HOME | DD
daniellesylvan — Choice
Published: 2007-11-22 04:01:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 12657; Favourites: 314; Downloads: 93
Redirect to original
Description
My view on abortion, my friend brought up the subject, and it inspired me to draw this.I got some of the idea from America's Next Top Model. lol xD;; In one of their photoshoots, they did political issues, and a girl had this written on her stomach.
I used [link] as a slight ref. I changed the position a bit though.
Pro-choice all the way!
Do not use this image without my permission.
Related content
Comments: 597
What if the mom's at risk for dying?
o3o And I can't find your conversation with that girl on the concept of rape.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If the mother is at serious risk of dying then the abortion should be allowed
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's the thing though: what if a woman is raped? What if the woman is misinformed? What it contraceptive methods have failed (because nothing is perfect)?
I can positively say that pro-choicers are for the education and protection of women so they won't be victims of unwanted pregnancies. If the unwanted pregnancy happens though, whatever the choice the woman takes will be respected and she will be helped with counseling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Being pro life I too am for the education and protection of women so they won't be victims of unwanted pregnancies. But equally, I am for the protection of innocent human life. Women do have the choice legally speaking. But I have yet to hear a moral argument that makes the choice to have the abortion right. After all, for the woman to be able to have a choice to begin with she must be alive. It is this foundation to liberty itself that must be protected absolutely before any attempt is made to protect the liberty. Therefore, this protection of life is underpinning the protection of liberty and should be applied to all living beings capable to make choices in the present or future. Therefore, using liberty to attack life is to be inconsistent to say the least as it attacks the very basis it is dependant on to stand as a coherent moral position. Not all choices are respectable or should be respected. Women have no monopoly on dictating who receives fundamental human rights - the main one being the right to life!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It was through hard-won battles that women obtained the right to an education in the first place, but no matter how educated a woman is, rapists and child molesters are everywhere, sadly. And so are stupid teenagers who don't know the true meaning of hopping in bed with a boy. Point being, unwanted pregnancies are GOING TO HAPPEN, either through rape or pure stupidity, even if the woman is practically a high school scholar.
"Women have no monopoly on dictating who receives fundamental human rights-"
Yes we do. We are the ones who grant life itself to unborn fetuses by giving birth to them, and we should be able to decide whether we want to devote our entire lives to that new life and never have an ounce of freedom again, or live our own lives and make something of ourselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just below I had a long dialogue with 'PinkieNekoGirl'. If you want my views I cover these at some point with her! Pro-life/Pro-choice I think it is important to find common ground that we can all agree on. Better awareness, better education, more available contraception, more federally funded financial and emotional support for women wanting the baby they couldn't otherwise cope with, make adoption a real option by improving standards for all orphans etc. I hope it is not uncontroversial to say abortion should be kept as a completely last resort in all cases (and I suppose this is where we differ because for most cases I would say it should not be available at all). But the lowering of abortions in the ways I have just said are good starts for both pro-life and pro-choice camps. With technology improving I see viability being pushed back even further so maybe in 100 years a woman won't be needed to carry the child at all at any stage! Until then though I will stay pro-life, voice my reasons why to any who want to listen and vote on that basis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Abortion itself will never be fully "right": I myself consider it more like an occasional "necessary evil". I'd rather treat it in an individual level rather than a whole for no person can ever make such a decision for someone else. The woman in question herself has to fully analyze her own judgement to conclude which is the most appropriate action: adoption, abortion or keep the child.
More than liberty itself, I'd just give priority to a fully grown body that has already a judgement of its own and has the possible grave consequences that the unwanted pregnancy may leave than the life that is yet to come and whose future is completely unsure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For your latter point you need to show how complexity or the quality of the life alters the Right to the Life itself. Otherwise what you said is irrelevant.
On the former point, abortion on demand is always wrong. I agree it is a tricky position. But, Roe vs Wade is founded on the avoidance of defining the starting point of life and therefore took a leize faire attitude to it, leaving all the legal inconsistencies that come with it. If a fetus is a living human then the State must make this decision to destroy it an illegal one (just like with any other form of killing innocent life). Extremist pro choicers say the foetus isn't innocent but even if it is not it still should not be killed!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It isn't so irrelevant when you consider the financial and psychological status of the child's mother. If the mother isn't in a state of mind where she can handle the pregnancy (or even physically, for that matter) or she has no economical resources to sustain the child, I think it'd be much preferable to abort the child rather than keep the pregnancy going. But, hey, it's the mother's choice, she's the one who has to carry (or not) a growing living being in her womb for the next 9 months that will ensue. Far too many children in this world suffer from neglect from parents or the society per se (because unfortunately the adoption system in any country is too complicated and there aren't enough families that do carry on with adoption).
Even if it were wrong, women have and will carry on with abortion for the years to come. So what would you prefer: women dying from butchers and self-abortion methods or women being safe with the care of a trained professional? Because that's the issue that the government must face: the welfare of the individual. If the individual does not want to carry on the pregnancy, the government then should provide the necessary health care for said individual carry on her own decision.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think if anti-choicers and anti-women really cared about women and women's issues then they wouldn't imply they should be punished for sex by being forced to carry pregnancies against their will.
- Planned Parenthood was created to help women and their families and
educate about birth control. And whether Margaret Sanger was racist or not has no bearing on the ethics of abortion. She was also a big proponent of
contraception--does that make condoms evil?
Anti-choicers always use that racism kkk nazi argument, but the fact is it was praised and supported by even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr for it's aid to minorities. Was he bigotted against African Americans too? And I have Jewish friends whose family members are holocaust survivors and guess what? they're pro-choice, are members of Planned Parenthood and Aleph, an organization that helps women in crisis. In fact they admires Dr. Gisela Perle, who practiced abortion in Auschwitz to save women's lives and Henry Morgentaler, who was an Auschwitz survivor. [link]
[link]
Dr. Morgantaler, an abortion provider who has been nominated to the highest Canadian honor for his work, survived Auschwitz and saw the horrors of man's cruelty to man. Although not mentioned, it is likely he witnessed what happened to pregnant women in the camps. He studied medicine and fought for the underdog, even going to prison in Canada. At that time, attempting to induce an abortion was a crime punishable by life in prison, or two years
imprisonment if the woman herself was convicted.
[link]
All the women I've met who have had abortions felt a certain amount of anguish over having to make the decision, but once they do decide and have the procedure done, the usual feeling is one of relief. The guilt, if any, is often the result of harrassment by opponents of abortion. Adoption works just fine for some women, and more power to them. But for others, the pregnancy itself is the problem. Our culture tends to idolize motherhood,
and puts an idyllic "public face" on pregnancy: the radiant, mother-to-be,
basking in the contented bliss of her own fecundity. We don't
like to think about this...
* exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
* altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
* nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
* heartburn and indigestion
* constipation
* weight gain
* dizziness and light-headedness
* bloating, swelling, fluid retention
* hemmorhoids
* abdominal cramps
* yeast infections
* congested, bloody nose
* acne and mild skin disorders
* skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
* mild to severe backache and strain
* increased headaches
* difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
* increased urination and incontinence
* bleeding gums
* pica
* breast pain and discharge
* swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
* difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
* inability to take regular medications
* shortness of breath
* higher blood pressure
* hair loss
* tendency to anemia
* curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
* infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
* extreme pain on delivery
* hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
* continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period
* stretch marks (worse in younger women)
* loose skin
* permanent weight gain or redistribution
* abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
* pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged
former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated
with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of
life)
* changes to breasts
* varicose veins
* scarring from episiotomy or c-section
* other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are
downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
* increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
* loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
* hyperemesis gravidarum
* temporary and permanent injury to back
* severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional
pregnancies)
* dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies,
and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele,
rectocele, and enterocele)
* pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of
pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
* eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of
death)
* gestational diabetes
* placenta previa
* anemia (which can be life-threatening)
* thrombocytopenic purpura
* severe cramping
* embolism (blood clots)
* medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during
part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either
mother or baby)
* diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
* mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
* serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
* hormonal imbalance
* ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
* broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
* hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery
* refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
* aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is
present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism
and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
of seizures)
* severe post-partum depression and psychosis
* research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and
female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women
and donors
* research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer
survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
* research also indicates a correlation between having six or more
pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
- Legal abortion is safer than childbirth. The death rate from childbirth in first-world countries where abortion is illegal is about ten times as high as the death rate from abortion, and the rate of complications is about 30 times higher. Abortion is, in fact, safer than a penicillin injection and about 11 times as safe as carrying a pregnancy to term.
[link]
The list of possible complications from that is tiny compared to the list of complications from pregnancy.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Over 70% of Anti-choicers are men, 100% of them will never be pregnant
States that ban abortion have the lowest funds for adoption & foster care. And with so many kids in adoption, who WILL adopt them? Once these kids are born, they're essentially abandoned to adoption. I can't name one person I know who's anti-abortion that adopted a kid. Also, with the nation's poor increasing, who's gonna afford extra kids adopted? The rich or well-to-do aren't adopting much either.
[link]
Over 500,000 children in the U.S. currently reside in some form of foster care, without being adopted
[link]
Worldwide adoption agencies are practically swamped with a huge majority of children who go unadopted (which, in truly impoverished nations, can possibly lead to horrific results such as the illegal sale of orphans into human trafficking). As recently as 2006, adoption statistics have actually dropped about 10% to 15% in the top countries.
[link]
Welfare programs have been significantly reduced over the past few years.
I have done a bit of research beforehand; I'm not just pulling figures and assumptions out of my head. Paraphrasing from answers.com (and my history textbook), regulated welfare programs were formulated during Franklin D.Roosevelt's presidency. Between the Great Depression and WWII, medicare,
medicaid, public housing, food stamps, etc. etc. arose to support victims of
the depression. However, as the U.S. started moving beyond its depression years, unemployment dropped; however, a lingering percentage still had no intention of finding a job. Welfare programs were thus criticized for creating a system of dependency. During the 1990s and beyond, states started
experimenting with welfare and implementing systems that require people to
work. In 1996, President Clinton signed a bill (heavily supported by Republicans) that eradicated some welfare programs and only supplied states
with a block grant. Under this law, government funds can only support a
family for five years (maximum). So, welfare programs fail to provide adequate support for working mothers because of these growing limitations. Raising a child is expensive
The costs of raising a baby to age 18 costs between $125,000-$250,000 and
that's not including college tuition! In your baby's first year alone, you can easily spend between $9,000-$11,000 (for diapers, formula, baby
furniture, clothing, baby gear, etc.) If you go back to work right away,childcare can cost as much as $3,000-$4,500 in your baby's first year. If
you can stay home with your baby, you can save money....
Crib with mattress- $160-$750
Crib bedding set- $35-$270
Crib blankets (4-6)- $8-$40 each
Fitted crib sheets (2)- $8-$20 each
Water-proof mattress cover- $10-$20
Bassinet or cradle- $35-$260
Changing table- $70-$600
Changing pad & cover- $25-$50
Dresser- $90-$650
Rocker or glider- $90-$500
Car seat- $35-$280
Stroller or travel system- $30-$300
Playpen or porta-crib- $60-$180
Swing- $45-$130
Play center or walker- $50-$125
Mobile- $25-$70
Baby carrier or sling- $20-$140
Monitor- $20-$230
Baby gate- $35-$250
Bouncer seat- $30-$90
Toy box- $25-$90
Gym or play mat- $25-$90
Doorway jumper- $25-$60
High chair- $45-$240
Diaper bag- $10-$60
Diaper pail- $20-$45 Refills- $15-$20 (3 pack)
Thermometer- $10-$90
First aid supplies (kit)- $20-$30
Humidifier or vaporizer- $15-$130
Bottles 8 oz & 4 oz (8-10)- $10-$20 (3 pack) or $20-$40 (starter set)
Bottle warmer- $18-$35
Sterilizer- $30-$70
Breast pump & accessories- $45-$350
Breastfeeding pillow- $20-$35
Bath tub or seat- $15-$35
Hooded towels (4)- $6-$30 each
Wipes (a lot)- $4-$5 (pack)
Clothes for first year- $500-$1,200
Smaller items: Washcloths, diaper rash ointment/powder, nail clippers, nasal
aspirator, baby wash/lotion/oil/shampoo, pacifiers, extra nipples for
bottles, bottle brush, breastfeeding pads, burp cloths/ lap pads, bibs,
receiving blankets, car seat head support (for newborns), toys & more toys.
[link]
Therefore, unless someone can persuade the working middle class of the U.S.
to pay more taxes for unwanted babies and welfare programs that seemingly generates "dependency" on federal funds, denying abortions to woman and having them deal with these lifelong costs without support is unreasonable.
It is very difficult to get an adequately paying job without a high school diploma, a few degrees, and college graduation. For the percentage of
pregnant women who are teen mothers-to-be,the job market for them is very isolated.
The way I see it, if you're going to force every woman to give birth to their babies, then you better damn be ready to fund all the adoption centers and foster care programs that will be needed. It will take an increase in taxes to cover the care of the children in the adoption agencies and foster homes. The sorts of things that a lot of people say is not applicable to them, and should not be something they have to pay for. The typical argument is "Hey, why should I have to pay for someone else's kid?"
My answer is "Hey. Because you wanted to force them to have it instead of letting them get an abortion."
And if you are still focused only on the future of the fetus, it will not be the only one suffering, should it be permitted to live-- countless others will be unecessarily affected as a result, both directly and indirectly. An average baby will use over 6,000 diapers in two years. These things do not bio-degrade for millions of years, and they take up unbelieveable amounts of space in landfills, requiring more land be cleared for dumping. I'll only touch upon the amount of soil erosion, water pollution, and habitat loss that entails. Then there is actually feeding the child-- the amount of food a mother must consume to generate enough milk for it, or the amount of food that cows or goats must consume, should parents decide to use formula. Nevermind the fact that the animals must be repeatedly forced into pregnancy for them to lactate, only to have their young taken away (usually for veal) so that the milk can be harvested for marketing. Keep in mind, these are only the most closely-tied examples of child-induced suffering.
