Abortion

[leibowde84]

Your post implies that a mother could survive without "use of her organs".
Pathetically stupid, IMHO.
Tom

No, you just don't know what the phrase actually means, which is causing you confusion. Now, I wouldn't say it is "pathetically stupid", but it is certainly an ignorant position to be in.

So, this is a mistake on your end. It does not imply what you claim if you understand the meaning of the phrase. To give up the use of something means to offer it to someone else to use or give up control/dominion over it. That, obviously, would include circumstances when organs are transferred, but it is not limited to them.

When you give up the use of something to someone else, it in no way precludes you from using it yourself simultaneously. Granted, it is an older expression, but it is often used in legal decisions and legislation. This being a legal argument, I think it is completely reasonable that it be used.

 

[leibowde84]

Between the two of us, Tom, I assert I am in a better position to judge what was happening to my body when I was pregnant twice than you can assert for women.

And yes, my entire body was impacted during pregnancy. My blood pressure, my heart, my neurological system, my digestive system, my hormones, my blood sugar levels.....as a start. When I went for pre-natal visits to my doctor, *I* was the one and only patient. Different points of gestation were recorded to check on my vitals that are most affected by fetal gestational age. Whether or not which week was best to check my blood sugar levels for gestational diabetes....*I* was still the primary patient. My children never had a doctor until they were born, then the pediatrician came in and began observing and checking in with his patients. But not while I was still pregnant.

My choice for how my health is impacted and what I choose to have inside my organs is just as valuable as anybody else's. Suggestions for the uniqueness of pregnancy....solely the realm of female reproductive health.....as an exception to this rule for everybody else is why I point out that pro-lifers who argue that women's health doesn't belong to women as much as men's health belongs to men is another example of why "Separate but equal" has never been ethical.

He is under the mistaken impression that "giving up the use of something" to another requires that the giver no longer is able to use it. He is confused to say the least. Not to mention, he is spewing insults my way. Lot of that going around today I guess.

 

[Marisa]

I value your assessment, and also your honesty. Do you feel I am lying to you? Do you feel I have anything credible to offer you having worked at a center, and in leadership? Maybe the next step for you is to set a meeting with staff at your local CPC, ask them if they use strong arm tactics, and be persistent, until you feel you are face-to-face with honest persons.

I believe that you believe everything you've told me is the gospel truth. From the perspective of one who feels no tactics are unacceptable when morality and god are on your side. I simply disagree that any of that is true.

 

[JoStories]

I gave many, many things, to many early in their gestation, including my own children. However, giving my liver should be distinct from shooting someone dead, even by "accident", right?

"I didn't know the gun was loaded" can sometimes be a legitimate excuse, and even a sort of apology, but if there was a point where I personally cannot say whether I'm killing a fetus or a child, why take a chance?

Because it remains the woman's choice in the matter as to whether or not she wants the fetus to come to term or not. No one here is advocating killing a child. However, a fetus is not a child and thus can't be treated the same until it is born. It truly is that simple.

 

[JoStories]

Who has to lose an organ to gestate a child? Most pregnancies are like rearing a child, and require much time, concern, money and will, but not organs.

and many women who become pregnant don't have the time, the concern, the money or the will to carry a fetus to term that may or may not have been an intentional pregnancy. Condoms break. Birth control fails. Rape can and does result in pregnancy. However none of that ultimately matters. What does matter is whether or not the pregnant woman wants to invest the aforementioned. And if she doesn't, she has the right to abort it.

 

[JoStories]

This is pathetically stupid.
Pregnancy does not require a mother to give up the use of an organ for a minute.
Tom

Really? Have you been pregnant? I have. I was incapacitatingly sick for 6 months of each pregnancy. My first fetus was breech and at that time, I was forced to have her naturally without any drugs. I dare you to try that. My second fetus was 10 lbs, 8 oz, and was a month over due. I was unable to walk or use the bathroom independently and forced to have an indewelling catheter for 8 weeks. Because I developed mastitis, my breasts did nothing but bleed. If that is not interupting the use of organs. I don't know what it would be. And btw, I had it easy. Many others have had it much much worse than me. I suggest you try going through this before you even think you can tell women what it is like.

 

[JoStories]

He is under the mistaken impression that "giving up the use of something" to another requires that the giver no longer is able to use it. He is confused to say the least. Not to mention, he is spewing insults my way. Lot of that going around today I guess.

