WANTED: Abortion Logic.

And to OSF: It is stupid to say, in that context, that abortion is murder. When the baby is competant to live seperated from the mother, then it could be called murder. Until then, it is not even really alive. Sure, it has a heartbeat. But you wouldn't even know that without a stethescope. So what's the difference, it can't breathe! So in the context of reality, yes it is like cutting off a fingernail, if that woman sees it that way. It's her's to grow or not grow. Her perogative. If you don't want YOUR fingernails cut, then don't cut them. That's as far as the male is capable of in the matter. True murder is different. Anyone can murder. But where does one draw the line? You call it murder simply because the woman chooses not to continue supplying nutrition and oxygen for a fetus. Isn't there any difference to you? And why? Are you simply too much under the assumption that women are here to be used for making babies with, whether they like it or not? Maybe women should be legally paid to continue their pregnancies, if it's that important to the man who deposits his sperm and expects a lifetime of happiness out of it! It certainly is a cold world when women are left to face the option of abortion. But it doesn't mean you should take that choice away from them as well. You can't expect women to play supergoddess within the social structure the way that it is. Women are only people too. You should take your right to life attitude to the president instead. Look at all the perfectly wonderful lives ruined in the world today. And so how is a tiny fetus supposed to rate against all that? If you insist on trusting women to be better at controlling the world's problems to the degree that you feel the need to take away their right to do anything wrong, then give us the power to make all the changes for you that are needed and go all the way with your feelings, the way you obviously want to. Outside of that, women are going to become the same savage idiots men are, after living around them this long! Why don't you take war and 18 year old men as your similie to compare abortion? Do you think war is okay, that draft and torture and fighting other countries' wars for them, losing life after life after life, continually, for years upon years? Why have a baby and loose it to war at 18 years of age? Why put all that into it just to loose it? How do you think those mother's feel? Probably quite used. Why does war fit so easy in people's minds, but abortion is some sort of huge sin? Maybe because you can more easily shift the burdon on women that way? Why is war so easy for people to live with in America? Maybe "cause it isn't happening here? War is everywhere. War is a far worse sin than abortion. Those young people had lives going. The persons they fight had lives going. There is no purpose, there is no logic. There is no resolution. There is only death. Death and destruction. A fetus is only a beginning, it has no clear chance at anything. It really is only a mass of cells growing, to potentially be born, and that is not even a promise, because it is not entirely it's own responsibility to get itself there. And it's not the man's either. It's entirely how the woman feels about providing for that person's existence, because that's what it is. WHAT IT IS. The cold hard fact. And I think it's a good thing she has a right to say no to it. I'm a believer in reincarnation. And for that new life, it is in no better or worse shape than before the pregnancy occurred, for her to abort. It can go elsewhere and find another chance, that is the way the world is and you can't expect women to pretend everythings peachy huncky-dory for the little mass of responsibilities, when it isn't. Women are people too, and when we're respected for all that we are and that sure the life we produce will be worth it and not a MORE severe responsibility, we'll be more willing to produce young to the fruition of newborn, but we think and have ideas too. We have wants and plans for our own lives, too. And we're just as competant thinkers as men. Men need to face that. They certainly wouldn't take to being taken into the slavery of childbearing if it meant losing choices regarding their own life decisions, their life plans. And that is what it is, if you're not leaving the choice entirely up to the female persons. And we're not taking to it as a forced issue. And once again, if you want to talk murder, go balk at the president. So, for real, back it up to what it really is. It is a right to make a choice. It is also a right to life. Her own. If something told you you had to finish building this house you started, only because you did start on it,but you wanted to give up on the project and tear it down for a future idea (after all, it is your property), even though it could improve in equity over a hundred years or even one year, still you made your desicion. but you wouldn't like it made apublic issue what you do with your property. Imagine how the prolifers make it feel to women. And that is why it is a women's issue. You have to do alot of thinking before you can make an opinion about someone else's decisions. Some people don't care who they hurt while they make an uneducated opinion.

 

Of course. If he's carrying it in HIS womb.

