What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

[Me Myself]

Yeah...."it's a baby, not a choice" is a shaming tactic and attempts to paint a woman as a murderer if she wishes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy

Denouncing what we think its wrong is a shame tactic, but you denouncing our denouncing is not a shame tactic, because you are obviously right and we are wrong of course

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Denouncing what we think its wrong is a shame tactic, but you denouncing our denouncing is not a shame tactic, because you are obviously right and we are wrong of course

LOL that's so Pee Wee Herman of you...."I know you are but what am I?"

I refuse to tolerate intolerance.

 

[Me Myself]

People can abuse their bodies in myriad of ways. People have a right to be idiots. Doesn't make them murderers.

Agreed. Abusing their bodies does not equal murder, killing someone does.

I'm aware of that. I'm more concerned for the human life of the woman first, and that her life shouldn't be discarded as if it was nothing but a vessel for a fetus.

Most prolifers would be completely understanding on a woman choosing her life over the unborns.

No one is discarding the woman's life, they are discarding her discarding the life of the unborn. However hard or guilty she may feel for doing it, its not really about that honestly. Shame or guilt is ot the issue. Respecting the actual life of the unborn is the issue.

If the womans LIFE is at peril then its different.

 

[Me Myself]

LOL that's so Pee Wee Herman of you...."I know you are but what am I?"

I refuse to tolerate intolerance.

Oh I am not saying you are or am I anything, I am showing the problem in your denouncing.

Denouncing what you see is incorrect is what we all ought to do. In your case you believe my position is wrong, in my case i think yours is.

What i find funny is that when we denounce it is "shame tactics" , why not when you denounce it?

You dont care on shame. You care on things going the way you thi are more moral.

Its hard for me to see why you wouldnt see that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Agreed. Abusing their bodies does not equal murder, killing someone does.

Which abortion does not do. It is a medical procedure for the woman. Remember, prenatal care is first and foremost concerned about the health and welfare of the woman, and how the development of the fetus impacts her health. Hence, abortion services are not about "killing" anything, but rather supporting the integrity of the woman's bodily autonomy.

Most prolifers would be completely understanding on a woman choosing her life over the unborns.

No one is discarding the woman's life, they are discarding her discarding the life of the unborn. However hard or guilty she may feel for doing it, its not really about that honestly. Shame or guilt is ot the issue. Respecting the actual life of the unborn is the issue.

If the womans LIFE is at peril then its different.

We all know how that worked out for the woman who died because the hospital refused to help her with her miscarriage...they felt her life wasn't threatened enough.

All you are saying is what I've been saying all along. It's very easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the bodily autonomy of a female is understood to have conditions placed, and that her bodily autonomy is not unconditional. It falls under the umbrella of cultural distinctions regarding her sexual autonomy, under the definition of rape and understanding of informed consent, and under her decision when she wishes to be pregnant or not.

In many areas, culturally it's difficult for people to grasp that a woman's body is hers and hers alone. It's easy to say about a woman's autonomy, "Okay, it's her body except under these circumstances, and she should understand that and make better choices...."

That's a notion that I argue against.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh I am not saying you are or am I anything, I am showing the problem in your denouncing.

Denouncing what you see is incorrect is what we all ought to do. In your case you believe my position is wrong, in my case i think yours is.

What i find funny is that when we denounce it is "shame tactics" , why not when you denounce it?

You dont care on shame. You care on things going the way you thi are more moral.

Its hard for me to see why you wouldnt see that.

You're seeing an equivalency that isn't there.

MM, you want to restrict women from seeking abortions. I'm telling you to back off her and leave her alone. You see that as the same thing? That I'm restricting you from making restrictions against women?

 

[Me Myself]

You're seeing an equivalency that isn't there.

MM, you want to restrict women from seeking abortions. I'm telling you to back off her and leave her alone. You see that as the same thing? That I'm restricting you from making restrictions against women?

I no longer believe it should be a legal restriction because it doesnt seem to work. Its a functional thing.


You are saying that denouncing the killing of the unborn is "shame tactics" but denouncing what you believe is an immoral restriction of women's choice is... Not?

The debate is about motives. The thread is "what is the debate about" .

I find it amusing but sad at the same time that people would fall on the pit of pretending their opposition "knows is about restricting women mwahahahaha!" But masquerades it as saving the unborn.

 

[Me Myself]

Which abortion does not do. It is a medical procedure for the woman. Remember, prenatal care is first and foremost concerned about the health and welfare of the woman, and how the development of the fetus impacts her health. Hence, abortion services are not about "killing" anything, but rather supporting the integrity of the woman's bodily autonomy.



We all know how that worked out for the woman who died because the hospital refused to help her with her miscarriage...they felt her life wasn't threatened enough.

All you are saying is what I've been saying all along. It's very easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the bodily autonomy of a female is understood to have conditions placed, and that her bodily autonomy is not unconditional. It falls under the umbrella of cultural distinctions regarding her sexual autonomy, under the definition of rape and understanding of informed consent, and under her decision when she wishes to be pregnant or not.

In many areas, culturally it's difficult for people to grasp that a woman's body is hers and hers alone. It's easy to say about a woman's autonomy, "Okay, it's her body except under these circumstances, and she should understand that and make better choices...."

That's a notion that I argue against.

Killing people will always have conditions placed on it o.0

 

[adi2d]

Killing people will always have conditions placed on it o.0

Where are the people in the post you're replying to?

