|
Post by Casual Observer on Jan 22, 2007 12:37:30 GMT -5
Exactly. A personal choice is a personal choice. People should have the right to decide what to do with their own body. I'm not going to stand here and say "you can't do that cause I say so" You have the right to do what you want with your own body as long as it doesn't affect the life or liberties of another person. The baby is a person and it's not the mother's body but is in her body. Big difference. I have respect for your stance here! How could any moral person argue? Morgan
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 22, 2007 12:59:13 GMT -5
You have the right to do what you want with your own body as long as it doesn't affect the life or liberties of another person. The baby is a person and it's not the mother's body but is in her body. Big difference. I have respect for your stance here! How could any moral person argue? Morgan I'm in debate as to whether or not Morgan is being sarcastic. But Like I said before, in the cases of rape or medical injury to the mother, if it is known before the "cells" progress too far, when it's a thumbnail lump of rapidly expanding cells, it is by no means a "person" it's a malfunction and disruption of cells. At this stage it is no more than a mere tumor in the body. It is the development of a heart and brain that turn it into an actual being. In the place of a vegetable, if it will have no brain function anyway, how is that considered a human. You may argue that it is the same as if the thing was born and is a crumpled ball in a chair, but it's not. It has not breathed air, it is still a physical part of a womans body. It is still similar to that of a tumor. To that of sperm itself to be honest. I'm not going to get perverse here, because I honestly can and I could send you to 400 references of fetal development, even though there is a debate at what point a fetus becomes cognitively aware and becomes an actual baby in the womb, there is a point before that when this thing doesn't even know it's alive. It can't know the difference because it doesn't have a brain. It is a tumor, a plant, a disruption of cells within the body. I would rather a person in an actual clinic where their health, and the progression of the fetus can be monitored and they actually KNOW that it is a viable time to do the procedure, than for someone to go out and throw themselves down a flight of stairs, or use "tools" (again avoiding being descriptive and crude) to rid themselves of a fetus thereby endangering their own lives and potentially just damaging the fetus and causing a healthy fetus, a healthy baby, to be born deformed and "messed up" because they couldn't access a place to help them. You cannot predict how someone's Psyche can or will handle something. Something that might not bother or disrupt you or I may drive someone to extreme measures and cause more harm than would of happened in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 22, 2007 13:19:09 GMT -5
Some Libertarian quotes, since this has been a debate among them as well. I agree with the first quote but not the second. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion"Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception.""A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb."The second quote would make sense if it were valid. To say that a baby is in the womb only by permission of the mother, doesn't account for the FACT that the baby had nothing to do with being conceived in that specific womb. There are two individuals at most that made the decision, neither one being the baby, so the responsibility is not on the shoulders of the baby at all, nor should the consequences be. Person hood can not be determined by a person's age or mental/physical development. There are many people in coma's that are not cognitively aware of anything but their person hood still remains. Opening this door of interpretation of those in power to make decisions that impact those not in power, such as a baby or disabled person would not be right. "A person is an entity having a distinct identity with certain distinguishable and persistent characteristics."A fetus falls under the defintion of a person, it has unique DNA.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 22, 2007 13:47:38 GMT -5
I have to admit I had to read both of those paragraphs a few times to fully understand what they meant.
I also have to admit I was taken aback by the first sentance of the second paragraph.
I agree with the first one (after I understood it) but again it is intent verses subtance. I think I said that right. Did you intend to cause harm or is it just considered harm by the context of the situation. That's a whole new debate.
However, in the second paragraph I sort of agree. I emphasize for a reason. This paragraph doesn't encompass rape, where the woman is of no choice whatsoever in the matter. She did not CHOOSE to be raped. It was against her will and now she is pregnant against her will. There for she has not given the "right" to the fetus in her body. In the case of, and honestly I'm trying to find a better word but it's still not in my grasp, a mutation we'll say, she did not choose that either. In the case of medical, she did not choose to put her life at risk (unless she was told previously to not try and she still tried anyway OR did not use birth control and again it's an "oops") she is choosing her life over another.