A man doesn't put his life on the line concieving a baby. Womyn die every day in pregnancy and childbirth. THEY are the ones with the mammary glands to feed the child, and all the things that go with that. THEY are the ones who have the majority of time and effort involved in the baby (and I don't buy the "If I had a baby, I would do half the work." Bull, in almost 2 decades of counseling new families I have HEARD this a million times, I have seen it happen NEVER.) The person CARRYING the pregnancy has the right to make the decision. But, personally, I prefer if they make it sooner, rather than later.

 

You do realise this thread is four months old?!?

 

NEVER MIND. No one is going to change anyone else's mind. It's useless to try.

 

Maggie is right. If I could only sum it up that short. Maybe more people would read me. Why would a man, who claims to love a woman, want a superior right over her choices regarding what happens to her own body. You'd think he'd be compassionate and understanding, suppportive. Sounds to me like any man who'd want the right to say in that matter is only being selfish. I think the right to the children after their born should be placed to the women who bear them too. Then maybe men would get rid of the notion of children as "theirs".

 

ireadyoubutitisalittlehardontheeyesandbrainastheirarenobreaksitbecomesquiteachallenge


I was thinking of the other side of this (don't know if this has been brought up)..the church and others bring up 'pro life' and no abortions .. millions of people go through IVF and many other means to get children , the sophisticated ways in wich we observe/monitor/care for unborn babies is quite unnatural.. so lets ban that as well... leave it all down to nature..

 

I don't think there is a situation where the man should have say unless it's warrented by the woman. Even if the man did not want to get the woman pregnant. There's four possible scenerios here. One. The man wanted pg, the woman didn't. The woman aborts if she want to. Two. The woman wanted, the man didn't. The keeps it if she wants to. The same as his responsibility ends with the insemination, it is true whether he "meant to" or not. He can't force an abortion because he had a premature ejaculation, and got a woman pregnant before HE was ready to commit to becoming a parent. Three: they both wanted a pg. If she changes her mind, she has the right to. He could compassionately ask why, but he shouldn't badger her or intimidate her as to her explanation. Maybe she found something wrong with HIM that she doesn't want his children. They do turn out like their dads, even when they're not there. There must be something wrong there, or in the case where she's ready and wanted to, she'd be happy to continue. But in any case, nothing in this world is garunteed. Just because you apply for a job and are qualified, or think your qualified, and, even if the boss promises you the job, doesn't mean you get it. Some people get fired their first day! And some men change radically after they get you pregnant, to the point where your driven to abort./He changes his mind. Asta la vista, senior. Don't forget to send the child support check. And she could change her mind too. She may not want you to ever have a right in the picture. Or she could choose to abort, simply because he backed out, but still, it would be her decision. Four. Neither of them wanted a pg. It's still her decision to keep or abort. Sometimes a woman can tell, or gets further feelings, after the impregnation. What if she were to change her mind and say, yes, I'm going to keep this baby, even though the man said no. Should she abort because he said so? I don't think so. Should he have to pay support? Yes. Should it be made strictly law? No. Simply because that is associated with rights. Should he have rights to the baby if the mom says no, no matter what the circumstances? I say no. Whether he's paying support or not. What if he is a pervert, but he pays support? Do you have to go to court and prove that in order to keep him off of your baby? Why shouldn't men have to kiss ass in order to see the child? I thnk they should. It builds them character, and it proves to the woman (and children) that they can be open-minded enough to change... Otherwise, they're way too bossy, and don't deserve children. The women and children all suffer in that scenerio. I wouldn't want the fear of men instilled into my children, if it's the only two choices I were left with, I'd rather raise them alone and teach them about choices, and about mutual respect between the sexes.

 

Your argument's going way down hill and descending into an anti-male rant. Such a notion is based on the assumption that the mother is a reasonable human being. I'm with you all the way on pro-choice and men having no right over a woman's womb, but the man-hating comments don't do your case many favours.

 

Ditto.