And he is vastly mistaken in his assumptinpons leibowde. Not only does he not have a right to have a say in a woman's choices, he simply has no conception of what pregnancy does to a woman, particularly a difficult one.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Really? Have you been pregnant? I have. I was incapacitatingly sick for 6 months of each pregnancy. My first fetus was breech and at that time, I was forced to have her naturally without any drugs. I dare you to try that. My second fetus was 10 lbs, 8 oz, and was a month over due. I was unable to walk or use the bathroom independently and forced to have an indewelling catheter for 8 weeks. Because I developed mastitis, my breasts did nothing but bleed. If that is not interupting the use of organs. I don't know what it would be. And btw, I had it easy. Many others have had it much much worse than me. I suggest you try going through this before you even think you can tell women what it is like.

****, and my pregnancies were of the HEALTHY kind. My first had me nearly hemorrhaging on the delivery table. I had first four months of one of my pregnancies of severe vomiting several times a day too.

Tell you what though, many pro-lifers listen to stories of hardship with a woman's health during pregnancy, and I've heard some of the least compassionate responses. Like "tough ****, so what?" Or "then you shouldn't have had sex."

I was married during my pregnancies. As a military wife. In my mid-20s. It's not like I was "acting irresponsibly".

The level of hatred and vile thrown at women who have been pregnant and have had health problems during abortion debates is alarming.

Let me say that I hear you. I really hear you. I'm so sorry you went through all that, and how you went above and beyond the call of duty to give birth. That wasn't any sort of punishment or consequence on your part. That was you being a champion.

 

[Mycroft]

This is pathetically stupid.
Pregnancy does not require a mother to give up the use of an organ for a minute.
Tom

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No, it is not chicken, it is an unfertilized ovum. It would have been a chicken if it was fertilized. Incubated, it will not turn into a chicken.They may be human, depending on how you chose to define human, but they are surely our dear cousins. We even have a God from amongst them and many brave warriors.

Actually many of the eggs are fertilized. So by your statement, many, in fact most, eggs you purchase in a grocery store are fertizlied and therefore chicken. I'm happy to tell you how you can tell by looking at them when you crack them if they are fertilized or not. But whether fertilized or not it is chicken and is alive. If a woman has her eggs preserved, are you really saying these are not human? Or do not have 'potential' for life? Please consider, that which meets the definition of life has no need to meet whatever arbitrary definition you may have for 'potential' for life! It is alive, and meets the definition of life. Therefore why would you ask if it meets your definition of 'potential' for life?

 

[Sundance]

Tell you what though, many pro-lifers listen to stories of hardship with a woman's health during pregnancy, and I've heard some of the least compassionate responses. Like "tough ****, so what?" Or "then you shouldn't have had sex."

Mystic, maybe you haven't been listening to everyone's responses, because every person has their own experiences. If you're willing to ask me, I'm willing to discuss my own feelings and experiences in a respectful manner.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I too am a strong atheist, but I am not anti-religious. Religions have their uses for many individuals. Yes, it is most probable that humans too will be extinct at one time, the complex forms do not survive long. Let us be happy till we last. My line has survived for more than 3,000 years (there was an Aupamanyava, a Vedic commentator, around 1,000 BC). There are many others who claim this line.

Rama, Lakshman, Sugriva, Angad, Hanuman, in a conference; Jambavan, the bear-king too.

Why should we try to decimate other animals? We do not live in forests now. Let them be happy there unless our interests collide. But why should we increase our demands so much that our interests collide? Can't we do with less? I am sad at the demise of sparrows in my city (Delhi).

Very respectful comments, but I call unfair because their address would be off topic.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Interesting that you should mention exceptions to a hard and fast "truth" that killing is always wrong in a conversation where anti choice proponents may be professing just that. Can abortion ever be used to prolong a woman's life? Does pregnancy, labor and delivery ever pose a potential threat to a woman's health and/or continued life? I'd wager many anti choice proponents in this conversation are wholly unaware that pregnancy still kills women, as does childbirth.

ETA: your analogy doesn't really fit nonetheless, you aren't asking those bikers for temporary or permanent use af any of their organs, are you?

??? I'm not mentioning 'exceptions' to a hard and fast "truth." I clearly stated that there is no hard and fast truth. You do not seem to remove yourself from you own train of thought to consider what others are saying! Ok, I'll give you that a biker analogy does not really fit. But I'm not the one saying "it's as simple as that" which is where the hard and fast rule would lie!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

And what I'm trying to say is not that you have to decide for others right now, although if it comes to a vote, you have the opportunity to vote and let the majority decide. Rather, I'm saying that it sounds like most everyone here is for the fewest abortions possible and that all here affirm life. The path to fewer abortions includes counseling people to not hide sexual activity via abortion but to trust that chances are, if your mom had kids, she had sex, too.

Em, not sure I can agree completely..."fewest abortions possible" is somewhat of a generalization of several principles. First, all abortion is against the will of god. I say poppycock, but by couching this in terms of 'fewest possible abortions' you are able to tag along with 'that's disgusting' and even 'there are smarter ways of dealing with these entirely biological functions."

