Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your worldview does not reflect reality when you constantly say women are treated like garbage all the time.
I am truly sorry that is what your worldview is like.
I absolutely respect women. I think it's demeaning to assume that we all do not stick up for ourselves, we are all victims, we all don't know how to negotiate employment or relationships. Or that we remain in horrible circumstances because we are victims. I also have never EVER said female circumsicion is OK. You have constantly brought in 3rd world issues as a way to try to prove American women are somehow 2nd class citizens -- that tactic is also dishonest.
I do not choose to live my life in victim mentality. Others do and see the world as everyone is out to get them. /shrug/
Prolife? Means I think killing someone because you feel like it, is wrong. You disagree and think killing is OK whatever the reason.
We disagree. Not engaging this conversation any further.
But, again, I suggest the documentary "The Red Pill."
I never said that "women are treated like garbage all the time". Never. That's what you read into my posts.
I haven't "constantly" brought in 3rd world issues, at all. I have pointed out that there is a similarity between anti-abortion perspectives and the perspectives that perpetuate certain issues in third-world countries. You reject that vehemently, so vehemently, that you cannot see the similarity. It's not about proving American women are somehow second-class citizens. It's about how your arguments mirror the arguments of those advocating those third-world atrocities. YOUR arguments DO mirror theirs. It's not coincidence, it's rooted in patriarchal societies.
I don't live my life in victim mentality. I don't think anyone's out to get me. And again, you implying that I do is about demeaning me. I don't think you see it. You are so mired in your viewpoint, that what you say about those who disagree with you, what you read into what others post, it's about defending your viewpoint, no holds barred.
I want to say that though we do disagree, I respect you and your opinion. I think you have passion, and that your views are valid. Where we disagree is that I wouldn't impose my views on you, but you would impose your views on others. And I think that's a reflection of both of us, and the passion we have regarding this issue.
No. There is a difference between BC and abortion. It's very clear. BC does not kill a living being. And if people actually believe that BC is the same as abortion, then they need basic biology instruction.
Not sure who all these people are looking to ban BC, but I'm not one of them.
Actually Many forms of BC prevent implantation of fertilized ovum as a secondary protection. Many hormonal BC pills and IUDs do this.
Good question: Do the anti-choicers consider conception to be fertilization or implantation?
High doses of birth control pills (i.e. the Morning After Pill) is meant to prevent implantation. Buh bye, fertilized egg, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here!
I completely understand everything you have said. I am not trying to demean you in any way.
Your interpretation of the world is off. That's all. Get out of your social feedback loop that continues to reinforce the world view that you hold.
I suggest watching "The Red Pill." It's a documentary produced by a feminist about mens rights activists.
And your interpretation is the only valid one? No, sorry but it’s not. You have the choice to do as you believe, but are against others having the same choice.
Nope. You’re still anti choice as it pertains to abortion. You’re pro choice when it comes to having sex or not. If you want to discuss celibacy vs having a sex life, perhaps open a thread on that topic.
What is a pro-choicer ? If only one woman decides in the 8th month she wants to abort a healthy fetus because she decides the world is too cruel a place to bring a child into the world or the father died or left her, and she finds a doctor who'll perform the abortion, should it be legal ? What about scrapping all dividing lines such as viability or 24 weeks, and having all abortion on demand ? It's still the woman's body and forced birth if she isn't permitted to abort at 7 months. Is there a point where you think somebody moves from pro-choice to forced birther, a punisher of women, a meddling busybody, theocratic fanatic.
What is a pro-choicer ? If only one woman decides in the 8th month she wants to abort a healthy fetus because she decides the world is too cruel a place to bring a child into the world or the father died or left her, and she finds a doctor who'll perform the abortion, should it be legal ? What about scrapping all dividing lines such as viability or 24 weeks, and having all abortion on demand ? It's still the woman's body and forced birth if she isn't permitted to abort at 7 months. Is there a point where you think somebody moves from pro-choice to forced birther, a punisher of women, a meddling busybody, theocratic fanatic.