On the other hand, once a woman has gotten pregnant through planning or recklessness, she has then granted the right for the fetus to use her body as a means of surviving. And in all honesty is feels weird saying that. But i'm trying to be as flat and blatant as the original writer of that comment.
THe woman has made the cognative choice by either action or inaction to be pregnant, since she made that choice of her own free will then yes that baby has a right to be there because she gave it that right. And that's why I think as a means of population control it's wrong. She could have taken steps to prevent the pregancy but she didn't. Therefore she has taken her rights and gave them to the developing baby.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 22, 2007 14:26:28 GMT -5
........ I agree with the first one (after I understood it) but again it is intent verses subtance. I think I said that right. Did you intend to cause harm or is it just considered harm by the context of the situation. That's a whole new debate. However, in the second paragraph I sort of agree. I emphasize for a reason. This paragraph doesn't encompass rape, where the woman is of no choice whatsoever in the matter. She did not CHOOSE to be raped. It was against her will and now she is pregnant against her will. There for she has not given the "right" to the fetus in her body. In the case of, and honestly I'm trying to find a better word but it's still not in my grasp, a mutation we'll say, she did not choose that either. In the case of medical, she did not choose to put her life at risk (unless she was told previously to not try and she still tried anyway OR did not use birth control and again it's an "oops") she is choosing her life over another. ..... Since we both agree it is wrong in terms of using abortion as a method for birth control, I'll save space and time to not discuss that with you going forward. While it is true that a woman did not give consent for a rape, there are a lot of situations in life were we do not consent or desire for something to occur but we deal with it appropriately. I don't consider the baby as being the root cause of the problem and therefore any action towards the baby would result in no change to the problem but could add to the problem. I would add the following links for reading since they address your very arguments: www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life005.htmlwww.epm.org/articles/exceptrape.html
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 22, 2007 14:41:22 GMT -5
Well that is true. BUt like I sated previously, there might be situation you or I could handle rationally and see no problem, but you never know how something could damage a person's pshyce.
I do not have a degree in pshycology but I can tell you this, everyone, and I mean everyone on God's green earth will react differently to the exact same situation. Maybe outwards you can't tell, but inwards it's a new situation. Maybe woman A will choose to keep the child and love it as her own flesh and blood and not be daunted by the stigma of the situation, but maybe woman B is so emtionally and physically damaged that she cannot handle it and her own emotionally damaged state would be an unsafe candiate to keep a child. Maybe she might dump it in the trash outside the nearest supermarket just to be rid of what happened to her. Maybe woman C will be so desperate she resorts to self mutilation to rid herself of the baby and in the process causes herself to be hospitalized for the rest of her life. Maybe woman D will just commit suicide right off the bat.
You do not know how someone will react and I would rather see woman A happen, but I would rather woman B, C and D have been prevented somehow.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 22, 2007 14:53:28 GMT -5
Well that is true. BUt like I sated previously, there might be situation you or I could handle rationally and see no problem, but you never know how something could damage a person's pshyce. I do not have a degree in pshycology but I can tell you this, everyone, and I mean everyone on God's green earth will react differently to the exact same situation. Maybe outwards you can't tell, but inwards it's a new situation. Maybe woman A will choose to keep the child and love it as her own flesh and blood and not be daunted by the stigma of the situation, but maybe woman B is so emtionally and physically damaged that she cannot handle it and her own emotionally damaged state would be an unsafe candiate to keep a child. Maybe she might dump it in the trash outside the nearest supermarket just to be rid of what happened to her. Maybe woman C will be so desperate she resorts to self mutilation to rid herself of the baby and in the process causes herself to be hospitalized for the rest of her life. Maybe woman D will just commit suicide right off the bat. You do not know how someone will react and I would rather see woman A happen, but I would rather woman B, C and D have been prevented somehow. Woman B doesn't have to keep a child, she could put the child up for adoption or drop it off at a hospital, either way, her conscious would be clean. Woman C I am afraid needs actual mental heath counseling because she is going to do something self destructive regardless. I agree that different women will handle situations differently, that is why it is important that she be given support from family and medical support to deal with the crime committed against her. Failure to do so is where the problem lies.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 22, 2007 15:09:40 GMT -5
