Abortion

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeah, I can get a bit caustic, but I stepped into being called a liar, because you know, no one can have an honest disagreement about the morality and legality of abortion, we all have to hate women and want to repress their sexuality. It only got worse from there. Even you called me as good as a rape apologist. I deal with people attacking me like that with condescension; quite frankly, its what I think attacks like that deserve. If you won't engage me for who and what I actually am and have to make **** up like I'd call a 6 year old rape victim a **** or that I'd apologize for a rapist, or people want to falsely analyze me and say I'm pretty much a walking piece of **** that doesn't care about people, well that isn't a very fair discussion to begin with, now is it. I'm human and I'm going to lash out in situations like this when I am so attacked.

Well I hear ya. All is fair in love and war. I hate being called an abomination, a whore, and an evil woman because I'm a bisexual poly feminist. But sometimes, we gotta step away from the computer to approach being branded harshly with cooler heads.

I disagree. The pro-life(a request upocoming) position uplifts and embraces humanity, while the pro-choice position rejects and casts it down. Also, I'll request that we both have the common courtesy to use the accepted monikers each side has chosen. Pro-life isn't a wildly inappropriate, meaningless, or deceptively dishonest appellation. It is just further down that path where it is automatically assumed that I, and anyone like-minded, is acting in bad faith; that the goal isn't really the protection of life, but the removal of the choices of women.

That's fair. I shall in debates with you continue to refer to your position as pro-life. I request that in spite of the position that you take in that abortion is equated to murder, that I am not seen as somebody who wants to murder anyone or supports mass scale murder.

Sorry, I try to be comprehensive, and I don't like posting multiple times in a row... I knew the reply was getting unwieldy, I'll have to break it up better next time. I was talking about requirements by law to have counseling before abortion. I know that the SCotUS has struck some of them down, and I assumed it was a general ban on the practice.

I'll have to look it up, but isn't it variable by state?

Thanks for clarifying.

Ithink elective abortion is murder... that is my sincerely held belief, and while it isn't a pleasant one, we couldn't have an real discussion if I didn't express it. If you believe that makes me a monster fine, I can deal with that. But the free-for-all slaughter bombastic statement and real massive condescending attitude came after the slander, after the lies about me and my positions, not before. Do you not see the difference between belief that an act you defend is evil and the assumption that I am discussing in bad faith, that I don't want to defend what I view as innocent life, but rather I'm informed by misogyny and a desire to control women?

I can respect your sincerely held beliefs to be your own and those held by other pro-life people. I think that my defense against what I sincerely see as sexism in the pro-life platform isn't so much as an either/or dichotomy, but unintended consequences from the desire to protect what you see as life. It is unfortunate, IMO.

But we're not talking about access to contraceptives, and family planning, and cultural honor and purity balls and islam or all those other things.

Call it a meta-analysis of how abortion rights fit under the umbrella of women's rights and talking points overall. How I see it, women's decisions typically take a back seat in their reproductive health when it comes to culturally-imposed access to a uterus or a woman's body. Only after a woman has been abused enough IMO does she typically is granted ownership of her own body.

There are no exact equivalencies to abortion, there is nothing else like pregnancy, and this example is no less a false one than mine were. If you want to sterilize yourself, go for it, more power to you if its reversible and you make that decision. My point was that none of us have or can expect to have absolute bodily autonomy, male or female. That pregnancy is a biological scenario unique to women doesn't make it anti-woman to discuss or desire banning the ending of pregnancies with elective abortion.

You want a special autonomy granted for pregnancy, it is special because pregnancy is special and unique; I just can't agree that you should have it, that the authority to take life is handed out like that.

I do not see it as special autonomy. Pregnancy isn't special. It's a biological process. Calling it unique or special creates a separate sphere of meaning attributed to it that I don't believe fairly offers a woman much beyond being a walking incubator or a sacred cow (for lack of a better descriptor).

Being pregnant twice before and carrying them both to term, I can say they have their own experiences, but I can also say the same with menopause at the moment. These experiences may be unique to men, but to women it's part and parcel of our day to day living.

My pregnancies weren't magical or mystical or otherworldly or anything other than experiences that have been shared with countless other women in history. So in that, and through my obstetrical and gynecological history, none of that is really all that unique. I'm like any other woman. And we are just as human as any man.

To sum up what I consider the important thoughts: We can have strongly held beliefs that diverge greatly, they can even be harsh beliefs. But we should assume that the other is coming in good faith to the discussion. Further, if you(anyone) want to point out somewhere that I haven't addressed that you view I was being overly harsh(as I said, I know in debates I can be caustic and sometimes I don't realize if I've crossed the line), unfair or represented someone's view incorrectly I will review it and respond.