Third trimester abortions are ONLY legal if continuing the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or the fetus is non viable. There are few done and there are only a handful of doctors who do them. And the cost is about 30k. No woman is choosing this option other than in the direst of circumstances.
I’m for choice up to the point of viability unless the above circumstances occur. I’m not for abortion on demand past that point. There are and should be limits that support both a woman’s right to choose and disallow abortion just because after viability has been reached.
Banning abortion prior to viability IMO makes someone anti choice and forced birth.
But try to look at it this way:
First of all, the aborted fetus was never intended (by the woman) to exist in the first place, it wasn't planned, the particular egg+sperm combination just happened to sneak past preventative measures and sneak past probability (since the VAST majority of eggs and sperms never become human beings.) So this "child" as you called it was never a part of the mother's plan, it was one of billions of potential lives that never became a part of humankind/personhood. We don't feel bad for all of those entities that don't get to live on this Earth. Unless you believe that a soul or something is imparted at the moment of conception, stopping an embryo from growing into a legal person is not much different than the egg never being fertilized in the first place. End result is identical.
This woman most likely has in mind a certain number of children that she DOES want to have, someday, when circumstances are better, perhaps when her education is complete, when she wouldn't have to rely on public assistance, when she is married, when she could be excited for and feel love for a baby as it deserves. Those are all good things.
If the woman continued the first pregnancy, yes, that "child" (hypothetical, future child) would have existed. But in that case, some other future child, likely entering the world in better circumstances (in terms of being planned and wanted) would never get to exist. Every woman is going to have a finite, and very small, number of children. Beyond that number, none of her eggs (future humans) are going to beat the odds and win out over impediments of BC, Mother Nature, or abortion.
In the big picture, it seems that if she is going to have in her lifetime, say, only two children, it is best for her to have those two children when they have the best chance at being loved, wanted, and provided for.
Since I detect a greater level of thoughtfulness and open mindedness on your part, compared to some of the more dogmatic types here ... and speaking to paragraph 1 .... consider this ...
Is it not possible that there is a greater plan in the works, than that conceived by the individual? A greater purpose to a pregnancy, which may have been at play in defeating the efforts to prevent it? Or maybe it’s as simple as being just another test of our personal choices, if indeed we are all on a spiritual journey of learning in this schoolhouse we mistake as nothing other than physical existence? And, is it not possible that none of us are capable of seeing the “big picture”, or how our choices and decisions shape that picture that we cannot now see?
As for the last statement .... what would be a greater demonstration of love .... to love under ideal circumstances, or to love in spite of challenges? Would you be more comforted to know your mate loves you only when life is running smoothly, and the sun shines brightly? Or, would you hope that love carries you through times of difficulty, or prevails in the face of temptation?
And finally ... is there a more natural, more powerful, more selfless form of love, than the unconditional love of a Mother? Certainly, if fear or self love prevails over that, the “big picture” won’t be as pretty as it could be.
Since I detect a greater level of thoughtfulness and open mindedness on your part, compared to some of the more dogmatic types here ... and speaking to paragraph 1 .... consider this ...
Is it not possible that there is a greater plan in the works, than that conceived by the individual? A greater purpose to a pregnancy, which may have been at play in defeating the efforts to prevent it? Or maybe it’s as simple as being just another test of our personal choices, if indeed we are all on a spiritual journey of learning in this schoolhouse we mistake as nothing other than physical existence? And, is it not possible that none of us are capable of seeing the “big picture”, or how our choices and decisions shape that picture that we cannot now see?
As for the last statement .... what would be a greater demonstration of love .... to love under ideal circumstances, or to love in spite of challenges? Would you be more comforted to know your mate loves you only when life is running smoothly, and the sun shines brightly? Or, would you hope that love carries you through times of difficulty, or prevails in the face of temptation?
And finally ... is there a more natural, more powerful, more selfless form of love, than the unconditional love of a Mother? Certainly, if fear or self love prevails over that, the “big picture” won’t be as pretty as it could be.
A few remarks on your post:
Not everyone shares your belief in a greater plan or that religion/spirituality is anything other than a man made construct.
