Liberals Against Abortion?
Replies
-
Sure there is! Someone who doesn't have health care sure as heck can't afford to have a baby. If she's struggling already adding a baby, even one that she gives up for adoption, could completely bankrupt her -- and that's if it's a normal, healthy pregnancy and she's able to go back to work immediately. If she has another child or a family to think about that makes it all that much more likely that she would choose abortion.If you want to prevent abortions, you should support sex-ed, birth control, universal healthcare, child care subsidies, paid sick leave and maternity leave, and decent schools in low-income areas. Most people who are anti-abortion are against all of those things, because they are not so much against abortion as in favor of an impoassibly high bar of personal responsibility.
impossibly high!? Gimme a break. That's insulting to every person who's held themself to a standard.
tell me how getting the government in charge of my health care would reduce abortions? There is no correlation.
except planned parenthood already exists. Therefore all her reproductive needs are already being met, at the taxpayers' expense (including the free birth control she should've used). So tell me again why we need the government in control of all of health care?
Uhhhh, Planned Parenthood isn't free.
^^^^This! And not everyone qualifies for free or reduced medical services, but may still not have enough income to allow dr. visits and bc.
When I was in my twenties I wouldn't have ever had a pap if it was not for planned parenthood. I had to pay for it, but it was not as much as going to a regular doctor and I had no access to insurance.0 -
This is something I've struggles with for a while now, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion, if that makes sense.
There are a myriad of reasons that lead to abortion and for me to try to tell other people, who's situation I've never been in, what they can do with their bodies goes against everything I believe.0 -
It not only makes perfect sense, it's the norm among pro-choicers. I've seen pro-lifers who try to say we're pro-abortion. I just laugh. That's utterly ridiculous. Pro-lifers carry around signs saying "Choose Life!" Have you ever seen or heard of anyone (outside of China and the Nazis) saying "Choose Abortion!" Have you ever seen or heard of anyone say "Yay! I get to go have an abortion!" No one is pro abortion, even if that's what they choose. They'd much rather have not gotten pregnant in the first place but since they are they are going to choose what works best for them. That's true of just about everyone who has an unwanted pregnancy. They choose what works best for them but ultimately they wish they hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place. That doesn't mean they regret their child if they choose to keep it. It just means that if they could do it over again they would have had their baby later. Yes, I know there are women out there who will say "Well I was a partier and having a baby made me grow up and change my ways and yadda yadda yadda." That's why I said "just about everyone" and not just "everyone".This is something I've struggles with for a while now, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion, if that makes sense.
There are a myriad of reasons that lead to abortion and for me to try to tell other people, who's situation I've never been in, what they can do with their bodies goes against everything I believe.0 -
I'm a pinko commie liberal, but I am troubled by abortion. Is it really that terrible to have to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption? Or use birth control in the first place?
To the first question, honestly I would answer yes. One of the major reasons why I have zero desire to have children is because pregnancy/childbirth changes your body forever. FOREVER. Even the luckiest of moms see changes in their bodies (specifically lady-parts), and that is usually the way it is, unless the woman chooses to have surgery to fix it. I think about how hard I work NOW to attain the body I want/have, and I can't imagine making it that much more difficult for myself (and carrying a child for nine months) when I know I am going to give it up afterward.
Women tell each other about the pain of childbirth pretty often, but rarely do people talk about the truly awful things that can happen in childbirth - mostly tearing of the perineum and vaginal muscles. These tears can cause some women to leak urine and other bodily fluids, or cause problems with prolapses - it doesn't happen for every woman, but it happens. Plus, I don't know about you, but the use of the word "tear" in reference to my most sensitive body parts doesn't exactly make me jump at the chance to give birth.
Morally, I would rather have an abortion than bring yet another unwanted child into the fostering/adoption system. Another reason I don't want children of my own is because I feel it is selfish to bring yet another person into a world where so many children lack stable, loving homes - just because I want one "of my own". I absolutely encourage people who want children to adopt, so I feel like bringing a child into the world just to add it to the already large number of children up for adoption is selfish and irresponsible.