No probs. And besides, if I really thought you crossed the line somewhere I would have sent you a PM by now to say "C'mon, Emu. Let's calm down." Or I would have offered you some of my super amazing fudge brownies I make. Something. Because I love you, man.

 

[Bunyip]

If an abortion is needed, of course a hospital. I have no issue with the legality of abortion as a life saving measure.

That's great thanks. We appear to agree on legal abortion within very strict guidelines. Cheers.

The Guttmacher Institute, a study done in 2004. I apologize as well, the numbers changed with that study(the one that informed my statement was from 1998. The total raised from 2.8 percent to 4 percent. (Which, in my opinion, is a good thing). Still, taking out rape, incest, and medical necessity, 95% of abortions are still left, ~950,000 out of ~1mm abortions are based on laziness and irresponsibility. I just can't find that acceptable no matter how you slice it.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

I am terribly sorry that your former girlfriend and you had that experience. That is not how people should be treated or how to uphold the dignity of humanity.

Thankyou, very kind of you to say so.

Well that isn't my plan or goal...




Yes, it is illegal for a counseling session to be required by law before abortion is given. The Supreme Court has struck down laws that instituted such requirements as an unreasonable burden.


Please, I don't need a book to tell me its ****ed in the head to want to kill your own child.


Says the person who supports free-for-all slaughter... I'm not sure it is possible to be more hypocritical even if someone were trying.


So you don't believe in laws against theft, drug use, ivory trade, murder, physical assault, etc. etc. etc. etc. Our laws are full of and are informed by morality and it is an obscene pretense to act otherwise.


I cut short the B.S. you posted. You don't know me and every conclusion you made following this line is incorrect. Last, I'll give you the same advice I gave selina when she was arm chair analyzing me: stop, you are embarrassing yourself.


Please don't agree with her lies. I never once considered, said, or even suggested that I might believe that the victims of rape are sluts, that a 6 year old could be a ****. That is egregious slander against my character.


I tend to disagree. Morality is defined by our willful ability to perform or reject our human nature.


While I agree there are questions about the efficacy of African charity, I don't think it is reasonable to deny that it helps at all.


I'd say God does have an opportunity cost to worry about. Our moral growth, which would be denied opportunity.


Come now, it isn't that they are women, and honestly, that sentence doesn't even make sense. No one is "moral enough" to make the decision to kill their offspring, whatever you think that means.


Then why degrade it so?


Maybe I was mistaken, I last read that the SCotUS ruled them illegal... maybe it was a more narrow definition.


This is ridiculous, trying to tie pro-life philosophy with domestic abuse and rape apology. The fetus is innocent because it is innocent of any crime or wrongdoing. I really think that there needs to be something like Godwin's law for abortion debates observing that as an abortion debate progresses the probability that the pro-life side will be slandered approaches 1.


Neither men not women have full bodily autonomy as a right. Compared. None of us, in the U.S. are allowed to inject ourselves with whatever drugs we wish, we don't have full sexual freedom to choose our partners until at least middle adolescence(depends on state), we don't even have the right to kill ourselves, why on earth should anyone think they have the right to kill another human for their own convenience. It is a sham, a mockery of the very concepts of rights and liberty, a disgrace of justice, and the desolation of our humanity and dignity as people that this is sanctioned.


Men aren't considered to have the routine right to slaughter said fetuses on whim... maybe that is why?

 

[Revoltingest]

True! The fact these lowlife bullies get away with this is sickening!

Note:
I used the word "thug" not just because of applicability, but to rehabilitate it by referring to white (generally) folk....who happen to be thugs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please, I don't need a book to tell me its ****ed in the head to want to kill your own child.

While I don't see killing the fetus is the same as killing a child, I disagree with
some of the common blanket stereotypical criticisms of anti-abortion types.
- I've known atheists who oppose abortion.
- I've known women who oppose abortion.
- I've heard non-sexist arguments against abortion.
- I've known anti-abortion types who respect cogent arguments for abortion, & have doubts.
Some are too quick to anger, & to see their opponents as evil.
To change minds, such an attitude is counter-productive.

 

[Sundance]

The concept of determining innocence and guilt typically falls on the burden of the woman. That is why I brought up those terms of guilt and innocence. It's still very much a sexist world where women typically find themselves at odds with a culture that does not wish to grant them absolute authority over their own bodies.