Well yes the real problem does like in the education of choice. And the support of medical professionals. Actually some of these "Abortion clinics" spend more time talking women out of doing it than actually doing it. That place that got bombed here a few years back didn't even do the actual procedure, they just educated and counseled the women in attempts to convince them to not do it. However, not all women have family support I'm afraid so they have no choice but the rely on medical professionals trained to assist them in the times of crisis. However, it is the uninformed of their options that continue forward. All that being said I still stand by my opinion that it is their choice and to prevent them from being able to make that choice on their own free will can have dire circumstances. In the case of woman B, she may have no clue or even fear repercussions, that is why you hear about this exact story over and over again in the news. Poor education. Honestly, I think my mom would be thrilled if I said "here have a baby, I don't want it" of course she'd beat my tail into the ground first, but after wards she'd be happier I gave it a chance than to have not. You also need to understand that, the woman will have to live with her decision the rest of her life regardless. She will spend the rest of her life going "what if" but the decision should be hers to make. Which is why again I say "as a means of birth control" is wrong because it allows a woman to have no responsibility for her actions. When it's not her actions, it should be her decision which she will live with for the rest of her life. If a female (woman sounds too mature) thinks that "meh, I'm pregnant, I don't want it, I think I'll go get one of them there abortion thingies" is NOT taking responsibilities for her actions and apparently has NO cognitive understanding of what she is about to do not only to herself but to what is growing in side her and completely invalidate a real woman's real decision to take her life into her own hands after a tragedy of some form. Yes C and D needed severe pchycological help, but I would rather they be aware of their options other than drastic measures they think are their only options. Also, I appologize if I'm longwinded... I have yet to figure out how to curb the habit
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 22, 2007 17:34:04 GMT -5
" I am not pro choice, but that is a PERSONAL choice, not one I could or would force on another." that is WHY debate with you is difficult dixie, YOU contradict yourself. saying that it IS a "personal choice" IS the very essence of being "pro choice". OK, bill, since you INSIST on being thick and dense, let me draw you a picture. I DO NOT believe in abortion. I believe abortion id wrong no matter what. I believe God has put every life here for a reason and that distroying that is a sin. That being said. I do not feel that MY PERSONAL choices in life should ever be inflicted on another living soul. If my sister, or niece, or even my daughter, when she gets older, were in a situation, I would be there and I would listen and I would support, but I would not try to change her mind. It is not my place in interject myself on another's free will. Is THAT so hard for you to understand?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 22, 2007 17:42:08 GMT -5
OK, let me interject something here. When a woman is seen at the hospital for a rape, she is offered the "morning after" cocktail. This is to prevent a resulting pregnancy. Many women REFUSE to take this. Also, it is avaliable OVER THE COUNTER at many drugstores. A woman who is raped but does not want to report it to the hospital can go to the drug store and stop any chance of pregnancy before it begins. Is this abortion? Is stoping a pregnancy any more of an abortion than taking the pill? ("Morning After" is just a high dose of birth control) Things to think about.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 22, 2007 17:46:19 GMT -5
Honestly?
Honestly this will be my shortest post on the subject.
I stated before that at the begining it's just a mass of cells no more than a tumor, so the morning after pill is sort of like "tidybowl" for a rape victim.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 22, 2007 17:48:07 GMT -5
dixie that is my POINT...you said you were NOT "pro choice" then went on to elaborate TWICE now that you feel it isnt for you to decide but for the individual person.
that IS PRO CHOICE.
i think the problem here is YOU equate calling yourself being "pro choice" with being PRO abortion.
the position of PRO CHOICE is neutral on the issue, neither for nor against, it just says each person should have the right to decide for theirself.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 22, 2007 18:01:48 GMT -5
bill, get the wax that is stopping you from understands out of your head. I am PRO LIFE by my choice. I will not inflict my choice on another. Why is that so HARD TO GRASP?
