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.
No one is challenging to right of pro-lifers to state their case. The difference between that case and those presented by abolitionists, suffragists, war protesters, and the like is however substantial. Each of the historical movements mentioned had a convincing logical and secular argument to make that eventually came to prevail. The anti-abortion movement does not have such an argument to make, as the position ultimately rests on religious doctrine and dogma.
The thread however is about IDX/PBA and its role in resolving serious issues that can and too regularly do arise in late-term pregnancies. The so-called pro-life movement treats the procedure as a political, not a medical, issue. I would personally agree with many here that this is an improper change of venue.
BS. One doesn't have to be christian or any type of religion to be prolife. Granted many of them are -- but then, many in our society are religious to one degree or another so no big surprise in that.
I don't believe in god, I don't believe abortion is bad because the bible told me so. I believe abortion is the ending of a life and ought to be done with the utmost gravity because of that fact.
And as you so rightly pointed out, this thread is not about zygotes it is about fetus' in the second and third trimester of developement. And a fetus is not a toenail clipping, a tapeworm (though of course there is a parasitic quality to its need for incubation it is still human) and a fetus is not ejaculate or menstrual blood.
There is confusion as to the frequency of these types of abortions, and the truth is that one done to a healthy fetus by a healthy woman is one too many.
Oh, here is a link to an atheist pro life group -- they do exist. Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage
No one is challenging to right of pro-lifers to state their case. The difference between that case and those presented by abolitionists, suffragists, war protesters, and the like is however substantial. Each of the historical movements mentioned had a convincing logical and secular argument to make that eventually came to prevail. The anti-abortion movement does not have such an argument to make, as the position ultimately rests on religious doctrine and dogma.
.
Your premise is incorrect. #1. I believed abortion to be wrong long before I was a Christian and I assure you that I certainly wasn't basing my belief on doctrine or dogma. I know several women who have no belief system whatsoever that believe abortion to be wrong. #2. The belief that abortion is wrong is based on much more than religious beliefs. When we can look at ultra sounds and see the baby's heart beating, see them sucking their thumb, see them playing with their fingers and toes it is impossible to dismiss them as a blob of fetal matter. When premature babies are being saved at earlier and earlier stages it is impossible to say that, were they still in their mother's womb, she should be able to sentence them to death. #3. It is neither secular or religious to say that one minute before birth the child is fetal matter to be discarded at their mother's whim and one minute after birth it is a human being with civil rights. It is just mystical thinking and hypocrisy.
But as someone who was in that situation and who talked with other women in the same situation who made a variety of choices I can tell you that the women who choose to give birth to their dead baby did better in the long run then those that underwent an abortion like procedure. It had to do with closure, and being able to say goodbye vs waking up and it was just....gone. It is somewhat similiar to what hospitals used to do with women when they had a stillbirth - whisk the baby away, not let the mother see it/hold it and then tell them to go home and pretend it didn't happen. That did a lot more psychological trauma then pushing it out, holding it taking pix etc...
Of course there are cases when that is not possible, but for the majority I would always recommend to go natural for the longer psych benefits of it, not because of an agenda.
Every day, grown men and women make choices that are arguably imperfect and that will have (again, arguably) negative long-term psychological consequences. That does not mean that their decision-making power should be taken away from them and placed in the hands of the State. Your comment confirms the thread of thinking that I identified previously: that an abortion ban is supposedly necessary because it would be too reckless to entrust women, simple-minded and irrational as they are, with making their own medical decisions.
It is neither secular or religious to say that one minute before birth the child is fetal matter to be discarded at their mother's whim
This is what gets me. Why is a woman's decision defined as a "whim"? Because a woman's life is worthless? Because her health is not worth preserving? Because nothing, absolutely nothing in a woman's life has any significance whatsoever (and therefore is to be dismissed as a "whim")? Because she is just a life support system for a uterus?
This is what gets me. Why is a woman's decision defined as a "whim"? Because a woman's life is worthless? Because her health is not worth preserving? Because nothing, absolutely nothing in a woman's life has any significance whatsoever (and therefore is to be dismissed as a "whim")? Because she is just a life support system for a uterus?
#1. Neither I or 90% of those who are pro life believe that abortion should not be allowed if the life of the mother is at risk. Certainly her life has value and should not be sacrificed. I also don't think it should have been sacrificed before she was born because she had value then as well.
#2. Can we be absolutely honest here. EXCEPT in cases of rape or when the mother's life is at risk, what are we talking about? We are talking about 9 months of pregnancy, during which the woman can pretty well do everything she was doing before she was pregnant. In exchange the child is looking of the possibility of 80 years of life. 80 years of feeling the sun on their face, running in the rain, playing with their pets, going to school, having fun with friends, having their first date, their first broken heart, their career, their marriage, and their own children. To take all that away because you don't want to share your body for 9 months seems to me not a choice but an act of supreme egocentric selfishness. If the woman were forced to raise that child you might have a bit more of an arguement. But she is certainly not. There are hundreds of thousands of people longing to love and raise the child.
I swear to you I don't know how in the world a person ever looks at themselves in the mirror when they know that they took away all of someones tomorrows because they didn't want to deal with temporary discomfort. In all this talk about others not making choices for the woman, why is it that you are not concerned about someone making a permanent, fatal choice for the baby. Whether you like to admit it or not, that child is a seperate and unique human life and it is not choosing to die.
