Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

... and comparing women who seek abortions to rapists doesn't really help your case that you're not out to vilify these women.

Re: Vilifying women. I'm not really sure what this means. Killing an unborn baby is wrong and women who do it (outside of medical reasons) are morally corrupt. But no woman is forced to undergo abortion and so if there is villainy in killing a baby then it is a villainy the woman has freely chosen - not one I have imposed on her.

 

[midopafo]

What is missing here and always is missing in this debate is the innocent and sacred being of a child who is not responsible for its existence.

 

[Thanda]

What is missing here and always is missing in this debate is the innocent and sacred being of a child who is not responsible for its existence.

It is not missing at all. But unfortunately the powers that be have decided that the whims of a woman are more important than the life of a child.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is not missing at all. But unfortunately the powers that be have decided that the whims of a woman are more important than the life of a child.

Thought for the day:

Why don't pro-choice advocates take out billboards? Instead of "Every life is precious. Get help with an unplanned pregnancy." we could have billboards like, "Bodily autonomy means go ahead and terminate. It's not a baby!"

 

[midopafo]

It is not missing at all. But unfortunately the powers that be have decided that the whims of a woman are more important than the life of a child.

Well what is really missing is in all of this is :


ABORTION=MURDER=DAMNATION !

 

[VioletVortex]

The baby in the babies womb would not even be considered living... there is no way it would develop into a healthy human.

 

[Thanda]

The baby in the babies womb would not even be considered living... there is no way it would develop into a healthy human.

I don't understand you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thought for the day:

Why don't pro-choice advocates take out billboards? Instead of "Every life is precious. Get help with an unplanned pregnancy." we could have billboards like, "Bodily autonomy means go ahead and terminate. It's not a baby!"

Two big reasons:

- "pro-choice" doesn't mean "pro-abortion". If a woman doesn't want an abortion, there's no need to change her mind; her decision is already in line with the pro-choice position.

- the problem isn't with individuals regarding their own fetuses as babies; the problem is with people imposing this view on those who don't agree with it.

The pro-choice position isn't about promoting abortion; it's about ensuring that women have as many options available to them as possible. One of those options is carrying the pregnancy to term... and it's a perfectly fine option, as long as the woman freely chose it.

 

[Thanda]

the problem isn't with individuals regarding their own fetuses as babies; the problem is with people imposing this view on those who don't agree with it.

Thanks, just found a useful justification for misogyny:

"The problem isn't men regarding their wives as equal partners (versus say, property); the problem is with people imposing this view on those who don't agree with it"

 

[BilliardsBall]

The baby in the babies womb would not even be considered living... there is no way it would develop into a healthy human.

Years ago, this was so around up to 26 weeks. Now, it's around 21 weeks--so science makes it wrong to abort at 22 weeks now but it was okay years ago? Do you see the slippery slope here?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Two big reasons:

- "pro-choice" doesn't mean "pro-abortion". If a woman doesn't want an abortion, there's no need to change her mind; her decision is already in line with the pro-choice position.

- the problem isn't with individuals regarding their own fetuses as babies; the problem is with people imposing this view on those who don't agree with it.

The pro-choice position isn't about promoting abortion; it's about ensuring that women have as many options available to them as possible. One of those options is carrying the pregnancy to term... and it's a perfectly fine option, as long as the woman freely chose it.

I was being facetious. However, my point remains. Many pro-choice advocates are not proud enough of their stance to publicly take out a billboard, "Honey, it's just a fetus. Kill it as that is a possible option!"

Is euthanasia for geriatrics a "possible option"? What about for the mentally infirm? I would not have supported the Nazi's option to kill geriatrics and the infirm, something we know they did before their were death camps!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is euthanasia for geriatrics a "possible option"?

Depends what you mean. Rounding up senior citizens and killing them against their will? I certainly hope not.

Compassionate, voluntary assisted dying for people looking down the barrel of a painful or debilitating medical condition that's going to kill them? Yes - it's the moral thing to do to give people this option.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Depends what you mean. Rounding up senior citizens and killing them against their will? I certainly hope not.

Compassionate, voluntary assisted dying for people looking down the barrel of a painful or debilitating medical condition that's going to kill them? Yes - it's the moral thing to do to give people this option.

May I ask on what basis you determined this is "moral"? Some say it is, some say it isn't.

Thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

May I ask on what basis you determined this is "moral"? Some say it is, some say it isn't.

Thanks.