If we accept that keeping a pregnancy may result in benefits the woman is currently unaware of, then we must also accept that it may result in detriments. The person living the life and fully aware of all circumstances should be the one to choose.
Implying that motherhood and a mother’s love is the highest and best use of a woman’s life is paternalistic and once again tells a woman she’s not capable of choosing what’s best for her. She needs a man (or a government made up mostly of men) to decide for her.
Women need the freedom to make this very basic of choices for themselves. They are fully capable of weighing the pros and cons with the realities of their lives to come to the best choice for them. I trust them to do so.
Third trimester abortions are ONLY legal if continuing the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or the fetus is non viable. There are few done and there are only a handful of doctors who do them. And the cost is about 30k. No woman is choosing this option other than in the direst of circumstances.
I’m for choice up to the point of viability unless the above circumstances occur. I’m not for abortion on demand past that point. There are and should be limits that support both a woman’s right to choose and disallow abortion just because after viability has been reached.
Banning abortion prior to viability IMO makes someone anti choice and forced birth.
The “viability” argument is a morally defunct and indefensible position for many reasons, none the least of which can be found in the fact that even a newborn infant is not viable on its own, without someone feeding and caring for it’s needs. Moreover, a premature birth is frequently not “viable” without extraordinary medical intervention, utilizing modern medical techniques that didn’t even exist just a few years ago. Should we also agree that it’s perfectly fine to withhold such modern medical treatment for the preemie, as a matter of choice of convenience, or of cost savings, or other excuse, falling back on the premise that in days past, that child would surely have died naturally, anyway?
I contend, when simply analyzing the state of fetal development at say, 20 weeks ... which is before today’s assessment of “viability”, there is a distinct and undeniable human life present, with a heartbeat, fingers and toes, and a functioning brain that holds memories ... a being that can hear sounds outside the womb, such as her mother’s voice, that she’ll be able to recognize after birth. A tiny, helpless human being whose life depends on the choices of others, is an accurate description of a baby, whether before, or after it exits the birth canal.
Furthermore, the “viability” argument can do nothing but result in an eventual ban on abortions across the board, as the point of “viability” is determined by the existing medical techniques and expertise which exists today, which are advancing at great pace. There will come a time when a fertilized egg will be able to be sustained totally outside the womb, making conception the point of viability.
The “viability” argument is a morally defunct and indefensible position for many reasons, none the least of which can be found in the fact that even a newborn infant is not viable on its own, without someone feeding and caring for it’s needs. Moreover, a premature birth is frequently not “viable” without extraordinary medical intervention, utilizing modern medical techniques that didn’t even exist just a few years ago. Should we also agree that it’s perfectly fine to withhold such modern medical treatment for the preemie, as a matter of choice of convenience, or of cost savings, or other excuse, falling back on the premise that in days past, that child would surely have died naturally, anyway?
I contend, when simply analyzing the state of fetal development at say, 20 weeks ... which is before today’s assessment of “viability”, there is a distinct and undeniable human life present, with a heartbeat, fingers and toes, and a functioning brain that holds memories ... a being that can hear sounds outside the womb, such as her mother’s voice, that she’ll be able to recognize after birth. A tiny, helpless human being whose life depends on the choices of others is an accurate statement, whether before, or after exiting the birth canal.
Furthermore, the “viability” argument can do nothing but result in an eventual ban on abortions across the board, as the point of “viability” is determined by the existing medical techniques and expertise which exists today, which are advancing at great pace. There will come a time when a fertilized egg will be able to be sustained totally outside the womb, making conception the point of viability.
No fetus has lived prior to 21 weeks 5 days. That was 32 years ago in 1987. Medical science hasn’t found a way to sustain the life of a fetus before the point of viability.
If medical technology ever gets to the point where a newly fertilized egg can grow into a full term baby outside the womb, I’m sure they’ll also be able to extract the egg and grow it out in the lab. At that point, abortion won’t be needed, just an egg retrieval. Or maybe pregnancy won’t be needed. After all why endanger women if a lab is just as good? Or would you ban that process in favor of forced birth?
Until we can do these things, it’s not your body and not your choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