- [link] is a great article of the
behaviour shown by many members of those who profess to be opposed to abortion.
More links
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Here are some interesting facts and POV (based on both research and opinion):
Is a fetus a human being? Can it be considered a legal person with rights?
A fetus has rarely been considered a human being. They are different from human beings in several key ways:
1) The fetus depends on the mother to survive.
2) Human beings, by definition, are unique and separate individuals.
3) Rights cannot be transferred from person to person. The fetus, although living inside the mother, does not gain the priviledge to gain such status and rights.
4) Fetuses would have to be tax and property payers to become "a legal person with rights."
5) American citizenship is described as anyone "born or naturalized in the U.S."
6) The global declaration of human rights states, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Does this include fetuses, clumps of cells not technically born yet?
Does a fetus have a right to life?
- Most anti-abortion viewers argue "yes." However, they do commonly show sympathy for rape victims or mothers who have high-risk pregnancies. In these situations, anti-choicers are showing that the mother's health and well-being are more valuable than the life of a fetus.
- If a fetus did have the right to life, what's to stop the state from forcing people to donate organs, blood, etc. to save another individual? If a fetus is considered a human being, is the mother obligated to save it and give it an opportunity to live? How is this different from saving an actual human being suffering from a life-threatening disease with few matching donors?
I'm going to reiterate my stance on the issue: It doesn't really matter whether human fetuses are people. What matters is whether *women* are people, because people are not obligated to use their bodies as life-support for other people. If you truly believe that women are people, neither more nor less completely than any other sort of people, then you must be in favor of reproductive rights. To oppose abortion rights is to say, in effect, that a fetus has a greater claim on a woman's body than she herself does. And that makes her something less than a person.
However, I must confess that my views on abortion are colored by the fact that I have a working womb, and no desire (at present or in the foreseeable future) to loan it out to anyone or anything, while men like moomin468 do not have this concern.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I fucking LOVE YOU. It's sad when men think they can voice out something they clearly have no idea of; most of their ideals come from religious points, whilst women feel it in their bodies these difficulties. It's like an issue I read on the newspaper, of a man saying that women that fight against FGM don't understand what's like to be a woman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly! Thank you! I make a point to never listen to either religious people or men about women's issues unless the man is an unbiased, qualified docter who dosn't bring religion into his practice and will put the woman's well being first. Males like moomin468 and chibihitler (Ugh!) who believe women should "never say no" have no empathy or understanding for women and girls- and view us as nothing more then walking incubators- because they will never be in those situations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed: they will never have to experience the troubles of pregnancy and the whole responsibility that it means; I fear that history and nature has been way too kind to men...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Again, why is the financial and psychological status of a person affect other person's right to life? This is the link I am asking for otherwise all you are doing is spouting red herrings. The quality of life is independent from the sanctity of life, whilst this distinction is meaningful then it is necessarily true. If not you must demonstrate where that is wrong. Moreover, the problem with disabled or poor children is the fact that they are disabled and poor, not that they are alive or that there is a child at all! Therefore, society should address the former and by addressing the latter society is not only missing the fundamental point of its function, but it is very frightening logic to embraced even if only at the fringes. It is not consistently applied and thank god it isnt, but it should not be applied at all!.
Your point about women having abortions anyway is flawed on at least two fronts. Firstly, because something happens does not mean it should happen. People are always going to murder/rape but it doesn't mean society accepts or condones or tolerates such actions but resist them totally regardless of how hard this demand is to meet. Moreover, your picture is a false dichotomy. I will present a 3rd possible way that you have not considered. Abortion being illegal WITH protection for the mother and foetus. Without drawing out an elaborate way of showing this is possible it is perfectly plausible to look after the rights of both. The right to life must always be prioritised over the right to liberty. It is only from this basis, establishing the safety of the child's life and human life as a whole, can we then discuss the quality of life that child and other humans are going to live.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry if I'm answering late, but my message box became flooded with messages and it took me a while to find my way on it. 
Life is a blessing, sure. But you have to consider this: if you give the right to women to decide to stop an unwanted pregnancy, you have more money to spend on the children that are already born and need your help and less children to take care of. With growing education on how to prevent pregnancies, abortions would become then just a necessary evil for women who are risking their lives.
And with your arguments, I can clearly see that you have never met a woman that has had to chose to abort or not, or a woman that has gone through an abortion. For example, my mother chose to terminate one of her pregnancies (for it was too dangerous for her) so she could take care of me and my brothers. Isn't that prioritizing life? or do you think she's a murderer through and through? The reason why abortion is more socially accepted is because men fail to realize how difficult motherhood is and not everybody is ready for it. You cannot protect every single woman who doesn't want to have a child financially or assure a good life for both of them (or the mere survival of both).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Being pro life I agree women's lives need to be protected so abortions in those cases are necessary. Yet, the disagreement lies with a woman's choice (ie liberty) taking priority over life. The right to life is not dependant, contingent, founded on or related to in any way to money or the financial benefits that may or may not come. I disagree it would advantage women or children but in any case, while an economic case can be made for abortion making economic sense I am more concerned with the moral case as I think morality always takes president over economic reasoning.
I have met people who have had an abortion. Anyway, I do not need to meet a woman in that position to have an informed view on the moral significance of her choices. For your mother's choice then I do not think it is prioritising life in the slightest by sacrificing one of your children for the welfare of your other children. This is because the morality and rights of an agent is not contingent on the results that benefit others. Why should the foetus be used as a means to your and your siblings end? Is it not morally equivalent to using you and your siblings as a means to the foetus's end? I would say it is, so at best you are at a stalemate. Yet, I would much rather say all rights, the most fundamental one being life, is independent of all external factors.
I do not know your mother so I am not going to judge her. But you asked for my view so I think her abortion was morally wrong and she was misguided in allowing it to happen. For the men/women divide - being a man simply does not make me incapable of understanding moral choices including killing. Abortion is no exception and women have no monopoly on the morality of killing. I agree it is hard to protect life but at least the principles are sound even if the practice is not perfect. However, the alternative seems to be accepting horrible principles of forcing the will of the capable onto those of the weak with the barbaric practices of sacrificing the rights of others for the gain of the politically, economically and socially significant. Not only is the practice morally repugnant; it can never change as this practice is essentially embedded into the foundation of the principles that attempt to justify taking innocent life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You talk a lot about "morals", but being inflexible with said "morals" only brings unstability to our world. Necessary evils must happen from time to time, the world isn't all happiness and sunshine. You cannot force a woman to keep having a pregnancy caused, let's say, by rape: that is a decision that the woman herself has to make, reviewing her own set of values and future possibilities. Some can handle well and some don't.