You also bring up the topic of "just using birth control", and it should be noted that not all adoptions are performed because the couple did not use birth control. Birth control pills fail, condoms rip, and I don't think it's fair to ask the woman to endure the traumatic experience of pregnancy and childbirth, especially when she did what she could to prevent it.
Great topic btw!0 -
except planned parenthood already exists. Therefore all her reproductive needs are already being met, at the taxpayers' expense (including the free birth control she should've used). So tell me again why we need the government in control of all of health care?
Planned parenthood doesn't cover the birth. It doesn't cover anything to do with complications. Different clinics have different things available - some don't even have ultrasounds. And, like Poisongirl pointed out, it still costs it's just done on a sliding scale. Some pay nothing, others pay the full fee.
Er, non-US resident here, so I may be wrong, but according to the US press I read (I have family and friends in the US) Planned Parenthood has just been de-funded in a lot of states, right? So that option no longer really exists for many women.
As for the question about whether or not it's terrible to be forced to carry a baby to full term, and then pursue adoption etc, in short my answer is yes. Regardless of the physical toll of pregnancy, enormous emotional bonds are typically forged between mother and child, particuarly in the latter stages, and the trauma of severing those bonds is enormous to both parties. Guilt, regret, yearning, lack of identity, low self-esteem - these are life-long emotional issues that can result.0 -
Thanks, I meant to mention that too. PP most definitely has been de-funded in many places. The pro-lifers hate them because one of their services is abortion (at some clinics, not all.) But either they don't know or don't care that by taking money away from PP they aren't just taking it away from a potential abortion but also family planning, prenatal care, gyn services, mammograms, etc. It just furthers the notion that those people who want PP gone are pro-fetus, not pro-life. They don't really care about the life once it's born.Er, non-US resident here, so I may be wrong, but according to the US press I read (I have family and friends in the US) Planned Parenthood has just been de-funded in a lot of states, right? So that option no longer really exists for many women.
As for the question about whether or not it's terrible to be forced to carry a baby to full term, and then pursue adoption etc, in short my answer is yes. Regardless of the physical toll of pregnancy, enormous emotional bonds are typically forged between mother and child, particuarly in the latter stages, and the trauma of severing those bonds is enormous to both parties. Guilt, regret, yearning, lack of identity, low self-esteem - these are life-long emotional issues that can result.0 -
:flowerforyou:0
-
Do your research, nearly all foster care children are not eligible for adoption because of the red tape to take away all parental rights. And making laws that violate the conscience rights of religious foster and adoption organizations doesn't help the system, but instead puts more burden on it.Is it really that terrible to have to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption?
um. from what i've heard, pregnancy and childbirth is pretty excruciating and emotionally draining. to demand that a woman go through this knowing she won't keep the child is extremely selfish. and adoption? there is a serious unbalance of children who need to be adopted versus parents willing to adopt.
i agree with this. i think schools need to include birth control options with sexual education instead of this 'abstinence' teaching because these same people who are anti-abortion will be calling these teen moms *kitten* in the back of their mindsOr use birth control in the first place?Now, I'm not in favor of banning abortion, since banning it has never been shown to reduce the actual number of abortions, only their safety. However, I do wish there was a movement dedicated to actually reducing abortions through better birth control, adoption and economic equality (so people can afford to raise their children).
again, with adoption, it's a hit or miss, because there's a serious disproportionate ratio of children to be adopted to willing parents. and that's why we have foster care, and children bouncing from home to home. i believe with better birth control education there can be maybe a prevention of some, but the thing about it is that no birth control is 100%, and why should someone be penalized for taking every precaution and still ending up pregnant? bottom line, no woman should be told, or judged about what she can and cannot do with her body.
As a woman who has had three children, childbirth is different for everyone, including the pain. OP, I am 100% PRO-LIFE. I really don't like nor appreciate the manipulation of language by those who want to hijack this issue by sugar coating what is a terribly brutal murder of a truly defenseless human being.