 

It angers me how people think just because we're women, we should always do the right thing and not abort. Hasn't it been established in our constitution that we're not children, and that we can't go through life pretending it's the ideal thing, when indeed it's not? Life is just as much hell on women as it is on men, in case they failed to notice. And the reason it angers me so much is that men pull this pushing of trouble onto women all the f-cking time. All the damn time, it's fight the men's trouble back at the men. Now, it's to such a degree that we're actually taking the life away that grows within us, because life is already that bad, and yet, they fail to notice. No, they swing that pendulem back at us another time. When will they see? They truely are to blame for the problems of the world. Especially people who think any kind of war can be justified! Anything you can develop after years of fighting and bloodshed should already be able to be worked out before that happens. Have we no history books?

There is no such thing as an innocent civilian so long as there is guilt upon any soldier. Does the soldier only fight to defend him/herself? No. Why is it okay to kill the soldier? Is his/hers not a human life? Why is it okay for the soldier to kill? Isn't what he/she's killing human life? If leaders of a country can make war and have it accepted, why can't a woman take the life within her and have it accepted? The leaders didn't even start the lives they take. And truely, they are not their responsibilities until they make it so. Do people just expect women to be better than men, by denying them their right to stop their own reproduction? Why is war accepted at all? There is more purpose in abortion than war. The women who've had abortions, or who'd like to, can tell you it is more their right to stop the life from continuing, that's growing inside of them, than for world leaders to send out other people's children to cause blood shed on situations where it really isn't the deaths they're looking for, but solutions to the problems that cause the wars. It could be the same with alot of women who abort. But we have to handle the lack of viable solutions the same way wars do, in essence, because we all live in the same world and the same hell hits us all. There is no innocence, none, so long as there is war, and the belief in a cause for war, because we all do share this planet, and are all responsiblle for it's continuence, or it's destruction. War has proved nothing but destruction. Continuence or destruction. That's the world's choices. And that is what is really going on with it. That is almost like the yin and yang of it. The macrocosm and the microcosm. This is not the 40's where you could fake to your children that everythings okay while a war is destroying most of the rest of the world. Women have been abused too much since then to be able to hold that up. This is not the 60's where drugs allowed people to not worry, be happy. Too many people are against drugs, who have luxery, and don't face the dilemna's that, growing numbers of people do. And drugs are a topical solution. Drugs aren't the answer. And this is not a peace time. Wars are occurring and it's fucked, and who can be happy while that's going on? If I were a younger woman, I think I'd think twice about trying to start a family at a time like this too. I already know the joy of having children around, but, it appears, the worse the world gets, the reasons to raise families are becoming too few.

 

What angers me too, are the quick-witted, but painfully uneducated comments of persons who are themselves all for letting evey single solitary zygote that's ever been formed attian maturity, birth, and a life. Don't forget to include other animals, if your going to insist on being entirely fair! Okay, let's say, that the sperm went BY the egg, and the egg saw it, but it didn't reach it. What do you say about that one? Should we take it to the clinic and make sure it get's a life? I think anyone that's against abortion should put in on a welfare plan so that all these unwanted childen will be provided for,
plus, you gotta pay for the persons who are going to provide the care. Isn't that a great life, institutional? What will you do when the greed machine gets ahold of it? What when they're seen as public property, and drug companies want to try out their medical experiments on them? (For the sake of other children, of course). Do you think that shit already doesn't happen or what?
Now who's looking to abort rather than adopt?
Just because the selling of children isn't legal doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Should I have to worry about continual suffering throughout a person's life, or can't I just end it before it technically started, especially since it's depending on me for every calorie of food, and every atom of oxygen, and every shit it needs to dump, to survive up until that point?

And it's not about just until it's born. Getting through the pregnancy and childbirth. If that's what you think, then you need to think some more, 'cause having babies is about planning and committing to giving it a good life. That's the purpose. the main purpose. And if you know you can't do that nor guruntee it by someone else, abortions as an option has to remain in the picture, and shouldn't be looked on as the irresponsible thing. Not that it takes alot of money to raise a child, but these days there is no welfare plan in some states, and it's lot harder for a mom to work or for that matter to get a job. so if your kid's going to be taken away, or you have to surrender it anyway, why waste your time and effort, when you could be over that abortion within a few months or even weeks, and, start planning a future that is more promising for you and your tiny one?