And I am also pro death penalty. Try and find something wrong with that,too. I quit.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 22, 2007 19:21:10 GMT -5
Honestly? Honestly this will be my shortest post on the subject. I stated before that at the begining it's just a mass of cells no more than a tumor, so the morning after pill is sort of like "tidybowl" for a rape victim. This will be my shortest post on the subject. If you believe life begins at conception then use of the pill is intent for conception to not occur. Using the morning after pill is intent to kill a conceived child. The first one is used to prevent conception, the later is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg(conception occurred). One thought...a lot of rapists convicted, sentenced and released from jail rape again. I think they should be sterilized as part of their punishment but that would be considered unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 22, 2007 19:27:01 GMT -5
Honestly? Honestly this will be my shortest post on the subject. I stated before that at the begining it's just a mass of cells no more than a tumor, so the morning after pill is sort of like "tidybowl" for a rape victim. This will be my shortest post on the subject. If you believe life begins at conception then use of the pill is intent for conception to not occur. Using the morning after pill is intent to kill a conceived child. The first one is used to prevent conception, the later is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg(conception occurred). One thought...a lot of rapists convicted, sentenced and released from jail rape again. I think they should be sterilized as part of their punishment but that would be considered unconstitutional. The point of the "morning after" pill is to PREVENT conception. It isn't supposed to be an abortion in pill form. I do not even know if it could END a pregnancy once conception has occured. Many women continue to take their pill not knowing they are pregnant, with no ill effects. But PREVENTING conception is no different that taking birth control.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 22, 2007 19:41:34 GMT -5
This will be my shortest post on the subject. If you believe life begins at conception then use of the pill is intent for conception to not occur. Using the morning after pill is intent to kill a conceived child. The first one is used to prevent conception, the later is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg(conception occurred). One thought...a lot of rapists convicted, sentenced and released from jail rape again. I think they should be sterilized as part of their punishment but that would be considered unconstitutional. The point of the "morning after" pill is to PREVENT conception. It isn't supposed to be an abortion in pill form. I do not even know if it could END a pregnancy once conception has occured. Many women continue to take their pill not knowing they are pregnant, with no ill effects. But PREVENTING conception is no different that taking birth control. The only thing it does in comparison with the pill is thickening of the uterus wall to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. If a rape victim is already on the pill, then the other two factors, which deal with conception are addressed, mainly the prevention of ovulation and the thickening of the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from entering. The women that get raped with a resulting pregnancy are not taking birth control pills. Rare exception of course considering that the pill prevents pregnancies at a 98% level and add on that a rape is not a condusive manner to get pregnant in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 22, 2007 23:34:16 GMT -5
bill-
I'd point out that the redefinition of terms is symptomatic of both sides.
I think there is more than enough compelling evidence that there is a segment of the so-called "pro choice" side that is more correctly described as being "pro abortion" in that they see abortion as merely another form of birth control.
I'll give you a case in point:
Bernard Goldberg wrote in his "110 People Who Are Screwing Up America" about a woman from New York who wrote an opinion piece in a magazine about her experience.
She wrote that she found herself pregnant with triplets after forgetting to use her regular means of birth control. That such a development didn't fit with her chosen lifestyle came to her when she considered the possibility of having to purchase mayonnaise in five gallon jars at the local warehouse club (I'm not joking). She simply didn't see herself doing that.
Her solution?
She underwent a medical proceedure known as "selective reduction" in which the woman decides how many fetuses she wishes to carry and has the other(s) aborted. In her case, she was carrying identical twins and a single and elected to abort the twins. In no stretch of the imagination was she at any undue medical risk if she had carried the children to term, nor did she indicate that she would be unable to care for multiple children. She made it VERY clear that this was a lifestyle choice.
This is why I asked the question of tragicpizza. I don't think there is all that much support for the extreme 'pro choice' position- that being abortion on demand at any time and for any reason. If I had to guess, I'd say there is far greater support for the diametric opposite view on the 'pro life' side- banning all abortion under any circumstances (though we're probably talking about small minorities on both extremes). A decided majority when polled (and you know how I feel about polls), state that they are not opposed to at least some restrictions on abortion.
I guess my question now would be, Can you support reasonable (and 'reasonable' is in the eye of the beholder I realize) restrictions on abortion and still be considered 'pro choce'....or even 'pro life' come to think on it?