Everyone else, I would advise you to research photos of aborted humans and come back and state again how you support the right to do this to another human. Saying you support this is like saying you support killing your best friend or anyone else for that matter.0 -
PP does not provide mammograms so you might as well stop spreading that lie.
Thanks, I meant to mention that too. PP most definitely has been de-funded in many places. The pro-lifers hate them because one of their services is abortion (at some clinics, not all.) But either they don't know or don't care that by taking money away from PP they aren't just taking it away from a potential abortion but also family planning, prenatal care, gyn services, mammograms, etc. It just furthers the notion that those people who want PP gone are pro-fetus, not pro-life. They don't really care about the life once it's born.Er, non-US resident here, so I may be wrong, but according to the US press I read (I have family and friends in the US) Planned Parenthood has just been de-funded in a lot of states, right? So that option no longer really exists for many women.
As for the question about whether or not it's terrible to be forced to carry a baby to full term, and then pursue adoption etc, in short my answer is yes. Regardless of the physical toll of pregnancy, enormous emotional bonds are typically forged between mother and child, particuarly in the latter stages, and the trauma of severing those bonds is enormous to both parties. Guilt, regret, yearning, lack of identity, low self-esteem - these are life-long emotional issues that can result.0 -
I agree with a lot of what you said. I had a crisis pregnancy, was a result of a crisis pregnancy, and can't stress enough how it is so important to emotionally and spiritually support the mothers. No matter what they will have struggles. Post-abortive women however, don't have PP and their likes offering them hope and walking them through grieving their loss, that's where the pro-life community comes in and helps in the healing process though many seem to shy away from mentioning that hugely important fact.I agree with you completely OP! I am vehemently against abortion, however, pro-choice for pretty much the reasons you stated. I would never pass judgement on someone who was raped and chose abortion, though i would encourage them to go the adoption route, regardless of chosen route I would love and support them. HOWEVER I do have a huge problem with people using abortion as birth control. The pull and pray method is not effective and if you get pregnant while using it then freakin woman up and carry the child to term. Of course I don't have a copy of it, but I imagine a handful of you have seen the email about all the famous/influential people who were carried to term either though they were born into very unfortunate circumstances...you never know what your unborn child will grow up to become0 -
PP does not provide mammograms so you might as well stop spreading that lie.
Thanks, I meant to mention that too. PP most definitely has been de-funded in many places. The pro-lifers hate them because one of their services is abortion (at some clinics, not all.) But either they don't know or don't care that by taking money away from PP they aren't just taking it away from a potential abortion but also family planning, prenatal care, gyn services, mammograms, etc. It just furthers the notion that those people who want PP gone are pro-fetus, not pro-life. They don't really care about the life once it's born.Er, non-US resident here, so I may be wrong, but according to the US press I read (I have family and friends in the US) Planned Parenthood has just been de-funded in a lot of states, right? So that option no longer really exists for many women.
As for the question about whether or not it's terrible to be forced to carry a baby to full term, and then pursue adoption etc, in short my answer is yes. Regardless of the physical toll of pregnancy, enormous emotional bonds are typically forged between mother and child, particuarly in the latter stages, and the trauma of severing those bonds is enormous to both parties. Guilt, regret, yearning, lack of identity, low self-esteem - these are life-long emotional issues that can result.
Perhaps not, but they do seem to provide breast exams, referrals, and in some cases, funding for mammograms when neccessary, as well as cervical smear tests and a whole raft of other essential health procedures. Mammograms or no mammograms, that sounds like a good service to me. It also seems rather rude to accuse someone of "spreading a lie" - perhaps next time you could simply say that "PP does not provide mammograms" and point to the information online to back this up.0 -
The way I ultimately look at this, if you conceive a child you don't want and can live with the option of abortion you should have the right to do so. With the population now over 7 billion, we do not have room for an extra, unwanted child (that sounds reallly harsh, of course every child should be wanted... but its not always the case!)
