understand it intuitively, but to reason about other people and what they need to be ok inside seems to be very hard for a lot of people. The mother is really the only one who can decide just how much she can take, and as a self-organizing, self-regulating system, she needs to be the one to decide. It's how people are designed. If you take away the ability to self-regulate, people short-circuit inside, regardless of how it looks to others. |
That's a very good description. I'd also like to stress my opinion that the fetus is a PART of the mother, not only in terms of it's location but also genetically and emotionally. It's something that starts and develops within you, and I don't think some of the people here understand the importance of that, they only see the potential of the fetus as becoming a seperate human like themselves.
I've always been 100% pro-choice, but when I became pregnant at 17 (by accident), I suddenly had very strong doubts about having one. It was no longer a logical decision, but an emotional one, as I felt a strong connection (not the best word) to this thing that was developing inside me, even though I couldn't physically feel it yet. It was always with me, and I couldn't stop thinking about what it would be like if I carried it through, what gender it was, what kind of personality it would have, etc. It is NOT a decision that is made lightly, and I suspect that the vast majority of women who have abortions are haunted by their choices. |
Sounds like your instincts were triggered by the hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy. Now technically speaking, How can a fetus be 'genetically part of the mother' when half of its genes come from someone else(the Father)? What exactly do you mean by "genetically part of the mother"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ebec11
Missing In Action: Innocence
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 5251
Location: A Bubble in the Ocean
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that if you were raped or are a teenage mother, then I would agree with abortion, as you just wouldn't be a good parent to that child. Some people couldn't put their baby up for adoption (I know I would struggle), and that is another choice that people should have the RIGHT to have.
I think it's cruel if they choose abortion because their baby has a disability (Except if it's crueller for the baby to be born, as they would be in extreme pain all the time), as I would not want to be killed if I wasn't wanted.
However I think people should GET to choose and live with the consquences.
Plus I would LOVE if stem cell research was legal, as my uncle would be able to walk again.
_________________
"You can do the math a thousand way, but you can't undo the past"
From P!nk's song 'I'm Not Dead' |
|
| Back to top |
|
zee
human wannabe
Joined: Jul 19, 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 1122
Location: backstage
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| D1nk0 wrote: | | zee wrote: | | Anemone wrote: | Techically speaking, the child is a parasite (for better or worse), feeding off the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. (It may be a very cute parasite, but it's still a parasite.) The child is not a biologically separate individual until the cord is cut. Then you can consider the rights of the child separate from the rights of the mother. Untiil that cord is cut, if there is a conflict between mother and child, someone has to lose. So who counts more?
I think part of the problem with this debate is that so very few people understand psychological health logically. When it's you, you understand it intuitively, but to reason about other people and what they need to be ok inside seems to be very hard for a lot of people. The mother is really the only one who can decide just how much she can take, and as a self-organizing, self-regulating system, she needs to be the one to decide. It's how people are designed. If you take away the ability to self-regulate, people short-circuit inside, regardless of how it looks to others. |
That's a very good description. I'd also like to stress my opinion that the fetus is a PART of the mother, not only in terms of it's location but also genetically and emotionally. It's something that starts and develops within you, and I don't think some of the people here understand the importance of that, they only see the potential of the fetus as becoming a seperate human like themselves.
I've always been 100% pro-choice, but when I became pregnant at 17 (by accident), I suddenly had very strong doubts about having one. It was no longer a logical decision, but an emotional one, as I felt a strong connection (not the best word) to this thing that was developing inside me, even though I couldn't physically feel it yet. It was always with me, and I couldn't stop thinking about what it would be like if I carried it through, what gender it was, what kind of personality it would have, etc. It is NOT a decision that is made lightly, and I suspect that the vast majority of women who have abortions are haunted by their choices. |
Sounds like your instincts were triggered by the hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy. Now technically speaking, How can a fetus be 'genetically part of the mother' when half of its genes come from someone else(the Father)? What exactly do you mean by "genetically part of the mother"? |
I just meant that it was my child, physically (and the father's too, obviously). I guess it wasn't the best word to use. It's hard to describe the feeling when you suddenly realize the power of a new life starting within you, a person who in that way is a continuation of yourself.