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 23, 2007 7:56:32 GMT -5
Also, if you refuse the morning after pill, at that point you are taking full responsibility over the possibility of a pregnancy and that would be my only exception to the cause. If you were raped, and you are handed a pill and told "this will prevent you from getting pregnant from this" and you refuse, then you are saying "I don't mind if I wound up pregnant" Now, conception is is when the egg firmly attaches to the wall of the uterus and starts to grow. I don't necessarily believe in life at conception because a tumor or cancer cell acts much the same way. It travels through the system and attaches to a part of the body and starts to grow. Is having a tumor removed the same as an abortion at this stage to you? Let's say it's a brain tumor (which btw my mom has had 2 removed) should she carry around the stigma of aborting her brain tumors? Again I state that I don't consider it a life until the brain and heart form. On the case of the perpetrator, forgive me I have to be crude, but I think his weenie should be chopped off and shoved down his throat, but that's just me But on the case of a rape victim previously taking birth control, yes that would be effective, but what of the woman who want to be married before sex (yes, they still exist) or perhaps a woman who is trying to get pregnant with her husband, and a rapist come along and ruins her plans? A woman should not be forced to take birth control on the off chance she may be the next rape victim. People say you are either pro-life or pro-choice. and it's as cut and dry as that. It's not. Nothing ever is. I believe you can be pro-life, think abortion should be banned, but still not try to force your beliefs on anybody, nor should you. No one should have the right to tell someone exactly how they need to think and feel. However, you still need to put laws into place to control and deter the behavior of others. The asinine thing is, our very laws, which are in place to safeguard every human being in our country, are by very nature telling people how to think and feel. A serial killer, especially some that I have studied about in class, thought and felt that it was not wrong to kill someone. They, in their mind, had every right to take the life of another person. So you can't say that you are "pro-death" without letting these murderers do what the hell they want and to kill anyone they want. THAT is what pro-death means. Pro-choice means that you think you, yourself, have the right to go out and have an abortion for whatever reason. Even if it's ONLY special cases, you still believe you should have the right to do so. It does NOT mean that you WILL go out and do this, but that you believe you should have the choice not to. In the case of the whose ruining our country... I had a neighbor, that even into her 7th and 8th month of pregnancy was talking about wanting an abortion. I was appalled at this woman. I asked her my usual questions. Where you raped? is your life in danger? is it set to be severely retarded? What the HELL is WRONG WITH YOU??? When the baby was born... it was the identical twin of a friend of the family and by no means even looked like the father. As a matter of fact, that friend of the family took one look at the baby and took off running, never to be seen or heard from again. Well that answered my questions... But, unfortunately.. they are both unfit parents. More than a few times I will see the child walk up to a bottle of beer and turn it up while they stand around and laugh. A 3 year old getting drunk. Lovely picture that. These people do pot and other drugs all day long, they have wild parties. I feel bad that poor child was even born to that family. We have called DHR, but DHR has yet to do anything. Do I think he should have been aborted? Well maybe if she'd taken the morning after pill the night after her affair... but she made the choice to go ahead and HAVE the affair and I think she should have to live with that. So no, she falls into no special category in my mind and she should raise the child. She made the mistake, she should have to live with it, and she's going to have to. To be honest, the father of the child is either blissfully ignorant, or has just accepted his fate, either way, the child is raised in an unfit home and I wish DHR would step in at this venture... But I digress... The point is, on-demand abortions are as harmful to the body as having a child, if not more so. I think the word I'm hearing is a 2 week recovery as opposed to a 3 or 4 day stay at the hospital. The woman who made the choice will still be physically scarred from it. What worries me is readily available morning after pills. Again to me says "hey, I got drunk and partied, I don't want to take responsibility for my actions, so down the hatch!" Should they be taken off the shelves? There is an untold amount of rapes that go unreported, mostly due to in-education and the want to no longer be a victim, or even the fear of being re-victimized. Should we prevent those women from setting their lives back on track? They've been shamed enough, they don't need it more...