What I worry about when it comes to abortion is the type of people who wouldn't get one. From personal experiences (and general assumptions) I always think education= pro abortion (for fear of ruining one's own life). Drug addicted, school drop outs = against abortion (because they can't afford it )
I KNOW those aren't the only two cases, but its always the general case I think of in terms of abortion. I'm not sure how abortion works in other countries, but I think abortion should be a government funded procedure (with limitations of course).
If you have become pregnant and don't want the child but can't afford the procedure, the government should offer assistance. Simple as that. If you can't afford a procedure which is minuscule in respect to the cost of raising a child you should have options.0 -
"Where Can I Get a Mammogram?
Ask your health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center about where you can get a mammogram in your area."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/mammogram-21195.htm
Hope that helps0 -
I'm liberal on somethings, conservative on others, but I am pro-choice up until the baby can survive outside the womb. Then I'm pro-life. It's a tricky issue because if you say that a baby has the potential to be a human, there for is a life, where is that bar set. Sperm has the potential to become life, as do eggs. So since we don't actually know when the human being attains consciousness, I think if he/she can survive on it's own, it has rights. If it can't, then it's potential to become a human doesn't trump a woman's civil liberties and ownership of her body.0
-
I'm a pinko commie liberal, but I am troubled by abortion. Is it really that terrible to have to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption? Or use birth control in the first place?
To the first question, honestly I would answer yes. One of the major reasons why I have zero desire to have children is because pregnancy/childbirth changes your body forever. FOREVER. Even the luckiest of moms see changes in their bodies (specifically lady-parts), and that is usually the way it is, unless the woman chooses to have surgery to fix it. I think about how hard I work NOW to attain the body I want/have, and I can't imagine making it that much more difficult for myself (and carrying a child for nine months) when I know I am going to give it up afterward.
Women tell each other about the pain of childbirth pretty often, but rarely do people talk about the truly awful things that can happen in childbirth - mostly tearing of the perineum and vaginal muscles. These tears can cause some women to leak urine and other bodily fluids, or cause problems with prolapses - it doesn't happen for every woman, but it happens. Plus, I don't know about you, but the use of the word "tear" in reference to my most sensitive body parts doesn't exactly make me jump at the chance to give birth.
Youre quite right, pregnancyn and childbirth wreaks havoc on the body. The hardest thing to get past is that i'll never look good naked again. So many women have continence issues forever, end up in a wheelchair when their pelvis splits. Ive known of women that have torn literally front to back in childbirth. Hundreds of stitches. One friend i knew tore right through to her bowel and was still under her surgeon several years later.
I think i came out relatively unscathed compared to a lot of people, although i do have issues and had some surgery to repair some of the damage but psychologically ive never been the same since i had severe PND after my last child. I just dont seem to be able to get that under control and i NEVER had mental health problems before that.
Anti-choice people always act like pregnancy is just some walk in the park. A 9 month holiday and then quickly nip and pop a baby out and hand it over to someone with a smile. What a laugh. Do you know what. Id rather DIE.
I dont believe an embryo is a person. I think its an embryo. The only thing that makes it a person, is whether its mother WANTS it to be one. Its cute to think of it as a little baby, but its not. It doesnt think, it doesnt feel. Yes it possibly would if you left it alone, but it certainly doesnt at 6/7 weeks, or when the vast majority of abortions are performed.
If some law was passed to make every woman that ever accidently found herself pregnant, to carry that pregnancy to term and then give birth no matter what, it would be barbaric.
There are so many reasons to keep it legal and safe, and the ONLY reason to make it illegal would be some cutesy anthropomorphisation of a bunch of cells.
I cant even believe someone is trying to compare it to killing a friend etc.0 -
"Where Can I Get a Mammogram?
