Pro Life or Pro Choice?

[Smart_Guy]

Having surgery done on you is rarely "on a whim," though. It's more often a big deal.

Yes ma'am, you're right. It is just that it is the choice of who wants to do it. There is always the choice of not doing it.

I think, again, perspectives such as this reduce pregnancy down to a matter of convenience, like a stomach ache or a visit to a dentist. Being a major medical condition for a woman, pregnancy is a serious matter first and foremost to the woman.

Just - for one single example - "morning sickness".

Before I was pregnant the first time, I used to wonder what all the drama was about. I've vomited before. It's no big deal, right?

Then I got pregnant. I was camped out by a toilet for 4 months straight.

This isn't like a stomach virus. One that at most can last a week. This is 4 months of morning, noon, night, and during sleep when then next thing you know you're puking and dry-heaving at the smell of dairy, or cigar smoke, or the neighbor's dog, or your co-workers tuna fish sandwich...anything really.

4 months straight. FOUR. MONTHS. STRAIGHT. ALL THE TIME.

And that's just one of the more minor complications. Go to any website and discover all the "inconveniences" pregnancies offer to women. Not to mention the risks of diabetes, of elevated blood pressure and hypertension, of too much weight gain, or not enough weight gain, of blood disorders (that was my mother who endured 3 extremely difficult pregnancies that ripped her body apart).

I almost hemorrhaged when I gave birth the first time. There was a team of 20 or so specialists on hand because my birth was an extremely difficult one. I was under close surveillance at the time.

Inconvenience. Hah.

Pregnancy alters a woman's bone structure, blood sugar levels, blood pressure, and her hormones forever and ever. That is never anything to gloss over and deem unimportant or as an inconvenience. These are major medical concerns for a woman. It's her health at stake. And she should be able to decide what happens to her body....and the only people involved in that decision is her and doctor...not the public and a voting booth.

Um, every thing I said was in agreement with what you are saying. All I meant was that as the woman is the one to decide what to do with here body (it's her right), she still has to consider (I'm just saying consider, not fully side with) the baby, which is a living being. I'm calling to have consideration for both sides without favoring the other for no good reason. If the pregnancy threatens the woman, then by all means, an abortion makes perfect sense.

I also said before that it is wrong to let the community decide the welfare of the women and the baby.

But at any rate, I don't hold strict to my opinions here. I'm not a women and in my culture we don't have the problems of abortion as a serious matter, so I could be wrong.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Holy balls are you serious?

Hush up and go move to Ethiopia.

Oh the irony that this is coming from a mother.

LOL too bad...I will not hush up. I will continue to fight for a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

And I'm very serious. Mother, grandmother, wife, business owner, caregiver, and teacher of 25+ years.

I also vote and am active politically.

Eat your heart out.

 

[bluegoo300]

I agree with you but from the pics I've seen the first 4 month you really can't call that a human being.

If you wanna be strict before the 9th week it's not even a fetus.

Agreed but i think there are just so many options if people were more careful and not the spur of the moment this would not be an issue.

 

[bluegoo300]

Define that point.

Well is it murder when the fetus heart has formed, its brain, its limbs that’s what I’m getting at when should it be considered murder. When is it human and not just mindless cells?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Well is it murder when the fetus heart has formed, its brain, its limbs that’s what I’m getting at when should it be considered murder. When is it human and not just mindless cells?

Roe vs Wade gave the nation a great compromise. Fetal viability approximately 23-26 weeks.

 

[Wirey]

Well is it murder when the fetus heart has formed, its brain, its limbs that’s what I’m getting at when should it be considered murder. When is it human and not just mindless cells?

What's human? Babies aren't self-aware out of the womb, they're a turnip that can cry. Is it okay to whack them then? Once the two gonads attach there is a string of viable DNA right then. Is that off limits?

 

[bluegoo300]

What's human? Babies aren't self-aware out of the womb, they're a turnip that can cry. Is it okay to whack them then? Once the two gonads attach there is a string of viable DNA right then. Is that off limits?

can as you say a “Turnip" feel pain, can it think, can it move no so yes a baby is human.

 

[bluegoo300]

Roe vs Wade gave the nation a great compromise. Fetal viability approximately 23-26 weeks.

Do you believe abortions should be allowed after 26 weeks?

 

[Katzpur]

I am politically pro-choice...

I am personally, pro-life and passionately so.

Wow, I've never really thought of it that way. That would be exactly how I see it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Roe vs Wade gave the nation a great compromise. Fetal viability approximately 23-26 weeks.

A good compromise, and also one that is rarely exercised. About 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester (before 13 weeks). Only about 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks - many of which are for medical reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well is it murder when the fetus heart has formed, its brain, its limbs that’s what I’m getting at when should it be considered murder. When is it human and not just mindless cells?

If there was a real, live child in a burning building and the father decided not to risk life and limb to save him, would this be murder?