 

[Me Myself]

Where are the people in the post you're replying to?

I dont understand the question. You mean which persons am I referring to? Because I think both of us know.

The thread is what is the debate really about.

The reality is that all the prolifers I know, many of them women, are so because they belief human life should not be taken nor discarded lightly which is why they accept abortion in the cases where e life of the woman is actually at stake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, there is no zygote. There is no complete DNA of the human being.

Is DNA your measure of a person? If you kill one sibling in a set of identical twins, have you committed murder or not?

 

[Me Myself]

Is DNA your measure of a person? If you kill one sibling in a set of identical twins, have you committed murder or not?

Yes, each have the full dna of a person.

 

[adi2d]

I dont understand the question. You mean which persons am I referring to? Because I think both of us know.

The thread is what is the debate really about.

The reality is that all the prolifers I know, many of them women, are so because they belief human life should not be taken nor discarded lightly which is why they accept abortion in the cases where e life of the woman is actually at stake.

We both know that the pregnant woman is a person. We both know that the fetus is not a person yet

No abortion should be taken lightly but the woman involved is the one to decide. If anyone else can accept it or not is up to them

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, each have the full dna of a person.

But they have the same DNA. If DNA defines personhood, then they're the same person. If you kill one of them, a whole person will still be walking around unharmed. How can this be murder?

 

[idea]

We both know that the fetus is not a person yet

I disagree.

Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized | Video on TED.com

 

[adi2d]

I disagree.

Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized | Video on TED.com

Cute picture. I imagine it became a person shortly after picture was taken

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I no longer believe it should be a legal restriction because it doesnt seem to work. Its a functional thing.

It doesn't work. Abortion restrictions are impractical and dangerous for women if they must resort to illegal and unregulated means of terminating a pregnancy.

You are saying that denouncing the killing of the unborn is "shame tactics" but denouncing what you believe is an immoral restriction of women's choice is... Not?

Hey, denounce all you want. I'm just saying I'm pushing back against the tide of people who wish to take away a woman's choice for what she wants to do with her own body. Her bodily security and autonomy is, IMO, absolute. Nobody forces a man to have a vasectomy, or to go to war (we did away with the draft), or to give blood or plasma or sperm cells. We don't restrict a man from donating his body to science if his family would rather have a burial or a cremation.

But, as pro-lifers say, this is different because there is a "baby" that is alive and doing well with the help of this woman's uterus and blood and hormones and tissue and nutrients and water and everything else that is needed to build in its development. All must be put aside for this "baby" that cannot live outside the womb until viability.

I'm saying that her body is her body, and it's her body. Period. Just like we grant bodily autonomy to men for what they can do to their bodies, we ought to grant equal bodily autonomy to women, too.

I denounce the restrictions desired. Denounce all you want. It's freedom of speech. But I can respond however I want, too.

The debate is about motives. The thread is "what is the debate about" .

I find it amusing but sad at the same time that people would fall on the pit of pretending their opposition "knows is about restricting women mwahahahaha!" But masquerades it as saving the unborn.

I never said it's a masquerade. I believe that the idea of championing the rights of a fetus is predicated entirely on diminishing the autonomy of a woman and silently and insidiously suggesting that what she does with her own body is not entirely her decision to make. That she must think of the impact on others first.

Killing people will always have conditions placed on it o.0

I agree. Good thing abortion does not fall under that legal definition of murder.

 

[Me Myself]

I never said it's a masquerade. I believe that the idea of championing the rights of a fetus is predicated entirely on diminishing the autonomy of a woman and silently and insidiously suggesting that what she does with her own body is not entirely her decision to make. That she must think of the impact on others first.

If I decide to take a knife using my hand and stab someone in the neck it is an immoral use of my body.

In this scenario the vidtim is inside the body.

 

[ChristineES]

Within 7 weeks of conception, a woman can take RU486, which can chemically induce a miscarriage and has a 95% success rate. So, if a woman missed her last period, goes to take a pregnancy test and discovers it's positive that she's pregnant, that option remains for her until roughly week 9. Plus, the process needs to be overseen by a health care provider who can see if the abortion was successful or if a pregnancy is ongoing.

Also, "abortion as a means for birth control" is something where you and I part ways in regards to the ethics of abortion, given that a pro-lifer might agree to a woman having an abortion if she is victimized enough. But a woman making an autonomous choice for her body how she sees fit is not within that ethical paradigm. There's a fetus to consider more than her and any health or financial risks that pregnancy may bring.

That kind of shaming tactic also brings into the debate the notion that women are "ending a life because of a simple inconvenience." Those of us who have been pregnant before know that pregnancy is much more than a "simple inconvenience."

I would agree with you except for one thing: That most people know that if you have sex that you're going to either get pregnant or the other person is going to get pregnant . This is true unless one or both are sterile among other reasons. I don't feel as though I am shaming women in any way by saying that in a lot of cases, abortion is used as a birth control method. I am not against all birth control. My reasons are personal as to why I am pro-life.

 

[Me Myself]

I would agree with you except for one thing: That most people know that if you have sex that you're going to either get pregnant or the other person is going to get pregnant . This is true unless one or both are sterile among other reasons. I don't feel as though I am shaming women in any way by saying that in a lot of cases, abortion is used as a birth control method. I am not against all birth control. My reasons are personal as to why I am pro-life.

If you have unprotected sex that is.

Indeed, many women use it as a mere birth control method.