And how isn't aborting a dangerous pregnancy not prioritizing life? The world doesn't solely revolve around that single fetus that has yet to develop for many months to come, there are other people's lives that may be deeply affected by the death of the mother. There's even the possibility where both of them die, which makes the death of the woman practically useless for she had the chance to live. Thinking of the good of a single being is terribly pretentious and uncaring to the part of the others.
And I do think that you, being a male, hinders your sight in this issue: unfortunately men have and never will truly understand how difficult it is being a woman. While men can only moralize our position, we have to face these difficulties every day. Otherwise I should take this sentence "the women who fight against excision don't know what's like to be a woman anymore", said by a man, relevant. Who are you to think you can have a say on our bodies?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not being inflexible with morality. I fully accept that the woman's life takes priority over the foetus's life. I take issue with the woman's liberty taking priority over the foetus's life. You will need to explain what you mean by 'unstablility' as the mass killing of innocent life seems to be near the very top of social, moral and political instability. You will have to demonstrate why abortion is necessary, otherwise it is just an evil.
I am a member of society, a rational person, I can reflect and form informed views and from this deduce what moral obligations and values I need and want to uphold. This is more than enough for me to form a view of what you should do. And it is not your body - it is the foetus's. Different DNA so different organism completely!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you say that you accept that the woman's life is more important than the fetus, how can you say that you cannot find a single reason why abortion can become a necessary evil? That is completely paradoxical.
As I pointed out several times, abortion can be necessary when the mother's life is gravely endangered or when she was raped. One situation leads to the death of the woman if she doesn't go through the procedure and the other one may deeply scar the woman's psyche, hindering her future possibilities of a decent life (or even possible self-harm, if the person's mind is fragile enough). What may happen next is solely her decision, for she is the one that has to go through the pregnancy.
And I'm sorry, but as much as you can moralize and "think" that you can have an "informed" view, you will never truly understand "our" position. The moment where men start having pregnancies and periods, call me and we'll talk.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
By woman's life I mean her living, not what constitutes her quality of life. So the foetus has life and the mother does too. They both have the right to life. If the woman's life is threatened then abortion becomes a serious moral question but not when only her liberty is (this includes damaged health).
As for being a man if that really is a problem then listen to these women. [link] But I don't see the significance of periods in deciding moral choices. It seems arbitrary at best. A living human enforcing their will over another innocent ending in intentional death is going to be morally wrong. This is true whenever including abortion! To point out gender would be like pointing out race if an oriental person were to kill another person and for the oriental person to be justified in saying, 'you would not understand because you are not oriental'. You need to show how women have a monopoly in enforcing their will to kill an innocent human life. You haven't done so yet!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Women have a monopoly in enforcing their will to decide if they keep a pregnancy in their bodys and wombs or not. We are not obligated to donate our bodies as incubators and life support for other people.
You say the zygote/embryo/fetus has as much right to life as the woman? Fine then, zygotes/embryos/fetuses are free to live- *outside* of other peoples bodies and wombs.
And in response to your religious signiture; let me make one thing very very clear: Anything you've heard about the Bible being anti-abortion IS A MYTH.
There is not a single passage that specifically refers to abortion in the Bible, with the exception of whenever God became angry at mortals, He would sometimes curse them with miscarriages (certainly not a God I would follow, as this is no different from an abusive husband using the crude hanger method on a pregnant wife in my eyes):
Hosea 9:11 - 9:16, He forces miscarriages upon women and slays their unborn children;
2 Samuel 12:13 - 12:18, He kills an unborn child for something David did.
Numbers 5:11 - 5:31, a woman has to suffer a test of infidelity and bear the risk of having a miscarriage;
Genesis 38:24, a pregnant woman is to be burnt to death for bearing a "child by whoredom."
And in one passage, God even placed monetary value on human beings, with any "child" under a month old (whether a fetus or baby is unclear) being worth nothing: Leviticus 27:3 - 27:7.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
'We are not obligated to donate our bodies as incubators'. I would slightly disagree with the phrasing of this because pro-lifers (or me at any rate) do not force you to donate your body. Once the foetus is in the question is how can we remove it. Wait 9 months or kill it. Now for me I think that killing someone is worse than limiting someone's liberty or violating their autonomy. That does not mean the lack of liberty or autonomy is a non-issue for me. I just do not see the ends - giving the woman's liberty back - a justifying the means - killing an innocent life.
Your second point simply makes no sense. The right to life means it cannot be killed and its live should be protected. That does not mean the foetus is free to live anywhere because there are a number of places - like outside the womb - where it will be killed or its life cannot be protected (not until technology allows us to protect it) and so moving it outside the womb would violate its right to life.
I know the bible is hazy on abortion. I am not basing it upon the bible. The bible is not secular so cannot influence laws directly. Those quotes however seem to suggest it is a human as children are humans, and unborn children are still children. Anyway, I have not used the bible. It is more rationality. I can find biblical support for my position but I would be pro-life regardless what the bible says! I am a vegetarian but the bible tends to quite like killing animals! My basic argument is this:
Abortion brings into conflict the right to liberty and the right to life. One of these rights needs to be given priority. To be able to have liberty one needs to be living. Therefore, to defend liberty one must defend life first to be able to have liberty in the first place. Therefore, with liberty being dependant on life then the right to life precedes the right to liberty and therefore takes priority. To have it the other way around, to have liberty undermining the right to life, would undermine the right to liberty itself as the right to liberty presupposes a right to life. Therefore, to protect liberty one needs to universally protect the right to life. Where is the Bible in that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like I said, killing a zygote/embryo/fetus in a person's body is nowhere near akin to killing an actual born person. And weather it be life or liberty, the rights of the *already born* take priority over those of the unborn. That's just common sense, otherwise how do you propose to keep a woman from aborting an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy? Lock her up and tie her down for nine months? Sounds allot like reproductive slavery- forcing a woman to donate her body for another person to live and develop inside- to me.
Again, zygotes/embryos/fetuses etc are perfectly free to live outside of my body. They do not get more claim to it then I do and it isn't mine or anyone's fault if they can't survive outside of it.
Also, for example, say person A needs an organ or tissue donation or blood transfusion to save their life and found out person B was a match; Yes, it would be generous and kind of person B to donate, but if they aren't willing there's nothing can be done and that would be just to bad for person A.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your first paragraph begs the question as the whole question is 'do the rights of the mother or already born override all rights of the unborn'. Just asserting that they do and claiming this is common sense simply does not further your case. Excluding the unborn is an arbitrary distinction as you haven't offered any justification for it!
Your second and third paragraphs show a confusion (or ignorance) about negative and positive rights. The negative right to life takes priority over the positive right to liberty. For your A and B person then again pro-life is perfectly consistent. The negative right to self-ownership overrides a positive right to medical aid.
Now, the foetus is not free do live outside the body because it will die. The woman is equally free to keep the foetus inside.