Women who terminate a pregnancy are not "going after a child" regardless of how much one wishes to demonize a woman deciding the state of her health. They are people who are exercising their right to determine their physical health at the very least.

I accept that you feel the way you do, Mystic. You're absolutely right about women being demonized not being acceptable, and I humbly apologise if what I said has hurt you (or JoStories).

 

[Sundance]

No, it doesn't because the woman is a living and breathing individual with rights. Th fetus is neither breathing nor does it have rights. Th fetus, particularly in the early first trimester, IS a collection of cells. That may constitute life but by law, it's not legal life. A cruel accusation seems a bit much to me. The bottom line is that the fetus has no rights whatsoever until it takes a breath.

The fetus is actually breathing, as well, dear Jo, though not outside of the womb. Neveetheless, inside or out, that is still a woman's child, and the child is still a living human being. Riddle me this, if you would, if a child in the womb is not human, then to which species will it belong? Additionally, why is it that in every other case, the unborn child is regarded as a human being? What makes the issue of abortion any different concerning the status of the child?

 

[Bunyip]

The fetus is actually breathing, as well, dear Jo, though not outside of the womb. In any case, inside or out, that is still a woman's child, and the child is still a living human being. Do you understand this?

No, the foetus does not breath. The foetus shares the mothers blood supply. A child is not a foetus.

 

[Sundance]

No, the foetus does not breath. The foetus shares the mothers blood supply. A child is not a foetus.

The survey says, buuuzz. You lose. Firstly, how does sharing a blood supply have any effect whatsoever upon whether or not a child is breathing? Secondly, a foetus is indeed a child, merely unborn, but still a child. Learn your Latin, brother. The word "fetus" means "unborn child". Don't play a game of semantics with me, dear Bunyip. My mother didn't raise a fool.

 

[Bunyip]

The survey says, buuuzz. You lose. Firstly, how does sharing a blood supply have any effect whatsoever upon whether or not a child is breathing?

Well obviously in that the foetus hasn't got lungs yet, and there is no air to breath. The foetus simply shares the mothers blood supply - it does not need to breath.

Secondly, a foetus is indeed a child, merely unborn, but still a child. Learn your Latin, brother. The word "fetus" means "unborn child". Don't play a game of semantics with me, dear Bunyip. My mother didn't raise a fool.

Didn't she? A foetus is still not a child, how is the origin of the word relevant?

 

[Sundance]

And this is the dictionary definition of a fetus:

"an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."

 

[Bunyip]

And this is the dictionary definition of a fetus:

"an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."

Sure. As opposed to the definition of 'child'.

 

[Sundance]

a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

The score is two to one.

 

[SomeRandom]

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[1]

Child may also describe a relationship with a parent (such as sons and daughters of any age)[3] or, metaphorically, an authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; it can also signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in "a child of nature" or "a child of the Sixties".

The score is two to one.

I'm confused. You say a fetus is pretty much interchangeable with the word and definition of "child."
But according to your own first sentence pre birth is not a quantifier of a "child" as you yourself state it is BETWEEN birth (as a starting point) and puberty. So your own definition states that a child is something outside of the womb as prenatal or gestational period does not fit the definition of a child.

 

[Sundance]

According to your own first sentence pre birth is not a quantifier of a "child" as you yourself state it is BETWEEN birth (as a starting point) and puberty.

You didn't read the entire excerpt, did you? I can tell.

 

[SomeRandom]

You didn't read the entire excerpt, did you? I can tell.

I edited my previous reply because it cut off as I was typing (stupid phone.)

 

[Bunyip]

a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

The score is two to one.

Read that again - you just proved yourself wrong buddy.

 

[Sundance]

Read that again - you just proved yourself wrong buddy.

I'm reading it, are you? Or are you merely being selective? Yes, one of the definitions of a "child" is "a person between birth and puberty". That is true. However, I noticed that you must have skipped over the subsequent definitions.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm reading it, are you? Or are you merely being selective? Yes, one of the definitions of a "child" is "a person between birth and puberty". That is true. However, I noticed that you must have skipped over the subsequent definitions.

I don't really see your point. Foetus' don't breath and are distinguishable from babies and children.

 

[Sundance]

I don't really see your point. Foetus' don't breath and are distinguishable from babies and children.

It matters not. My point ultimately is that regardless of the age or developmental stage, all of us (foetus, newborn infant, child, teenager, young adult, etc.) are indeed human beings. Wouldn't you agree? Probably not, but I digress.

 

[Sundance]

I edited my previous reply because it cut off as I was typing (stupid phone.)

It happens to me all the time, I know.