Every day, grown men and women make choices that are arguably imperfect and that will have (again, arguably) negative long-term psychological consequences. That does not mean that their decision-making power should be taken away from them and placed in the hands of the State. Your comment confirms the thread of thinking that I identified previously: that an abortion ban is supposedly necessary because it would be too reckless to entrust women, simple-minded and irrational as they are, with making their own medical decisions.
Perhaps you ought to read my post again -- nowhere did I say that the state needed to take decision making away from poor feeble minded females.
What I did say was that in my experience delivering a dead baby was psychologically beneficial to me and to other women in the same boat. Furthermore, those women that chose to use an abortion like method i.e. they were put under and woke up no longer pregnant and no body to hold, touch etc... well those women did not seem to heal as well or as quickly as those of us that went through the birth process, naturally.
But hey, what do I know? I only lived it and belonged to a support group of other women who lived it in the various ways.
But this is what the abortion debate really has come down to. People who throw hyperbole about, people who accuse without foundation, people who cannot/willnot ever discuss it with rationality and truthfulness.
The truth in this case and in others when the woman has to make a choice of carrying a dying fetus or wait for natural death is this --- women do better letting nature take its course. It has nothing to do with robbing women of their empowerment, of infantilizing womens capacity to decide their own fate. It has everything to do with the way our culture shys away from death, and that is not healthy. But no, god forbid we speak a truth that doesn't fall in a prochoice zealots line of thought. Obviously I must be a man, a misogynist, a hater, a fundie because I do not believe abortion is always the best and only option.
Ironically the one thing you and other rabid prochoicers have in common with rabid prolifers is this -- neither of you want to admit to some truths that make your positions weak and perhaps even a little hypocritical.
This is completely false. I challenge you at least to read Roe v. Wade. There are VERY significant legal constraints on having an abortion past the 20th week. Actually, I think you either don't care what the law actually is, or know what it is and deliberately misrepresent it to further your political and religious objections.
Yes, it's about my preferences to continue living and not become an invalid due to a horrifying complications of carrying a dead child. It is also about my preferences not to continue carrying a child who has no chance to survive outside my body even full term. And, it's about my preferences to have medical considerations outweigh someone else's political convictions. Everyone else has "preferences" with respect to what should be done with your body, but I stay out of your medical preferences and expect you to stay out of mine. You may hate it, but my body is not public property. I'll make you a deal: when we have law requiring you to give up your kidney to someone who needs it, then I'll tolerate a law imposing a public monopoly on my uterus.
You are. You lie about the law.
In relation to the kidney scenario, who has co-opted your uterus for a forced donation of a baby?
The truth in this case and in others when the woman has to make a choice of carrying a dying fetus or wait for natural death is this --- women do better letting nature take its course.
I would think that depends on the woman; she would be the person to decide. Do you remember the story of the famous actress - was it Barbara Eden? - whose fetus died in utero, and she had to wait for it to be expelled naturally, for two months? She had to endure that for far too long to be emotionally healthy, IMO, and, I think, in hers.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with robbing women of their empowerment, of infantilizing womens capacity to decide their own fate.
It doesn't have anything to do with infantilizing women in your mind, but I believe that there are some people who believe that women are not competent to make their own medical decisions. The reason I believe this is that I have listened to them. Stridency runs strong on both sides of the abortion debate.
You appear to be legally pro-choice, as you don't think other people's abortions are your decision, but personally anti-abortion. And it's a perfectly valid viewpoint, one held by many - including myself. I cannot, at this point, imagine the circumstance that would convince me that an abortion was the right thing for me to do, but I would not take that choice from another woman.
I would think that depends on the woman; she would be the person to decide. Do you remember the story of the famous actress - was it Barbara Eden? - whose fetus died in utero, and she had to wait for it to be expelled naturally, for two months? She had to endure that for far too long to be emotionally healthy, IMO, and, I think, in hers.
They don't do that anymore....in fact, I am surprised that they ever did. Having dead tissue inside your body really leaves the woman open to god knows what kind of disease and infection.
They way they do it now is actually quite like a d&e abortion. They induce, and they do it immediately.
It doesn't have anything to do with infantilizing women in your mind, but I believe that there are some people who believe that women are not competent to make their own medical decisions. The reason I believe this is that I have listened to them. Stridency runs strong on both sides of the abortion debate.
Absolutely there are prolife nutjobs out there who do not want to admit that yes, there are extenuating circumstances that would make abortion necessary. The case of the poor little girl in Brazil comes to mind. Still, look at the reaction I got by relating what I have found to be true regarding already dead fetus'. Immediately I was attacked as a hater, and the message was ignored.
You appear to be legally pro-choice, as you don't think other people's abortions are your decision, but personally anti-abortion. And it's a perfectly valid viewpoint, one held by many - including myself. I cannot, at this point, imagine the circumstance that would convince me that an abortion was the right thing for me to do, but I would not take that choice from another woman.
Peace.
I don't think other womens decisions should be up for debate in the first trimester. After that, yes - I do believe that there needs to be more veting involved. To abort at the point of viability is imo cruel and inhumane, if it is done on a healthy fetus by a healthy mother.
As I have said before, I would attach the morning after pill and condoms to all corsages during prom season if I could
I don't think other womens decisions should be up for debate in the first trimester. After that, yes - I do believe that there needs to be more veting involved. To abort at the point of viability is imo cruel and inhumane, if it is done on a healthy fetus by a healthy mother.
As I have said before, I would attach the morning after pill and condoms to all corsages during prom season if I could
Amen, sister!
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.