For forced organ donation - it is the pro-choicer who is forcing the foetus to give up its life for the benefit of the woman and your illustration shows that forcing to do something without consent is wrong unless it achieves a higher good. Now, that goes back to my previous point that life is prioritised before liberty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, the rights of the woman and the already born override the rights of the unborn because the woman and the already born have feelings, thoughts, familys, friends, careers, lives of their own. The unborn zygotes/embryos/fetuses living in other peoples bodies have none of these, are not even aware of their own existance. And again, yes, the right of the woman to her own body overrides the right of the zygote/embryo/fetus to live inside and off of her. It's nobody's fault if it can't survive outside of her anymore then it's yours or my fault if somebody out there dies because we didn't donate any blood/tissue/organs to them.
And again, if *all* life takes priority over *all* liberty, how do you propose to enforce this? Should the law then be allowed to arrest a woman or girl who wants an abortion and lock her up and tie her down for nine months to protect the zygote/embryo/fetus? And should the law then be allowed to arrest any potential matching doner for refusing, then tie them down and *forcefully* take the blood/tissue/organ from them to save another person "for the greater good"? That sounds allot like Orwellian reproducive and anatomic slavery to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why is worth founded on ve feelings, thoughts, familys, friends and careers? If a woman did not have any of these would she be less valuable? These things are just irrelevant on wether someone has the right to life. To have the right to life one needs to be living. Thats the end of it! Show me the Act or Bill in UK or US law that says otherwise. If you cannot then just take it from me that you are wrong. You are just re-itterating your old point which I have already dealt with.
On to the straw-man argument about the Orwellian reproductive anatomic slavery. Melodramatics are just uncalled for and I have never suggested anything of the sort. Having agreed abortion is wrong then it is a hard question of what do do to reduce abortions and do with people who have them. I suppose as with most laws it would be through trial and error. My first proposed solution would be that all support needed to bring up a child is given to the mother and funded by the government. That seems uncontroversial for a pro-lifer or pro-choicer. All women who do have abortions should be given the going punishment for assisting murder and the doctors prosecuted for murder. A woman who has not had an abortion is not guilty of anything so I am not into preventative measures. So no I would not have a woman tied down. It is not until a crime has been committed can one do something. I suppose if we had sound evidence that a woman would kill her child then the procedures already in place would be consistently applied. As for the organ donation; I have already shown the difference between the two and I will say again - the negative right to self-ownership takes priority over a positive right to medical aid. I did not talk about 'the greater good' because utilitarianism is useless and unjust. I discussed a way in which we should prioritise our moral principles. It seems it is you who is suggesting murder 'for the greater good' of the woman without any regard to prioritising moral principles. You have simply stated the woman is of more moral worth regarding her liberty when compared to someone else's life. That is not an argument!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, what I am stating and suggesting is that humans *who are already born and living in this world* get first priority over the *blueprints* for a human life developing in another human's body.
A born person having feelings, thoughts, family and friends, is what validates them as a person. A person is aware of themselves, aware of their life, career, death, etc and their lives affect the lives of other born people involved. A zygote/embryo/fetus has no self awareness, not even awareness that it is being aborted, and who and what does it's death affect besides the woman or girl who made the choice? You may as well say the right of an alive human egg in a woman or girls body to be fertilized and live- instead of being wasted and dying- overweighs any of her rights, or the right of living human sperm to live and fertilize an egg- instead of being wasted and dying- overweighs the rights of a man. By that logic women and men commit murder every month when a potential person gets flushed down the toilet because they made the choice not to have sex. May as well arrest them all.
And, sorry, but nobody, not even the government, can finance and support *every single* unwanted pregnancy and childbirth- and *every single* unwanted child for twenty years- as nice as it would be. And if you are going to suggest that doctors and women be arrested and jailed on charges of murder for abortions, then you may as well be suggesting the law arrest, lock up and tie down every woman who says she wants an abortion for nine months, otherwise the poor zygote might be destroyed and never born, and we all know it's more important then any of the woman's rights. After all, she's not a human being, right? just a walking incubator. 
And how about rape victims? Should a female be legally forced to carry and give birth to her rapist's calling card because you believe the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus outweigh her own, even if she is still just a child? You can say "well, the rape wasn't the baby's fault", but it's not the victim's fault either. Or how about girls and women who would be unable to survive pregnancy and childbirth? Should they be legally forced to risk their health and lives because you believe thay have less rights then the zygote/embryo/fetus?
You talk of murder, well what do you call people who bomb clinics and shoot doctors in churches with the excuse "well, the law wouldn't do anything, so I had to"? Ironically, this is all done in the name of "pro-life" AKA anti-choice or anti-women.
And again, if *all* life takes priority over *all* liberty, then should the government and law be able to track down matching doners and *forcefully* take their blood/tissue/organs from them- weather they like it or not- to save another person from dying? No matter what you think it's no different from forcing someone to donate their body for another person to live.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You need to justify why people out of the womb take priority. As for foetuses being blueprints; that is just unscientific. A foetus IS a living human, there is nothing potential or blueprint-ish about it! To deny this is to deny science which would just show desperation to justify the pro-abortion stance. Historically, pre-science the idea was that a man fired a complete person into a woman and it then grew in her. We now know that this is wrong. So a potential human doesn't have any rights. It is silly to arrest people for having sex. It is if they intentionally kill a living human by their direct actions that it is wrong and a foetus is a living human. So a miscarriage isn't murder before you say I think it is because the woman did not intend it and it was nature that killed it not the will of the mother or doctor.
Self-awareness. Again, self-awareness does not affect the right to life. If you were killed when sleeping or in a coma or if someone shot you so quickly you were never aware of it then you still have a right to life which the murderer is violating. And the law supports this so self-awareness is irrelevant. Try again.
Finance. Killing people we cannot support is not an alternative! Would you round up everyone waiting for council housing and have them ripped apart too because we cannot give them the housing they need? HA! As for money; yes it is possible. People just don't want it to be because an abortion is cheaper and less responsibility so then alternatives are lied about. When it comes to bombing Berlin, bombing Vietnam, bombing Iraq, building atomic bombs do you ever hear about a budget then? No. We have the money to do it. We just prefer to kill humans for our own benefits rather than help humans for their own benefit.
Walking incubator. I never said that! Stop suggesting what I think or say. Its just straw man fallacy over and over. If a woman said she wanted to kill her baby then yes she should be stopped. She would have as many human rights as murderers locked up now or detained suspected terrorists. But you can't say a woman is a terrorist?! Well, they both want to kill human life for their own agendas and ultimately that is what they are being restrained from doing. So yes, the analogy works in part.
Rape victims. How a human comes into existence does not alter that it DOES exist and by existing has the right to life. The rape justification only happens in exceptional cases so even if it were legit justification then there are still the hundreds of abortions that need justifying that don't happen because of rape. But as it stands, rape does not alter the right to life of the foetus. It obviously should not have happened and the rapist should be punished but it cannot be undone. The rape case is nothing more than an emotively charged red herring. How does this change the foetus's right to life?