Ask your health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center about where you can get a mammogram in your area."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/mammogram-21195.htm
Hope that helps
It does - thank you!0 -
I'm liberal on somethings, conservative on others, but I am pro-choice up until the baby can survive outside the womb. Then I'm pro-life. It's a tricky issue because if you say that a baby has the potential to be a human, there for is a life, where is that bar set. Sperm has the potential to become life, as do eggs. So since we don't actually know when the human being attains consciousness, I think if he/she can survive on it's own, it has rights. If it can't, then it's potential to become a human doesn't trump a woman's civil liberties and ownership of her body.
Very much how I feel on this subject also. Pregnancy is essentially a parasitic condition - the parasite cannot survive without the host until a certain point. Until the parasite is capable of survival on its' own, then the health and well-being of the host must be the primary concern. Once the parasite can survive without the host, then it is a viable life and should be protected.
I know this sounds like very harsh terminology and a very cold way of viewing the relationship, but scientifically, this describes the nature of pregnancy very accurately. If viewed this way, the issues become much more cut and dried for me. Similarly, I am a liberal conservative, or should that be a conservative liberal? In the UK, the former for sure. In the US, I suspect the latter would be more accurate!0 -
i start to get very mixed feelings the later into a pregnancy it goes, I think probably most people do the more it starts developing into a recognisable baby. Thankfully late abortions only account for a tiny fraction of a percentage of all abortions performed and are usually only done for severe disabilities that cant be picked up until a fairly late stage, so in those cases i wouldnt judge and just be sympathetic to whoever has to make that horrible decision because all the late stage abortions ive ever heard of have been of much wanted pregnancies and its been very traumatic.0
-
I'm liberal on somethings, conservative on others, but I am pro-choice up until the baby can survive outside the womb. Then I'm pro-life. It's a tricky issue because if you say that a baby has the potential to be a human, there for is a life, where is that bar set. Sperm has the potential to become life, as do eggs. So since we don't actually know when the human being attains consciousness, I think if he/she can survive on it's own, it has rights. If it can't, then it's potential to become a human doesn't trump a woman's civil liberties and ownership of her body.
Very much how I feel on this subject also. Pregnancy is essentially a parasitic condition - the parasite cannot survive without the host until a certain point. Until the parasite is capable of survival on its' own, then the health and well-being of the host must be the primary concern. Once the parasite can survive without the host, then it is a viable life and should be protected.
I know this sounds like very harsh terminology and a very cold way of viewing the relationship, but scientifically, this describes the nature of pregnancy very accurately. If viewed this way, the issues become much more cut and dried for me. Similarly, I am a liberal conservative, or should that be a conservative liberal? In the UK, the former for sure. In the US, I suspect the latter would be more accurate!
Both great points. Until a child has conscious thought, it cannot make its own decisions. Of course, this is the core of the debate. An abortion in my mind is (somewhat) similar to severe brain damage. If the patient's mind forces him to become a theoretical "vegetable", does the family not get right to decide when to the pull the plug? As their conscious mind is unable to decide for them, it is in the hands of the family members (who must care for the patient) to decide.0 -
PP does not provide mammograms so you might as well stop spreading that lie.
Thanks, I meant to mention that too. PP most definitely has been de-funded in many places. The pro-lifers hate them because one of their services is abortion (at some clinics, not all.) But either they don't know or don't care that by taking money away from PP they aren't just taking it away from a potential abortion but also family planning, prenatal care, gyn services, mammograms, etc. It just furthers the notion that those people who want PP gone are pro-fetus, not pro-life. They don't really care about the life once it's born.Er, non-US resident here, so I may be wrong, but according to the US press I read (I have family and friends in the US) Planned Parenthood has just been de-funded in a lot of states, right? So that option no longer really exists for many women.
As for the question about whether or not it's terrible to be forced to carry a baby to full term, and then pursue adoption etc, in short my answer is yes. Regardless of the physical toll of pregnancy, enormous emotional bonds are typically forged between mother and child, particuarly in the latter stages, and the trauma of severing those bonds is enormous to both parties. Guilt, regret, yearning, lack of identity, low self-esteem - these are life-long emotional issues that can result.