_________________
Oh how I wish for soothing rain
Oh how I wish to dream again |
|
| Back to top |
|
shopaholic
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Posts: 619
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="zee]I'd also like to stress my opinion that the fetus is a PART of the mother, not only in terms of it's location but also genetically and emotionally. It's something that starts and develops within you, and I don't think some of the people here understand the importance of that, they only see the potential of the fetus as becoming a seperate human like themselves.[/quote]
Yes, this is exactly the point at which you and I differ.
The fetus/embryo/baby is NOT "part of the mother" and it IS a "separate human being" because 50% of its genes come from the mother & 50% from the father. Were it part of the mother, it would have the same genetic makeup as herself - FACT!
I also disagree that the self-awareness or otherwise of the fetus is in any way relevant. It is its GENES that make it unique, not its brain or its soul (if you believe in souls - I'm open-minded on this one).
Someone also stated above that "no-one ever forced anyone to have an abortion"! Really?? What makes you so sure of this? The whole culture of "abortion is legal so it must be OK" means that many women who on their own would never have considered such a thing are "persuaded" by their partner, family, employer & friends to have one, and then spend the rest of their lives regretting it.
In fact I personally know someone this happened to - she was in a very vulnerable place and just did what she was told - only to change her mind at the very last minute, but because she had already had the anaesthetic she was unable to speak, and the abortion went ahead. She has been haunted by what she did ever since, and still talks about the son she might have had more than 15 years later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shopaholic wrote: | | zee wrote: | | I'd also like to stress my opinion that the fetus is a PART of the mother, not only in terms of it's location but also genetically and emotionally. It's something that starts and develops within you, and I don't think some of the people here understand the importance of that, they only see the potential of the fetus as becoming a seperate human like themselves. |
Yes, this is exactly the point at which you and I differ.
The fetus/embryo/baby is NOT "part of the mother" and it IS a "separate human being" because 50% of its genes come from the mother & 50% from the father. Were it part of the mother, it would have the same genetic makeup as herself - FACT!
I also disagree that the self-awareness or otherwise of the fetus is in any way relevant. It is its GENES that make it unique, not its brain or its soul (if you believe in souls - I'm open-minded on this one).
Someone also stated above that "no-one ever forced anyone to have an abortion"! Really?? What makes you so sure of this? The whole culture of "abortion is legal so it must be OK" means that many women who on their own would never have considered such a thing are "persuaded" by their partner, family, employer & friends to have one, and then spend the rest of their lives regretting it.
In fact I personally know someone this happened to - she was in a very vulnerable place and just did what she was told - only to change her mind at the very last minute, but because she had already had the anaesthetic she was unable to speak, and the abortion went ahead. She has been haunted by what she did ever since, and still talks about the son she might have had more than 15 years later. |
Soul or not, what makes a person a person is a functioning brain. Even if its genetically unique, until the brain develops enough to start working its just a pre-formed BODY. I cant see how an anencephalic baby can be a person since it has not
cerebrum and cannot think, feel, or experience.....EVER. |
|
| Back to top |
|
shopaholic
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Posts: 619
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
We are not talking about about anencephalic babies - that is a specific case and I have already objected to the fact that the pro-choice argument is derived from the specific to the general which is completely back-to-front and logically unsound. (See my very first post on this thread).
However - if the baby was so severely handicapped that it would be completely incapable of independent life, even if carried to term, then all an abortion would do would be to hasten the death of something that was only ever going to die anyway.
How can this specific case be compared to the killing of someone who could otherwise have gone on to live a long and fruitful life, maybe make a great scientific discovery, maybe marry your son or daughter....?
How would its siblings feel to be told that they "should" have had a brother or sister, but that its timing was inconvenient, so mummy decided to kill it? Wouldn't that make them feel pretty insecure? It would me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