Killing the mother. ALL humans have the right to life. Including the mother. So when her life is threatened it should be given priority. This was always the case pre-abortion on demand. 0.0082% of pregnancies kill a mother. With such a small statistic then it is the pro-choice not pro-life who is making a GROSS generalisation saying it threatens the mother or the mother needs to defend herself. If 100x more women died then it would not even make 1% of cases. But, obviously the 0.0082% of women dying is still 0.0082% too much so, to preserve their lives, they were always given the right to an abortion. 20% of pregnancies were aborted. So that means, statistically, 172,620 babies were aborted that were not self-defence. That was in 2008 for the UK. If your justification is self-defence (which I agree with) then there still needs to be a justification for those 172,620 who were not killed for self-defence.
Well, putting aside the hundreds of killings pro-choice justifies and then has a go at pro-life when they kill one mass murderer, the clinics should not be bombed obviously. I do not believe in the death penalty so the abortionists should be arrested, I suppose if the abortionist was about to kill a foetus and the only way to stop him was by killing him then I wouldn't have a problem with that. When a policeman finds a terrorist who is about to kill a human he is allowed to shoot the terrorist. Bombing clinics is immoral and as you say damages the pro-life cause. Not to mention the double standards! I don't find calling names like 'anti-woman' helpful. It has nothing to do with gender but the right to life and liberty.
The taking organs thing. Again. You cannot take someone's organs. Equally, if a foetus is dying then you cannot force it inside a womb! However, pregnancy is when this has ALREADY HAPPENED. The point you are making is this. You cannot force someone to donate organs because they own their organs so you need their consent. Equally, you cannot force a woman to donate her womb because she owns her womb so you need her consent. It is an interesting point. However, I think it makes a few mistakes. Phillippa Foot (a woman!) pointed out the difference between an active and a passive act. You are responsible for your actions, not your non-actions. Now, the prolife thing is that the ends do not justify the means (ie killing)! So, one cannot take the organs because it is an active act making them responsible for violating someone's autonomy irrespective of the consequences of someone dying for not getting the organs. Therefore, one should help - you should donate organs in my opinion - but the government cannot force help. It is the persons, not the government's, choice. So why doesn't the same apply for abortion? It is because the foetus is not owned by the mother. So the woman's autonomy is being violated. Agreed. But the only way to stop this is to violate the autonomy of the foetus (by ripping it apart). What to do? Ripping the foetus apart is an active act making the ripper responsible. However, leaving the foetus, whilst violating the woman, we are not responsible for it. Now, say a rapist raped her then he would be responsible and should be punished. Moreover, violating the woman's autonomy merely limits her liberty whilst for the foetus it would kill it. So life is prioritised over liberty. You cannot force someone to donate their organs but, once a womb has been wrongfully or accidentally donated, you equally cannot force the foetus to donate its life. Government forcing organ donation is not their choice to make and equally forcing a foetus to sacrifice its life is not the mother's or doctors' choice to make either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, those who are already born and outside the womb get priority because they are already complete and developed people with thoughts and feelings, families and friends whom their lives affect. Not to mention that the said womb belongs to *somebody else*. A zygote/embryo/fetus- the developing blueprints for a potential human life- has none of these things, and before you compare that to murdering a person in a coma or on life support, people are taken off of life support by their doctors with the consent of their families all the time. Should the doctor and the family then be arrested for murder or shot and killed as a terrorist before they can pull the plug? And no, killing a zygote- a fertilized egg, a clump of cells- the stage when most abortions take place, is in no way equivillent to killing a newborn baby or child.
And you realize that to legally and actively force a woman or girl to carry and give birth to a rape baby is still violating her body and her life, no different from raping her again every day for nine months and maybe even longer?
And to make abortion illegal would be to get the law and the police involved- arresting doctors for performing abortions and women for having them and wanting them, killing doctors before they are about to perform an abortion, etc- therefore taking action to control and violate a woman or girl's body anatomy. Again, Orwellian anatomical and reproductive slavery. So the numbers of dead doctors killed by extremests, the numbers of dead women and girls (along with their fetuses) from botched do-it-yourself or back-alley abortions, the numbers of unwanted, neglected and abused foster kids would all be on your's and the anti-choice and anti-women's movement's hands, even if you are willing to pay for every unwanted pregnancy and childbirth and adopt every unwanted child. Read again about both the medical and financial costs of pregnancy and childbirth-
Dr Gisela Perle practiced abortion in Auschwitz to save women's lives and Henry Morgentaler, who was an Auschwitz survivor [link] [link] Dr. Morgantaler, an abortion provider who has been nominated to the highest Canadian honor for his work, survived Auschwitz and saw the horrors of man's cruelty to man. Although not mentioned, it is likely he witnessed what happened to pregnant women in the camps. He studied medicine and fought for the underdog, even going to prison in Canada. At that time, attempting to induce an abortion was a crime punishable by life in prison, or two years imprisonment if the woman herself was convicted.
[link]
- Adoption works just fine for some women, and more power to them. But for others, the pregnancy itself is the problem. Our culture tends to idolize motherhood, and puts an idyllic "public face" on pregnancy: the radiant, mother-to-be, basking in the contented bliss of her own fecundity. We don't like to think about this...
* exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
* altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
* nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
* heartburn and indigestion
* constipation
* weight gain
* dizziness and light-headedness
* bloating, swelling, fluid retention
* hemmorhoids
* abdominal cramps
* yeast infections
* congested, bloody nose
* acne and mild skin disorders
* skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
* mild to severe backache and strain
* increased headaches
* difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
* increased urination and incontinence
* bleeding gums
* pica
* breast pain and discharge
* swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
* difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
* inability to take regular medications
* shortness of breath
* higher blood pressure
* hair loss
* tendency to anemia
* curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
* infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
* extreme pain on delivery
* hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
* continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period
* stretch marks (worse in younger women)
* loose skin
* permanent weight gain or redistribution
* abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
* pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged
former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated
with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of
life)
* changes to breasts
* varicose veins
* scarring from episiotomy or c-section
* other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are
downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
* increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
* loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
* hyperemesis gravidarum
* temporary and permanent injury to back
* severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional
pregnancies)
* dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies,
and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele,
rectocele, and enterocele)
* pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of
pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
* eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of
death)
* gestational diabetes
* placenta previa
* anemia (which can be life-threatening)
* thrombocytopenic purpura
* severe cramping
* embolism (blood clots)
* medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during
part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either
mother or baby)
* diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
* mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
* serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
* hormonal imbalance
* ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
* broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
* hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery
* refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
* aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is
present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism
and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
of seizures)
* severe post-partum depression and psychosis
* research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and
female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women
and donors
* research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer
survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
* research also indicates a correlation between having six or more
pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
- Legal abortion is safer than childbirth. The death rate from childbirth in first-world countries where abortion is illegal is about ten times as high as the death rate from abortion, and the rate of complications is about 30 times higher. Abortion is, in fact, safer than a penicillin injection and about 11 times as safe as carrying a pregnancy to term.
[link]
The list of possible complications from that is tiny compared to the list of complications from pregnancy.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
- Over 70% of Anti-choicers are men, 100% of them will never be pregnant
- States that ban abortion have the lowest funds for adoption & foster care.