People think, if you don't want it, you can just hand it off to adoption. Well then there's a child I'm responsible for putting into the world and I don't even get to know how it's being treated. I don't get to know where it went. I don't get to know anything anymore, but that's it's someone else's responsibility, and you can't ever do that all the way. You know they'll always wonder about you, and vice versa. It just does.
It feels to me like pro-lifers are just trying, underneath it all, to show how uneducated they are, but that they really do want to say something.
It comes off as them wanting to educate me to stop trying to be so responsible altogether, because their too ingnorant to accept the real world. Because they can't guaruntee my newborn an adequate life any more than I can! It angers me how nieve and ideal, and resistant to the realities of how f-cked up this world is.
I'll say this one again...every pro-lifer there is ought to put money into a welfare plan so that people who do not want to abort will have a way that that don't have to. Otherwise they should keep their mouths shut.

Maybe mommy and daddy provided you with enough, and can, so that life is comfortable for you. But that's all the more you don't know about life, now, huh, Jr.? If you had to live poor, you'd find out some rude awakenings about the rich. Like, shouldn't we all govern how much natural materials people are allowed to spend their money on? That does affects us all. But abortion is the woman herself's issue who is facing the choice.
If I couldn't find an adoptive family that would be willing to share the happiness for the financial help, and I stay in the picture for the sake of my youngster, I think I could abort instead.
It increases my chances that later on I'll be better set up to take on all the responsibilites of parenthood, especially if that means getting a job too, shit, it's already going to ruin my social life. That's probably what most of it is about. The expectation that the mother work to provide for her own child.
With so much war, it's already prevalent that there are not enough suitable males to provide for each female to have a choice partner for the purpose of family. Funny, how we have a president who claims to believe in faimily values, but yet allowes so many young men to die or become disabled, due to war.
There's many reasons to abort these days, and it's such a sensitive issue, that the decision should really, always remain the woman's. No questions asked. Some women abort simply because they know they cannot provide for the child...and there's no guarunteed options...meanwhile some people walk around with their dumb signs and their wailings that abortion is murder. And there are church groups who pay them to do that!
If I had a child die in a war, I think I'd look on abortion as something extremely trivial.

 

*knocks*

Hellooooooo.

Excuse me.

Is there anyone there?!?

Are you here to have a conversation or just to rant????

 

I know it's alot of reading, but I hope this is the logic you wanted.

 

What if all I have left to do is rant?

 

That's up to you. But it doesn't generally serve much purpose. All ranting tends to do is alientate people. Might it not be a better idea to have some dialogue?

 

You have some interesting opinions. I wonder how far you have actually thought them through. Do you understand what is being implied? The implications? I’ll take this post piece by piece.

There are three main points and some minor ones that you raise in this section. I will paraphrase them here:

1) Murder only occurs when the victim is capable of living separate from the mother. Anything that can not live separately is not ‘alive’. Even having a heartbeat is not enough to make it alive.

2) The fetus is a part of the mother. Akin to a fingernail.

3) Where is the line to be drawn with respect to murder?

The first assertion is absurd, unless you are willing to agree that the killing of a neonate is not murder. You seem to be basing your case on the fact that the fetus is not equipped with the ability to survive on it’s own. It is in a sense, completely reliant on the mother. Accepting that only those things that can survive by virtue of their own capabilities, we would have to admit that killing a child up until the age of four is not murder. Infants and most children are completely dependent on their mothers for life. This is the case unless you are willing to argue that the amount of time that a child lives after being completely ‘separated’ from its mother is the deciding factor.

Completely separate from the mother, a five-month-old baby would die, just like a fetus would. It would take a little longer because the lungs have had time to develop, but it would die in every case. There are no five-month-old babies that are completely self-sufficient.