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 23, 2007 9:32:01 GMT -5
"Now, conception is is when the egg firmly attaches to the wall of the uterus and starts to grow. I don't necessarily believe in life at conception because a tumor or cancer cell acts much the same way."
and you would be wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation
"Again I state that I don't consider it a life until the brain and heart form."
and you would be wrong. Are plants, fungi and bacteria alive? They don't have hearts or brains. By 3 weeks after conception(which is the beginning, fertilization) the baby has a brain and a beating heart.
"But on the case of a rape victim previously taking birth control, yes that would be effective, but what of the woman who want to be married before sex (yes, they still exist) or perhaps a woman who is trying to get pregnant with her husband, and a rapist come along and ruins her plans? A woman should not be forced to take birth control on the off chance she may be the next rape victim."
You're always going to find exceptions to the 99% norm. You don't make it legal to go through red lights because of the exception that somebody has a valid emergency, such as a woman in labor. You are arguing from a "point of exceptions", which most pro-choice do. Argue that viewpoint in all other circumstances in life and you will see how ridiculous it is.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 23, 2007 9:50:49 GMT -5
"Now, conception is is when the egg firmly attaches to the wall of the uterus and starts to grow. I don't necessarily believe in life at conception because a tumor or cancer cell acts much the same way."and you would be wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation Again, I state that it is my opinion. My opinion being different from your does not make me wrong. It makes us both right in our own opinions. I fail to see how the part you quote has anything to do with what you say here. Honestly, I'm lost. But in any case, there are exceptions to about every rule you want to throw up. Be it the opinion of one person over another, or an actual, factual case. The point here is, this is my personal opinion on the matter. I have tried incredibly hard to not point out that you are a male and I am a female. You have extremely different views than I do on this particular subject. Had you been a female I might take your opinion a little more validly, but be that as it may you will never have your body ripped apart in the act of child birth. You will never have to have a living being inside your body nor will you ever have to make such hard decisions. You treat it as though there is no decision it is inherently wrong no matter how anyone point out different or has a varying opinion. A man can be raped, and it honestly can be just as humiliating for him as for a female, if not more so. But a female will be stuck with it in a more physical sense for the rest of her life. Sure in male rape cases it's a different hole to be vulgar about it, but nothing will come to life there. You risk nothing but maybe an infection or catching a disease, while women risk everything. They rick disease, infections, tearing, pregnancy, the risk they may never become pregnant again afterwords. The female body is a very delicate balance and one tiny thing can send it into sheer hell. That is why a hysterectomy is the absolute last resort in any case because of the devastating and life threating effects of loosing that part of your body. In the cases of an abortion you are again challenging that delicate balance and ripping a part of it out. In the case of a pregnancy the being is invading the woman's body also changing the complete balance yet again. Why do you think they say women with tattoos shouldn't have children or that you shouldn't get a tattoo while pregnant? A woman's body is a highly sophisticated piece of machinery if you want to call it that. That is the only, I repeat the ONLY reason a woman is the weaker sex. Their body needs to maintain a constant balance. You're not one or you'd know this. Just that one week of the month the body craves certain foods in order to replenish the lost nutrients. I mean I could go on for hours explaining WHY this is should be left up to the woman to decide and exactly what it would do to her body, including risking never being able to have children. A woman who has to make this choice will weigh all of these option before ever deciding on anything. The bottom line is, banning abortion outright, or even allowing an uneducated woman use it as a form of birth control, is not right. A grown, fully intelligent, completely cognitively aware of the consequences woman should have the right to choose what the hell she does with her own d**n body.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Jan 23, 2007 10:12:26 GMT -5
Exactly. A personal choice is a personal choice. People should have the right to decide what to do with their own body. I'm not going to stand here and say "you can't do that cause I say so" You have the right to do what you want with your own body as long as it doesn't affect the life or liberties of another person. The baby is a person and it's not the mother's body but is in her body. Big difference. Dude, when you can get pregnant then you can have a choice. Besides, what happened to 'judge not lest ye shall be judged'? Aren't most of the pro-lifers judging these people according to the pro-life mores? I'm pro-choice because I think if a woman feels she needs to have an abortion (for whatever reason) then by golly, let her have it done in a clean, sterile, unjudging enviroment. A girlfriend of mine became pregnant and decided to have an abortion. She was already raising a child as a single parent. She was also working full-time as an RN. That was her choice, and I supported her choice. When I became pregnant a year or so later, I made the choice to keep my child; I knew I had options. If I hadn't had options, I'd probably had resented the child that took away my footloose and fancy-free life.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 23, 2007 11:23:27 GMT -5
I see.