And with so many kids in adoption, who WILL adopt them? Once these kids are
born, they're essentially abandoned to adoption. I can't name one person I
know (& I live in a Conservative area) who's anti-abortion that adopted a
kid. Also, with the nation's poor increasing, who's gonna afford extra kids
adopted? The rich or well-to-do aren't adopting much either.
[link]
Over 500,000 children in the U.S. currently reside in some form of foster
care, without being adopted
[link]
Worldwide adoption agencies are practically swamped with a huge majority of
children who go unadopted (which, in truly impoverished nations, can
possibly lead to horrific results such as the illegal sale of orphans into
human trafficking). As recently as 2006, adoption statistics have actually
dropped about 10% to 15% in the top countries.
[link]
- Welfare programs have been significantly reduced over the past few years.
I have done a bit of research beforehand; I'm not just pulling figures and
assumptions out of my head. Paraphrasing from answers.com (and my history
textbook), regulated welfare programs were formulated during Franklin D.
Roosevelt's presidency. Between the Great Depression and WWII, medicare,
medicaid, public housing, food stamps, etc. etc. arose to support victims of
the depression. However, as the U.S. started moving beyond its depression
years, unemployment dropped; however, a lingering percentage still had no
intention of finding a job. Welfare programs were thus criticized for
creating a system of dependency. During the 1990s and beyond, states started
experimenting with welfare and implementing systems that require people to
work. In 1996, President Clinton signed a bill (heavily supported by
Republicans) that eradicated some welfare programs and only supplied states
with a block grant. Under this law, government funds can only support a
family for five years (maximum). So, welfare programs fail to provide
adequate support for working mothers because of these growing limitations.
Raising a child is expensive
- The costs of raising a baby to age 18 costs between $125,000-$250,000 and
that's not including college tuition! In your baby's first year alone, you
can easily spend between $9,000-$11,000 (for diapers, formula, baby
furniture, clothing, baby gear, etc.) If you go back to work right away,
childcare can cost as much as $3,000-$4,500 in your baby's first year. If
you can stay home with your baby, you can save money....
Crib with mattress- $160-$750
Crib bedding set- $35-$270
Crib blankets (4-6)- $8-$40 each
Fitted crib sheets (2)- $8-$20 each
Water-proof mattress cover- $10-$20
Bassinet or cradle- $35-$260
Changing table- $70-$600
Changing pad & cover- $25-$50
Dresser- $90-$650
Rocker or glider- $90-$500
Car seat- $35-$280
Stroller or travel system- $30-$300
Playpen or porta-crib- $60-$180
Swing- $45-$130
Play center or walker- $50-$125
Mobile- $25-$70
Baby carrier or sling- $20-$140
Monitor- $20-$230
Baby gate- $35-$250
Bouncer seat- $30-$90
Toy box- $25-$90
Gym or play mat- $25-$90
Doorway jumper- $25-$60
High chair- $45-$240
Diaper bag- $10-$60
Diaper pail- $20-$45 Refills- $15-$20 (3 pack)
Thermometer- $10-$90
First aid supplies (kit)- $20-$30
Humidifier or vaporizer- $15-$130
Bottles 8 oz & 4 oz (8-10)- $10-$20 (3 pack) or $20-$40 (starter set)
Bottle warmer- $18-$35
Sterilizer- $30-$70
Breast pump & accessories- $45-$350
Breastfeeding pillow- $20-$35
Bath tub or seat- $15-$35
Hooded towels (4)- $6-$30 each
Wipes (a lot)- $4-$5 (pack)
Clothes for first year- $500-$1,200
Smaller items: Washcloths, diaper rash ointment/powder, nail clippers, nasal
aspirator, baby wash/lotion/oil/shampoo, pacifiers, extra nipples for
bottles, bottle brush, breastfeeding pads, burp cloths/ lap pads, bibs,
receiving blankets, car seat head support (for newborns), toys & more toys.
[link]
Therefore, unless someone can persuade the working middle class of the U.S.
to pay more taxes for unwanted babies and welfare programs that seemingly
generates "dependency" on federal funds, denying abortions to woman and
having them deal with these lifelong costs without support is unreasonable.
It is very difficult to get an adequately paying job without a high school
diploma, a few degrees, and college graduation. For the percentage of
pregnant women who are teen mothers-to-be, the job market for them is very
isolated.
The way I see it, if you're going to force every woman to give birth to their babies, then you better damn be ready to fund all the adoption centers and foster care programs that will be needed. It will take an increase in taxes to cover the care of the children in the adoption agencies and foster homes. The sorts of things that a lot of people say is not applicable to them, and should not be something they have to pay for. The typical argument is "Hey, why should I have to pay for someone else's kid?"
My answer is "Hey. Because you wanted to force them to have it instead of letting them get an abortion."
And if you are still focused only on the future of the fetus, it will not be the only one suffering, should it be permitted to live-- countless others will be unecessarily affected as a result, both directly and indirectly. An average baby will use over 6,000 diapers in two years. These things do not bio-degrade for millions of years, and they take up unbelieveable amounts of space in landfills, requiring more land be cleared for dumping. I'll only touch upon the amount of soil erosion, water pollution, and habitat loss that entails. Then there is actually feeding the child-- the amount of food a mother must consume to generate enough milk for it, or the amount of food that cows or goats must consume, should parents decide to use formula. Nevermind the fact that the animals must be repeatedly forced into pregnancy for them to lactate, only to have their young taken away (usually for veal) so that the milk can be harvested for marketing. Keep in mind, these are only the most closely-tied examples of child-induced suffering.
[link] is a great article of the behaviour shown by many members of those who profess to be opposed to abortion.
More links
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
At any rate, I still hold my stance that an abortion is really nobody's business or choice to make but the woman's or girl's in question. Period. It's between her and her doctor. You are entitled to your opinion that abortion is morally wrong and you don't have to get one if you don't want it. This will be my last word on the subject because it's clear neither are going to agree with the other, but keep your beliefs and your opinions out of mine and other women's bodies and wombs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is no way I am going to read all of this. But on some of the issues:
'get priority because they are already complete and developed people with thoughts and feelings, families and friends whom their lives affect' So I assume brain damaged people, people without families, all animals (including pets), genetically diseased, physically handicapped and children up to the age of 21 (that is when development stops) do not have the right to life either? And again; I know women have these attributes but WHY ARE THEY RELEVANT TO HAVING THE RIGHT TO LIFE?! I have asked this 3 times now and if I don't get a response then I will just take it you don't have one.
Pulling the plug on life support is passive euthanasia and I have already made the distinction between passive and active acts. A foetus is not a potential human being. It IS a human being. It has potential to develop, so it is an undeveloped human being, but a human being none the less. I have already brought up the point about undeveloped humans anyway.
No different to rape. Well, the semantics is not helpful but at any rate murder is worse than rape. And tbh that is a distorted view of a new human life.