Perhaps not, but they do seem to provide breast exams, referrals, and in some cases, funding for mammograms when neccessary, as well as cervical smear tests and a whole raft of other essential health procedures. Mammograms or no mammograms, that sounds like a good service to me. It also seems rather rude to accuse someone of "spreading a lie" - perhaps next time you could simply say that "PP does not provide mammograms" and point to the information online to back this up.
Personal experience. I used PP when I moved states and my existing script wasn't covered because it was from out of state. I went to PP to get a new script for bc pills. While there I mentioned feeling a lump under one breast. They wouldn't fill a script until I had a u/s on it, then a biopsy. I didn't want the biopsy because I was satisfied with the u/s. However, they were there to tell me what to do/where to go. Just because they don't offer the mamo doesn't mean they don't offer a great service to prevention (of many things). BTW - I had 4 month old twins - there was no way I wasn't getting bc - I ended up with the non-hormonal paraguard because they would not give me hormones.0 -
Um, to your last point, not all families care for their kin who cannot respond or appears to be in a vegetative state. It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else). And they recently came out with a study that thow who are deemed "vegetables" (which, imho, is a terrible term violating the dignity of that person) really do have brain activity and are quite aware of what is happening around them: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/brainstudysuggestssomevegetativepatientsareawareI'm liberal on somethings, conservative on others, but I am pro-choice up until the baby can survive outside the womb. Then I'm pro-life. It's a tricky issue because if you say that a baby has the potential to be a human, there for is a life, where is that bar set. Sperm has the potential to become life, as do eggs. So since we don't actually know when the human being attains consciousness, I think if he/she can survive on it's own, it has rights. If it can't, then it's potential to become a human doesn't trump a woman's civil liberties and ownership of her body.
Very much how I feel on this subject also. Pregnancy is essentially a parasitic condition - the parasite cannot survive without the host until a certain point. Until the parasite is capable of survival on its' own, then the health and well-being of the host must be the primary concern. Once the parasite can survive without the host, then it is a viable life and should be protected.
I know this sounds like very harsh terminology and a very cold way of viewing the relationship, but scientifically, this describes the nature of pregnancy very accurately. If viewed this way, the issues become much more cut and dried for me. Similarly, I am a liberal conservative, or should that be a conservative liberal? In the UK, the former for sure. In the US, I suspect the latter would be more accurate!
Both great points. Until a child has conscious thought, it cannot make its own decisions. Of course, this is the core of the debate. An abortion in my mind is (somewhat) similar to severe brain damage. If the patient's mind forces him to become a theoretical "vegetable", does the family not get right to decide when to the pull the plug? As their conscious mind is unable to decide for them, it is in the hands of the family members (who must care for the patient) to decide.
For those of you who see other humans as parasites, seriously, you really believe that crap? Even science acknowledges that from the moment of conception it is a human. So, stop mincing words and call a spade a spade, that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.0 -
i start to get very mixed feelings the later into a pregnancy it goes, I think probably most people do the more it starts developing into a recognisable baby. Thankfully late abortions only account for a tiny fraction of a percentage of all abortions performed and are usually only done for severe disabilities that cant be picked up until a fairly late stage, so in those cases i wouldnt judge and just be sympathetic to whoever has to make that horrible decision because all the late stage abortions ive ever heard of have been of much wanted pregnancies and its been very traumatic.
And in most states they are not legal except for the health/life of the mothers. This varies obviously but in general elective abortions aren't legal past a stage of viability - generally thought to be 24 weeks.0 -
This is what I find so confusing, during a late-term abortion a woman has to go through labor and delivery, so how, in reality, does a woman need a late-term abortion for her health/life? Seriously, this makes zero sense and is frankly blatently obvious killing (they suction out the brains of the baby before the baby is fully out of the vaginal canal).i start to get very mixed feelings the later into a pregnancy it goes, I think probably most people do the more it starts developing into a recognisable baby. Thankfully late abortions only account for a tiny fraction of a percentage of all abortions performed and are usually only done for severe disabilities that cant be picked up until a fairly late stage, so in those cases i wouldnt judge and just be sympathetic to whoever has to make that horrible decision because all the late stage abortions ive ever heard of have been of much wanted pregnancies and its been very traumatic.