So, you would like to maintain opinions contrary to fact in regards to what conception is and what life is. I guess that's your prerogative but it does lower your credibility when you discuss facts on a topic.
I am not buying your, "a woman is on the brink of physical destruction" theory. Though you are a woman I find it hard to understand that you do not realize that a woman's body is designed for childbirth....this isn't a matter of pregnancy and childbirth being shoehorned into an inadequate body.
"That is the only, I repeat the ONLY reason a woman is the weaker sex." - uh no, a woman is considered the weaker sex because of the fact a woman does not have the muscle mass of a man. That is the reason, it has nothing to do with ph balance in deodorant, mental abilities, emotional disposition, etc.
"left up to the woman to decide and exactly what it would do to her body, including risking never being able to have children." - this is another pro-choice argument that doesn't make any sense whatsoever...I'm going to abort my baby because if I don't, I won't be able to have children...Hello, you are having a child now?!
"right to choose what the hell she does with her own d**n body." - again, you have the right to choose what you do with YOUR BODY, not the right of ANOTHER BODY that is not yours.
You and Kat have chosen to use the "female card" in discussing an issue. You can do that but remember that it cuts both ways...it will disqualify you in having a valid opinion on a lot of issues that don't relate to you as being women or relate to your experience as a person.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 23, 2007 11:31:07 GMT -5
Did the point make a REALLY loud whizzing noise as it went by or what?
An ABORTION can screw up your body to the point you cannot have children. Not the child birth *smacks forehead*
This proves to me that you do not read the full context, only merely what you wish to disagree with and try to invalidate my opinion by basically calling me stupid. Gee, aren't you spiffy. Instead of taking a calm debate and reassessing your point or even attempting to re-establish your point, you instead try to turn it on both Kat and I and attempt to invalidate a point you have no concept of.
It is a woman's own body. It is not a baby until the cells have multiplied to a certain extent.
Do you eat your bread or do you hug it and love it and encourage the mold to grow because it is an organism. Basically you are insane. Trying to compare mold to a life. I for one bleach the mold or throw it away. Do not compare a tumor to mold to a human.
If I find mold on my bread, lichen on my rocks, I throw the bread away and hose off my rocks.
Do you breath air? I hate to tell you this but you're KILLING thousands of micro organisms with each breath. Go on, save them. Stop breathing.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 23, 2007 11:32:02 GMT -5
You have the right to do what you want with your own body as long as it doesn't affect the life or liberties of another person. The baby is a person and it's not the mother's body but is in her body. Big difference. Dude, when you can get pregnant then you can have a choice. Besides, what happened to 'judge not lest ye shall be judged'? Aren't most of the pro-lifers judging these people according to the pro-life mores? I'm pro-choice because I think if a woman feels she needs to have an abortion (for whatever reason) then by golly, let her have it done in a clean, sterile, unjudging enviroment. A girlfriend of mine became pregnant and decided to have an abortion. She was already raising a child as a single parent. She was also working full-time as an RN. That was her choice, and I supported her choice. When I became pregnant a year or so later, I made the choice to keep my child; I knew I had options. If I hadn't had options, I'd probably had resented the child that took away my footloose and fancy-free life. Wow, resentment is grounds for murder. Why stop at a fetus, why not have the right to kill a child whenever it restricts a person's freedom? If a woman is not able to continue her footloose and fancy-free life due to a 2 year old going through mommy attachment...kill it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 23, 2007 11:35:03 GMT -5
Did the point make a REALLY loud whizzing noise as it went by or what? An ABORTION can screw up your body to the point you cannot have children. Not the child birth *smacks forehead* This proves to me that you do not read the full context, only merely what you wish to disagree with and try to invalidate my opinion by basically calling me stupid. Gee, aren't you spiffy. Instead of taking a calm debate and reassessing your point or even attempting to re-establish your point, you instead try to turn it on both Kat and I and attempt to invalidate a point you have no concept of. It is a woman's own body. It is not a baby until the cells have multiplied to a certain extent. Do you eat your bread or do you hug it and love it and encourage the mold to grow because it is an organism. Basically you are insane. Trying to compare mold to a life. I for one bleach the mold or throw it away. Do not compare a tumor to mold to a human. If I find mold on my bread, lichen on my rocks, I throw the bread away and hose off my rocks. Do you breath air? I hate to tell you this but you're KILLING thousands of micro organisms with each breath. Go on, save them. Stop breathing. I was speaking correctly to the context of your post, which was..."but be that as it may you will never have your body ripped apart in the act of child birth." Your getting silly now.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 23, 2007 11:40:51 GMT -5
And women don't have to sign up for the draft and have their bodies ripped apart by shrapnel. I'd say it's give and take.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 23, 2007 11:43:22 GMT -5
Again, you're not even bother to read anything. It's futile to even bother with you at this juncture.