I have already dealt with the Orwellian society part (btw I must have missed the chapter where Julia was forced to have a child... maybe that was her room 101...). Killing a 'doctor' is only when no other option is available. I think a rugby tackle, stun grenade or taser would be much more better suited. Back street abortions. If you chose to kill your child then the women have chosen the consequences too of bleeding to death. They chose to murder and mutilate themselves. I have 0 pity for back street abortion deaths. Maybe I am a monster. Rar. I don't see how presenting this muderer Dr Perle strengthens your case. He fought for the murder-desiring underdog and murdered for them. Great. A trophy case example of humanity at its best. Shame he avoided justice by avoiding that life imprisonment.
Abortion works fine for some women. Not so well for their child though. That is what my problem with it is. I notice on that list the woman doesn't have to contemplate being ripped apart. Maybe that should be the pro-choice movement. Giving women the choice to be ripped apart. Now thats just as much a real choice as having your baby ripped apart. Killing a child against hair loss, varicose veins and cramping. Great case for being pro-choice.
Legal abortion is safer. Not for the child. Killing a human for the safety of another is only allowed when the human threatens the life of the other person. Pro-life has always accepted this. As for problems with the solutions I offered; yes these are real problems but killing the child is not an alternative and lets get the child alive and born before we decide what to do with it after! Again, money is needed and the money is there if people want it to be.
Babies are expensive. Therefore, women have the right to kill them. So we can kill old people, disabled people, children up to the age when they earn for themselves and all animals that require feeding and medication. Nice choice. The choice to needlessly kill. Makes you feel proud to be a woman. Why does no one else have this right? Is it because it is a non-existent right? Get back to me on that one.
My favourite argument. One I have never heard before. The nappy argument. 'average baby will use over 6,000 diapers in two years. These things do not bio-degrade for millions of years, and they take up unbelievable amounts of space in landfills, requiring more land be cleared for dumping. I'll only touch upon the amount of soil erosion, water pollution, and habitat loss that entails'. I cannot believe I have to take this seriously. It is a sign of desperation if this is what you have resorted to. Can I kill any baby then and say 'i thought we did not have enough nappies'. Or I can kill anyone as long as they drain resources and pollute the environment. I could justify killing anyone with this argument. Veal. What? You will have to run that point past me again!
Abortion kills a human being. So it is a social question. Like the death penalty, war or euthanasia. Keep your murderous tendencies away from babies! It is like saying 'bombing an abortion clinic might be wrong for you but don't stop me from bombing one if I feel it is the right thing for me to do'. Killing a foetus is a constitutional matter 'right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' and abortion ends all of that for the foetus. Therefore, it is a legal, political and social issue and not an individual preference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, but you lost me right from "There is no way I am going to read all of this" so I'm not replying to it or anything else after this. However, I suppose it should come as no surprise that a teenaged boy would have such contempt and apathy for women and such little understanding or comprehension of women's issues. Maybe when you are more grown up and have a broader education.
If you want to prevent and stop abortions so badly, then I suggest you and every male get reversable vasectomys. They're much simpler and safer then a historectamy or tube tying for a woman, and you can get it reversed whenever you and your wife or girlfriend decide to have children.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did read it all in the end. My understanding is fine. The problem is with killing babies not with creating them. If you don't want to respond then you don't have to. Your position seems to be fairly desperate given the extreme off the wall arguments you make. If you don't want to be pregnant then take the pill! Problem solved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your answer shows you neither read nor comprehended anything about what was pointed out. Your problem is that you equal zygotes/embryos/fetuses to born babies and children, which they are not, anymore then an egg is a rooster or a seed an old growth tree. It's *your* position that seems desperate and off the wall given your notion that a woman's reproductive rights are a public social issue and the law should extend to the inside of her body. Then again, you are only an eighteen year old boy. If you don't want a women to abort an unwanted pregnancy then get a vasectomy. Problem solved. May as well not respond anymore because neither is going to convince the other.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
'You equal zygotes/embryos/fetuses to born babies and children, which they are not, anymore then an egg is a rooster or a seed an old growth tree' - you clearly don't understand the biological difference between a mammal, plant or bird. Pointing out my age or my gender really has nothing to do with the question about the foetus being a human and most laws recognising the universal right to life. A woman's reproductive rights. This abortion issue is AFTER she has reproduced and the question is now about a human life which in every other case is a social and political issue so you need to show why this case differs. Which you haven't. And you have not answered my questions. So you have no answer. We have already brought up this vasectomy point. Utterly unconvincing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I do understand the difference between a mammal, plant or bird, but the example is the same for all three. Eating an egg isn't killing a chicken, crushing a seed isn't destroying a tree or a forest, and a woman terminating a zygote/embryo/fetus in her body isn't killing a newborn baby or child.
I have already answered. No matter how it got there through sex or rape, as long as it's inside the woman's body the only one who gets to decide weather it may continue to live and develop inside her body or not is the woman. Neither the law nor society or politics can extend themselves inside of a woman's body and womb. It isn't public property. Simple.
And again, if you want to prevent and stop women from having abortions, then you and all males should have a vasectomy so no unwanted pregnancy will occur when you have sex and you can reverse it when you and your partner decide to have children. Easy.
And your gender and age are relevant because pregnancy and childbirth do not affect males bodies, health and lives. Also, eighteen is *far* from being an adult. You will be much wiser and have more experiance at thirty then you have now at only eighteen, kid.
Now, as I said, we may as well just stop responding here and now because you aren't any more convincing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually women do have that right... in most states anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can does not imply ought. Just because they can destroy a pregnancy does not mean they ought to. However, ought does imply can. If you ought to protect innocent life then you can protect it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
[link]
I love this picture. It's beautiful and the message is great. I think you might be interested in what I had to write about abortion/pro-choice in the link above. Don't worry, I'm not preaching Pro-Life or anything. That would be rude.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you : ) I will try to read that later, I started it and it was very interesting, however I'm swamped with homework. >_< I'll post a comment on it though when I get a chance!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, sorry to hear about the homework. I know how time consuming that can be. >_< But thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh, this is beautiful. I love the hair and how peaceful she seems, and I agree totally with you on the message.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you did a nice job on this, i've thought of doing something like this beofore but i never got around to it lol! I agree with you on the topic aswell. Nice job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know they kill babies right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Mind if i reply to a three year old comment?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know they dispose of fetuses, right? There's no baby killing going on whatsoever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If that makes you feel better...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Better than what? It's simply how it is. If you don't agree with abortions, then just don't get one. Problem solved, there you go. : )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even though I am pro-choice (to a certain extent), I can see why people think that it's not that simple. I mean, think about it. If you honestly believed in your heart that abortion was murder (I don't unless the baby is aborted after it can start feeling things, but many pro-lifers do), than would you really be content to just "not get one"? I sort of hope not. It's sort of like being a vegetarian I think. What you consider murder, others don't, and you can't really be happy that they keep on n doing it. As a vegetarian (and I think I would feel this way even if wasn't) I can relate to pro-lifers. By the way, I really do love this piece. Thank you for sharing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It feels like there's something heinous going on that you can't stop.
Right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>