After my father lost consciousness for the last time, the doctor pulled my mother, my sister, and me aside into a private room. He told us that my father would never wake up again and gave us two options:

- we could have his life support, IV, etc. taken away and he would die of dehydration in a few days.
- we could leave these things attached wait a few weeks until the lymphoma that had taken his faculties and consciousness grew to the point that life couldn't be sustained.

We had no third option: to give him something to end things peacefully without watching him waste away even further from either dehydration or cancer.

My basis for what I said comes from watching my mother wrestle with the two awful options she was given.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

Truth be told, I've been avoiding this thread, mostly because it puts me at odds with a great many people here that I like and respect. (Yes, such a group exists.) But here goes ...

1. I believe in the sanctity of life. I also believe that, when in conflict, the sanctity of the life of the mother trumps that of the fetus.

2. I do not endorse abortions which are primarily for convenience while recognizing that this is a very difficult category to identify.

3. Given the above, and given the assumption made in the OP, there would be some number of abortions that I would deeply regret.

4. Since "oppose" typically means "disapprove of and attempt to prevent," I would neither support nor oppose abortion in general.

5. I would, however, vehemently oppose efforts to criminalize the act or to stigmatize those who choose this resolution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just to add: supporting abortion and supporting the right to abortion are not the same; the poll offered me no acceptable option.

 

[Thanda]

Truth be told, I've been avoiding this thread, mostly because it puts me at odds with a great many people here that I like and respect. (Yes, such a group exists.) But here goes ...

1. I believe in the sanctity of life. I also believe that, when in conflict, the sanctity of the life of the mother trumps that of the fetus.

2. I do not endorse abortions which are primarily for convenience while recognizing that this is a very difficult category to identify.

3. Given the above, and given the assumption made in the OP, there would be some number of abortions that I would deeply regret.

4. Since "oppose" typically means "disapprove of and attempt to prevent," I would neither support nor oppose abortion in general.

5. I would, however, vehemently oppose efforts to criminalize the act or to stigmatize those who choose this resolution.

This for your response.

1. So you believe the fetus is a living being?
2. Is abortions that are not as a result of a life-threatening condition and are not the result of rape not in fact convenience abortions?
3. Are you saying you could continue to support the right to lifestyle abortions even when a way out exists for the mother we she no longer has to carry the burden of supporting another life in her body (I.O.W when her bodily autonomy is no longer a concern)?
5. Why not when there is a perfect way to protect a life (of a baby) without burdening someone else (the mother)?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This for your response.

OK,

1. So you believe the fetus is a living being?

I know of no useful yet relevant definition of "being".

2. Is abortions that are not as a result of a life-threatening condition and are not the result of rape not in fact convenience abortions?

Some, but certainly not all, and I'm not about to sit as judge of someone's intent or enable others to do so.

3. Are you saying you could continue to support the right to lifestyle abortions even when a way out exists for the mother we she no longer has to carry the burden of supporting another life in her body (I.O.W when her bodily autonomy is no longer a concern)?

No, I am not saying that.

5. Why not when there is a perfect way to protect a life (of a baby) without burdening someone else (the mother)?

See item #2 above.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And now, @Thanda , permit me to ask you the following: For what reasons might a girl/woman choose abortion over the Thanda-option?

 

[Thanda]

OK,

Meant to say Thanks not This.

I know of no useful yet relevant definition of "being".

The being part is not as relevant. Do you consider a unborn baby to be have a life worth protecting whenever possible?

Some, but certainly not all, and I'm not about to sit as judge of someone's intent or enable others to do so.

Okay I see. However when there is a life worth saving (point 1) then it isn't so easy for me to sit on the fence. Just like we know there are times when it is right for a man to end another man's life - nevertheless as a society we do not sit on the fence as to when such times would be appropriate. We have set rules about when it is appropriate and whenever it happens we have a proper investigation - and often a trial - to determine whether the criteria for a lawful killing were met.

I wonder why we are so casual about the life of the most innocent and defenseless - unborn babies.

No, I am not saying that.

Okay. So you are saying you wouldn't support the right to abortion if there was an option for women to rid themselves of the burden of pregnancy without having to kill the baby?

See item #2 above.

Again I'm just struggling to reconcile your two positions. On the one hand you recognize the sanctity of the life of the unborn baby. But on the other hand you're willing to support a woman's right to end that life based on what she, subjectively, feels is necessary without any kinds of safeguards or guidelines - for example the kind we have about people killing other people.

I can't see how those positions can sit safely together.