No, it wouldn't be. We don't ask just how hazardous the flames were, or if he really would have died if he went in, consider his motivations for not going in, or judge him against the many parents who did rush into similar burning buildings. We just recognize that it was his right not to endanger himself... even if it costs a life.

Considering that this is the standard we apply to real people, why do you want to apply an even higher standard to fetuses? Forget justifying personhood of the fetus; you want a special status for fetuses over and above that which we grant to actual people.

What is it about passing through a vagina that you think strips a person of rights the way your position implies? How is it that we would have obligations to a fetus that nobody has to an actual person?

 

[bluegoo300]

If there was a real, live child in a burning building and the father decided not to risk life and limb to save him, would this be murder?

No, it wouldn't be. We don't ask just how hazardous the flames were, or if he really would have died if he went in, consider his motivations for not going in, or judge him against the many parents who did rush into similar burning buildings. We just recognize that it was his right not to endanger himself... even if it costs a life.

Considering that this is the standard we apply to real people, why do you want to apply an even higher standard to fetuses? Forget justifying personhood of the fetus; you want a special status for fetuses over and above that which we grant to actual people.

What is it about passing through a vagina that you think strips a person of rights the way your position implies? How is it that we would have obligations to a fetus that nobody has to an actual person?

you sir have a very good point and i realize I’m in the minority with this topic but ask yourself this every one of these arguments can go either way take this for example if an off duty cop sees a man shot another man and does not report it or stop him should he be held responsible for a crime.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes but it's no simple matter. There's a 1/10 chance of having long term pain. He's scared of that and rightly so!

Well, have you considered a tubal ligation for yourself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you sir have a very good point and i realize I’m in the minority with this topic but ask yourself this every one of these arguments can go either way take this for example if an off duty cop sees a man shot another man and does not report it or stop him should he be held responsible for a crime.

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[Thruve]

If there was a real, live child in a burning building and the father decided not to risk life and limb to save him, would this be murder?

No, it wouldn't be. We don't ask just how hazardous the flames were, or if he really would have died if he went in, consider his motivations for not going in, or judge him against the many parents who did rush into similar burning buildings. We just recognize that it was his right not to endanger himself... even if it costs a life.

Considering that this is the standard we apply to real people, why do you want to apply an even higher standard to fetuses? Forget justifying personhood of the fetus; you want a special status for fetuses over and above that which we grant to actual people.

What is it about passing through a vagina that you think strips a person of rights the way your position implies? How is it that we would have obligations to a fetus that nobody has to an actual person?

Perhaps if the man wasn't a coward, all those factors wouldn't affect his decision to save the boy or not, given the hazards were less dramatic than they seemed.

 

[Mister Emu]

If there was a real, live child in a burning building and the father decided not to risk life and limb to save him, would this be murder?

No, it wouldn't be. We don't ask just how hazardous the flames were, or if he really would have died if he went in, consider his motivations for not going in, or judge him against the many parents who did rush into similar burning buildings. We just recognize that it was his right not to endanger himself... even if it costs a life.

Considering that this is the standard we apply to real people, why do you want to apply an even higher standard to fetuses? Forget justifying personhood of the fetus; you want a special status for fetuses over and above that which we grant to actual people.

What is it about passing through a vagina that you think strips a person of rights the way your position implies? How is it that we would have obligations to a fetus that nobody has to an actual person?

There is no higher standard, you are comparing two non-similar actions. One is the passive rejection to aid, the other is an active destruction.

Being inside the already aflame house, the father does not have the right to kill the child to prevent any future endangerment the child could pose to him...

 

[bluegoo300]

There is no higher standard, you are comparing two non-similar actions. One is the passive rejection to aid, the other is an active destruction.

Being inside the already aflame house, the father does not have the right to kill the child to prevent any future endangerment the child could pose to him...

bingo thats for helping me point that out sir.:clap

 

[dust1n]

There is no higher standard, you are comparing two non-similar actions. One is the passive rejection to aid, the other is an active destruction.

Both would be an active rejection to aid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no higher standard, you are comparing two non-similar actions. One is the passive rejection to aid, the other is an active destruction.

Irrelevant in terms of the effect.

Being inside the already aflame house, the father does not have the right to kill the child to prevent any future endangerment the child could pose to him...

If the father was carrying the child, he would have the right to drop the child to save himself. He would even have the right to pry the child off him if he was clinging tightly. Bodily security still allows for deliberate acts that will knowingly result in the death of the child. It even allows for them if it's not certain that the father will die without dropping the child.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, have you considered a tubal ligation for yourself?

I'm glad you support these sorts of contraceptive measures, but the fact that it's so often the case that people who oppose legal abortion also oppose measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies (and thereby the number of abortions) is why I generally call people who oppose legal abortion "anti-choice" instead of "anti-abortion", since many of them take positions that would tend to actually increase the number of abortions.