Go give birth and then come talk to me. Go do extensive studies and talks with real professionals about the situation you are so blissfully unaware of.
Instead of just posting what you want to respond to, read the entire post before you run your mouth.
The act of having a child tears a woman apart and renders her immobile for several days, why do you think you have forced hospital stay and you can't preform certain acts within so many weeks of a child?
In the case of AN ACTUAL ABORTION, you risk never being able to have a child from the damage even THAT causes.
My point which you so blatantly ignored is the fact that, an educated woman who takes all factors in consideration, and is under the original exceptions should be allowed to have an abortion before the tumor like SUBSTANCE is attached.
You yourself compare the beginnings of a "human" as that to mold or lichen or some other single celled organism. Things that we have chemicals to get rid of. It's the same principle as your OWN comment!
But hell, this post will go unnoticed, instead you will pick at one sentence and the rest of the context will be wasted. As is always the case with a closed minded individual who would rather dictate a woman than actually be her partner in life.
It's sad you're so uneducated and closed minded. I hope you have a good life.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Jan 23, 2007 11:46:24 GMT -5
And women don't have to sign up for the draft and have their bodies ripped apart by shrapnel. I'd say it's give and take. I was willing to sign up for the draft when I turned 18. My mother had such a fit that I did not. But yes, women do join the military voluntarily (it is a volunteer military now) and since they do, yes, they are in the position to be ripped apart by shrapnel.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 23, 2007 11:49:45 GMT -5
Man, they called me non-stop.. and I said, look I have a heart condition! do you want me to up and DIE in boot camp? Yeah.. they hung up >:0
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 23, 2007 11:52:07 GMT -5
Again, you're not even bother to read anything. It's futile to even bother with you at this juncture. Go give birth and then come talk to me. Go do extensive studies and talks with real professionals about the situation you are so blissfully unaware of. Instead of just posting what you want to respond to, read the entire post before you run your mouth. The act of having a child tears a woman apart and renders her immobile for several days, why do you think you have forced hospital stay and you can't preform certain acts within so many weeks of a child? In the case of AN ACTUAL ABORTION, you risk never being able to have a child from the damage even THAT causes. My point which you so blatantly ignored is the fact that, an educated woman who takes all factors in consideration, and is under the original exceptions should be allowed to have an abortion before the tumor like SUBSTANCE is attached. You yourself compare the beginnings of a "human" as that to mold or lichen or some other single celled organism. Things that we have chemicals to get rid of. It's the same principle as your OWN comment! But hell, this post will go unnoticed, instead you will pick at one sentence and the rest of the context will be wasted. As is always the case with a closed minded individual who would rather dictate a woman than actually be her partner in life. It's sad you're so uneducated and closed minded. I hope you have a good life. Wow. I never implied that a forming baby was like mold, only that LIFE doesn't consist of an entity with a brain and a heart present. Your calling me uneducated when you don't have basic biology understood. You on the other hand HAVE implied and stated that a forming baby is similar to a tumor, which is incorrect. A tumor is an abnormal growth of tissue. A forming baby is not abnormal nor did it ever consist of the mother's tissue. Do you have children? Did you give birth to them?
|
|