What you have done, in arguing that murder only happens when the victim is self-sufficient, is justified the killing of neonates. Are you prepared to accept that? Is it okay with you that by your argument only, a father could kill his newborn girl?

What argument could you offer to show me that fetuses are different in their dependence on others for survival than a neonate?

The second assertion, that a human baby (complete with his or her own heartbeat and DNA) is a part of a mother, is made absurd by considerations of the implications, like the first one.

To say that the fetus is only a part of the mother is analogous to saying that I am only a part of an airplane when it flies. The argument rests on the notion that the fetus is not self-sufficient. I am not self-sufficient when I am in an airplane. If I am separated from an airplane I die within seconds. If a fetus is separated from his host, he dies within seconds.

I am prepared to accept that I am akin to a fetus when I am in an airplane, but are you willing to accept the implications of this fact?

Suppose you and I were on a flight together. Suppose I shot you in the head on the plane. According to your argument (aka fetus is only a ‘part’) I could only be charged with vandalism. Are you prepared to accept that? Is it okay with you that by your argument only, anyone could take the life of any other on a plane because people are not self-sufficient outside of a plane in flight?

The third point, of where we ought to draw the line, ought to be posed to you, not me. I have no line, a person is a person the second the process of conception begins, and is also a person by virtue of being conceived of two human beings.

Where do you draw the line?

If a person is only someone who is self-sufficient and can breathe, than you have eliminated newborn babies, coma patients, persons on life support, and persons with debilitating diseases as people!

Are you prepared to accept the implications of your limits on what makes a person?

It is funny that you ask me that. I wouldn’t “rate [a fetus] against all that”, I would count a fetus with all that. Every time a young man gets drafted an injustice is done, every time an innocent civilian gets killed an injustice is done, and every time a woman declares another person “part” of her because it can’t survive without her an injustice is done.

I don’t count a tiny fetus against the ruins of the world. I count a tiny fetus in the ruin of the world.

YOU count the fetus against those things. You attempt to say that killing a fetus isn’t killing. You justify that injustice, I don’t.

I don’t insist on trusting women to be better. That is the very reason that I don’t want abortion to be legal, because women can not be trusted not to do it when it is permissible. Women shouldn’t have the right to choose because they aren’t aware of what is right and wrong in the first place. Don’t get me confused with the sexist. If men were the ones who were naturally endowed with the gift of pregnancy I would be making the same argument.

That is sexism.

You are a sexist?

I do, but feel that capital punishment is more akin to abortion than is drafting.

No.

Even if that were the only choice in life, it would still be better to have a child than to abort it, as you suggest.

18 years is a long time. An 18 year old can think and have fun, in essence it can live. Is the reason for prematurely ending a life only that life ends?

Are you prepared to accept the implications of your argument? Are you okay with knowing that by your argument only, every person ought not to live because they will die sometimes?

Laughable at best.

One reason ... because the soldiers are fighting and dying so that you can have the ability to spout your arrogant opinion on the internet without having to be held accountable for having an arrogant opinion.

Because the reason soldiers do what they do is different from why women do what they do.

One forfeits their right to life to protect your right to choose, the other denies a right to life in order that their right to choose is upheld.

I can easily shift the burden of guilt to women who abort. I can not easily shift the burden of guilt on a soldier because of what he is giving in order that you can do what you do.

You actually believe that in more cases than not the fetus will have any chance at any given particular? That would only be the case if more fetuses than not died. That just isn’t the case.

More fetuses become adults than fetuses die.

The actual numbers are against you.

I felt you were merely misguided until you said you believed in reincarnation, what a joke.

Please. You’ve insulted us all.

 

Michael, you never had a child.

That thing in her belly wasn't human.

Stop being so delusional.

 

that was harsh...i somewhat agree but it was a bit harsh.. we don't know the full story or how many weeks the 'baby' had reached ?

 

Out of all the responses I thought I might get I never thought I'd get agreement.

I’m sorry you agree and I pity you for doing so.

 

why ?.. i was not fully agreeing with you..and i did say it was harsh.