And in most states they are not legal except for the health/life of the mothers. This varies obviously but in general elective abortions aren't legal past a stage of viability - generally thought to be 24 weeks.0 -
its an undeveloped, non feeling, non thinking human embryo. of course it is . Its not a person though0
-
Do you have children? I know that when my babies were born they were able to already turn their heads toward the voices they were familiar with.its an undeveloped, non feeling, non thinking human embryo. of course it is . Its not a person though0 -
Um, to your last point, not all families care for their kin who cannot respond or appears to be in a vegetative state. It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else). And they recently came out with a study that thow who are deemed "vegetables" (which, imho, is a terrible term violating the dignity of that person) really do have brain activity and are quite aware of what is happening around them: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/brainstudysuggestssomevegetativepatientsareawareI'm liberal on somethings, conservative on others, but I am pro-choice up until the baby can survive outside the womb. Then I'm pro-life. It's a tricky issue because if you say that a baby has the potential to be a human, there for is a life, where is that bar set. Sperm has the potential to become life, as do eggs. So since we don't actually know when the human being attains consciousness, I think if he/she can survive on it's own, it has rights. If it can't, then it's potential to become a human doesn't trump a woman's civil liberties and ownership of her body.
Very much how I feel on this subject also. Pregnancy is essentially a parasitic condition - the parasite cannot survive without the host until a certain point. Until the parasite is capable of survival on its' own, then the health and well-being of the host must be the primary concern. Once the parasite can survive without the host, then it is a viable life and should be protected.
I know this sounds like very harsh terminology and a very cold way of viewing the relationship, but scientifically, this describes the nature of pregnancy very accurately. If viewed this way, the issues become much more cut and dried for me. Similarly, I am a liberal conservative, or should that be a conservative liberal? In the UK, the former for sure. In the US, I suspect the latter would be more accurate!
Both great points. Until a child has conscious thought, it cannot make its own decisions. Of course, this is the core of the debate. An abortion in my mind is (somewhat) similar to severe brain damage. If the patient's mind forces him to become a theoretical "vegetable", does the family not get right to decide when to the pull the plug? As their conscious mind is unable to decide for them, it is in the hands of the family members (who must care for the patient) to decide.
For those of you who see other humans as parasites, seriously, you really believe that crap? Even science acknowledges that from the moment of conception it is a human. So, stop mincing words and call a spade a spade, that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.
Although I would never have used the term parasite, I don't believe abortion kills a human being because "being" means being. That baby isn't being yet, he/she might be. Let me be clear...you could be right, a early pregnancy fetus might be conscious soul bearing human being, but since that can't be proven, I always chose freedom over life. In this case, it's the mothers freedom over the fetus. But if the fetus can sustain outside the womb, then I think it's rights are equal to that of the mother.0 -
I would caution you to not use the "sustain" outside of the womb because in reality, my babies would have died had I not fed them since they could not go to the store and buy formula and make a bottle themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that they need to be able to sustain themselves, unless you do believe infanticide is okay too?
Um, to your last point, not all families care for their kin who cannot respond or appears to be in a vegetative state. It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else). And they recently came out with a study that thow who are deemed "vegetables" (which, imho, is a terrible term violating the dignity of that person) really do have brain activity and are quite aware of what is happening around them: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/brainstudysuggestssomevegetativepatientsareawareI'm liberal on somethings, conservative on others, but I am pro-choice up until the baby can survive outside the womb. Then I'm pro-life. It's a tricky issue because if you say that a baby has the potential to be a human, there for is a life, where is that bar set. Sperm has the potential to become life, as do eggs. So since we don't actually know when the human being attains consciousness, I think if he/she can survive on it's own, it has rights. If it can't, then it's potential to become a human doesn't trump a woman's civil liberties and ownership of her body.