There are times to split hairs, and this is one of them. If you believe abortion is a religious issue than please be sure to set yourself apart from those of us who believe abortion is an ugly, but entirely natural, aspect of life.

I do believe abortion is ugly. I believe if it can be avoided it should be. I believe that any and every concern regarding abortion can be best addressed within a secular regulatory framework. And I believe that any religious connotation does nothing more than confuse the issues, cause more harm to more people, and results in nothing but anger, hatred, and social ignorance.

On another tangent, you indicate that "...opportunity to vote and let the majority decide." I believe this is a failure to understand the basis of U.S. democracy. So many of us seem to think that the majority is to pull. PERIOD@ But that is not the reality..Given it is much misunderstood... But U.S. democracy is two-fold 1) The majority rules..given that 2) the rights of the individual are protected... This second part is most notably documented in the discussions between Monroe and Jefferson leading to the Bill of Rights.

YOU DO NOT GET TO VOTE ON RIGHTS!!! That's why they are called rights! They are granted! They are inalienable! And they are not subject to rule by majority! If something is a right..than it doesn't matter if you vote 50 billion to 1, it's a right!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I mean that complex language combined with intelligence like ours gives rise to something incredible. Do you know what I'm talking about? I couldn't be telling you this without the incredible

Yes! I know what you mean. But I'm not sure you do. At least I'm not sure you can define what you mean. And if you can't define what you mean then how are you to be understood?

If we are speaking of "life" then there is no difference between bacteria and human. Perhaps you are speaking of ration? Or maybe culture? Or...well I don't want to lead you. You can do yourself a favor by trying to split hairs and more precisely define what you mean. I do know what you mean! And it's nothing to do with the essence or "life!"

Another hint..your use of the term "incredible" is a clear statement that you do not understand what you mean! Keep asking, questioning, and yes denying, until you find a model that IS CREDIBLE.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I guess I would have to disagree. I don't think that the term "pro-abortion" means that you are in favor of keeping the choice available legally. I think it is a way for pro-lifers to pain pro-choicers as people who think that killing babies for convenience is good. I see your point though. You should be able to identify however you want to. My problem is when people on the other side of this debate try to abuse this classification.

As a "pro-abortionist" one would need to be in favor of the aobortion of every single pregnancy without exception. The person that fits this label does not exist! To be "pro-life" one would need to be in favor of never, under any circumstances allowing the life of another to come to an end. The person that fits this label does not exist! Though some would have you believe they are "pro-life" they are pro-death penalty, or pro-war, or pro-ignoring the starving masses.

 

[Sundance]

As a "pro-abortionist" one would need to be in favor of the aobortion of every single pregnancy without exception. The person that fits this label does not exist! To be "pro-life" one would need to be in favor of never, under any circumstances allowing the life of another to come to an end. The person that fits this label does not exist! Though some would have you believe they are "pro-life" they are pro-death penalty, or pro-war, or pro-ignoring the starving masses.

But then, what do you say to a person who is against the death penalty, war, and poverty?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

But then, what do you say to a person who is against the death penalty, war, and poverty?

Fair enough. If you are against abortion, against death penalty, against war, against poverty and death by neglect; if you take every effort to ensure that no one on Earth suffers...I say while I respect your beliefs, you are unrealistic!

Death happens and is a natural process of reality. By denying it you are disregarding reality and living in an idealistic bubble, at best.

As humans we should respect all life, but we should accept death as well. We should not put, as a matter of ideology, one above the other. To strive for an ideologic existence is noble, but is not realistic, and is not helpful or productive.

In short, bo be against the death penalty, war, and poverty..as a matter of principle, is high-minded! Unrealistic, but high-minded!

 

[Sundance]

Fair enough. If you are against abortion, against death penalty, against war, against poverty and death by neglect; if you take every effort to ensure that no one on Earth suffers...I say while I respect your beliefs, you are unrealistic!

Death happens and is a natural process of reality. By denying it you are disregarding reality and living in an idealistic bubble, at best.

As humans we should respect all life, but we should accept death as well. We should not put, as a matter of ideology, one above the other. To strive for an ideologic existence is noble, but is not realistic, and is not helpful or productive.

In short, bo be against the death penalty, war, and poverty..as a matter of principle, is high-minded! Unrealistic, but high-minded!

Touché, dearest friend, touché. I do concur, death is very much a part of existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So by your statement, many, in fact most, eggs you purchase in a grocery store are fertizlied and therefore chicken. .. If a woman has her eggs preserved, are you really saying these are not human? Or do not have 'potential' for life?

This does not make any difference to me, I am a non-vegetarian. The unfertilized eggs (or sperm) may be live but they are not human yet, unless the two join.