Liberals Against Abortion?
Options
Replies
-
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