Very much how I feel on this subject also. Pregnancy is essentially a parasitic condition - the parasite cannot survive without the host until a certain point. Until the parasite is capable of survival on its' own, then the health and well-being of the host must be the primary concern. Once the parasite can survive without the host, then it is a viable life and should be protected.
I know this sounds like very harsh terminology and a very cold way of viewing the relationship, but scientifically, this describes the nature of pregnancy very accurately. If viewed this way, the issues become much more cut and dried for me. Similarly, I am a liberal conservative, or should that be a conservative liberal? In the UK, the former for sure. In the US, I suspect the latter would be more accurate!
Both great points. Until a child has conscious thought, it cannot make its own decisions. Of course, this is the core of the debate. An abortion in my mind is (somewhat) similar to severe brain damage. If the patient's mind forces him to become a theoretical "vegetable", does the family not get right to decide when to the pull the plug? As their conscious mind is unable to decide for them, it is in the hands of the family members (who must care for the patient) to decide.
For those of you who see other humans as parasites, seriously, you really believe that crap? Even science acknowledges that from the moment of conception it is a human. So, stop mincing words and call a spade a spade, that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.
Although I would never have used the term parasite, I don't believe abortion kills a human being because "being" means being. That baby isn't being yet, he/she might be. Let me be clear...you could be right, a early pregnancy fetus might be conscious soul bearing human being, but since that can't be proven, I always chose freedom over life. In this case, it's the mothers freedom over the fetus. But if the fetus can sustain outside the womb, then I think it's rights are equal to that of the mother.0 -
It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else).
She required an expensive nursing home to tend to her every physical need while she wasted away in a bed. They autopsied her (to prove that she was a veggie), and they found large liquified and missing portions inside what remained of her brain. Don't give me any guff about "she knew what was happening". She most certainly did not. Her husband was the only courageous one of the bunch. Her family was perfectly fine letting him continue to spend every cent he had on a nursing home for a breathing mannequin. Terry wasn't and hadn't been there for years. I hope my husband would do the same for me.0 -
This is what I find so confusing, during a late-term abortion a woman has to go through labor and delivery, so how, in reality, does a woman need a late-term abortion for her health/life? Seriously, this makes zero sense and is frankly blatently obvious killing (they suction out the brains of the baby before the baby is fully out of the vaginal canal).i start to get very mixed feelings the later into a pregnancy it goes, I think probably most people do the more it starts developing into a recognisable baby. Thankfully late abortions only account for a tiny fraction of a percentage of all abortions performed and are usually only done for severe disabilities that cant be picked up until a fairly late stage, so in those cases i wouldnt judge and just be sympathetic to whoever has to make that horrible decision because all the late stage abortions ive ever heard of have been of much wanted pregnancies and its been very traumatic.
And in most states they are not legal except for the health/life of the mothers. This varies obviously but in general elective abortions aren't legal past a stage of viability - generally thought to be 24 weeks.
Just because a woman's life is at risk at the moment doesn't mean that she can't endure labor/delivery. Maybe going another 10 weeks would jeopardize her life. Maybe going through L/D in 10 weeks would be an issue. Maybe it's not the L/D at all that is the risk, but the actual pregnancy itself. There are many scenarios. To focus on late-term abortion is pointless as they are indeed a very small portion of all abortions performed. Most are done well before this is even an issue.0 -
I would caution you to not use the "sustain" outside of the womb because in reality, my babies would have died had I not fed them since they could not go to the store and buy formula and make a bottle themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that they need to be able to sustain themselves, unless you do believe infanticide is okay too?
this "debate" has now just crossed into the absurd.
Do you really think that's what was meant? Sustain = stay alive on it's own, as opposed to needing an umbelical cord. But you already knew that. :huh:
This is what is frustrating about debating with the religious right. When you make a good point, it's necessary to inflate your idea to the point of absurdity. ie: "What, are you gonna let someone marry a horse next!?"0
This discussion has been closed.