Home - List All Discussions

Why prohibiting abortion is wrong.

by: Loki

It would be unconstitutional to force women to make a bodily sacrifice that could result in their death and reduce their mental and physical health in order to save another.
No one else is ever put into this position. Even people who cause vehicular accidents are not forced to take responsibility by donating ANY part of their body to the injured persons. Even if that means that injured person will most certainly die. Not anyone other than pregnant women are expected to be intentionally forced to use their bodies against their will.

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion isn't constitutional. It's actually unconstitutional.
Everyone is entitled to LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Not just YOU.
And pregnancy is never forced. Pregnancy is a natural thing, and we NEED it.

reply from: Loki

Preganancy IS forced when abortion is prohibited. You think it's right to force someone to keep something in their bodies that they don't want there? If you had tapeworms in your intestine but some crazy group of people were fighting for parasites' right to life (because in their eyes all life is scared) and told you that you must keep them inside of you, I imagine you wouldn't sit back and say, "Oh, well... they're right. Afterall, tapeworms are only doing what is natural. Can't blame them for wanting to exist."
Also, please do tell me why you think it is okay to force ONLY pregnant women to scarifice their bodies for someone else's right to live.

reply from: AshMarie88

Pregnancy IS NOT forced.
Why are you comparing a human being to a parasite?
And I believe women shouldn't be able to kill the innocent because it's WRONG. A woman can go 9 months to give someone else their own life. Abortion is wrong, just like leaving a small child to fend for itself is wrong.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Tapeworms stay in your body for their lifetime, and are detrimental to your system.
Babies are not.
Try another analogy.

reply from: Tam

First of all, there is a big difference between the right to exist and the privilege to do as one pleases regardless of the effect on others. Everyone has the former; no one has the latter. As the old saying goes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
In those rare, rare cases in which the mother's right to live actually and verifiably conflicts with the baby's right to live, then and only then should action be taken to artificially terminate the pregnancy--and that action should be taken in a way that recognizes the baby as a human being with his/her own right to live, a way that attempts to save both lives, so that not only does the mom not have to sacrifice her life for the baby, the baby doesn't have to sacrifice his/her life for the mom.
In all other cases, the conflict is between the child's right to exist and the mother's ability to live as she pleases. When the mother's ability to live as she pleases is in conflict with the child's right to exist, then the child's right to exist wholly trumps the mother's ability to live as she pleases. She has no more "right" to kill that baby than she has a "right" to kill anyone else in the way of her living as she pleases. The fact that the child is inside her body does not give her ownership of that child's body and that child's life--that would be slavery, and no one is a slave to his/her parents.
The comparison to tapeworms is telling. To you, perhaps, a child is worth only what you decide s/he is worth, and apparently that value is equivalent IYO to the value of a parasite attacking its host. On the contrary, gestation is a process that every human being on earth has undergone. No one is asking, on behalf of these innocent babies, for anything that has not already been given to their mothers and fathers. All anyone pro-life is asking is for those babies to be given the consideration that is their due as members of the human race. In no other circumstance is one human being permitted to kill another simply on a whim. Yet a pregnant mother can destroy her child for any reason or for no reason at all.
One mistake is in framing motherhood as a sacrifice. Sure, a good mom needs to make some sacrifices, but ultimately, the only women on whom motherhood is genuinely forced are those extremely few and far between victims of rape who happen to conceive by rape. Other than these rape victims, every mother is a mother because of her own choices. She made those choices, and motherhood was the result. There is no circumstance in which a mother is permitted to kill her born children because SHE made choices she later regrets. It may seem like a sacrifice for a woman to refrain from killing her landlord, her boss, her husband, her sister, or her upstairs neighbor--but if it is, it is a "sacrifice" she is required to make, because it is not acceptable in our society to murder others simply because we want them dead.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Tapeworms stay in your body for their lifetime, and are detrimental to your system.
Babies stay in for 9 months or less, and can be beneficial to the body; forcing them out with abortion can be detrimental to a woman's body.
Try another analogy.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

LOL!!!
So it's unconstitutional to "force" a woman to go through a pregnancy that she got herself into and to force burtal death upon an innocent baby? Once again, pro-babykillers make me laugh!!
Because pregnancy is natural, and it's supposed to happen.
Last time I checked, tapeworms weren't human, and don't already have inalienable Constitutional rights.
If men could get pregnant, I would be standing up for their children, too.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Oops, double post... I thought it didn't get on there

reply from: Loki

Forced gestation is forced. Duh.
Why shouldn't I? What have you got against parasites? They are only doing what they are instinctually inclined to. How do we know they don't have a desire to exist? Why are we allowed to kill and remove them from our bodies? Poor little things just want to live.
Women shouldn't be able to kill the innocent? Please define "the innocent". There are plenty of times in which our society seems to condone "killing the innocent". A woman should be able to go 9 months for someone else's life if they want to. It's wrong to force them. It's wrong to force anyone to do such a thing.
Also, you have yet to give me any other situation in which someone is expected to give up their bodies for the survival of another.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Firstly, innocence is defined by the absence of doing anything wrong, and that is what babies do. They have had no chance to do wrong.
Secondly, if you were forced to keep someone alive for nine months, and it had no detriment to your body except a little discomfort, would you kill that person just so you wouldn't get a little nauseous, or you wouldn't be able to do stuff just for nine months that you could do if not in that condition.
Thirdly, women do not give up their bodies at all. They still get food, oxygen, etc. They share it with the baby, and not very much either. They have a bulge on their stomach, some discomfort, and go through temperamental pain when giving birth. That is all.

reply from: Loki

My analogy works just fine, thank you. The point is that both parasites and the "unborn" are existing inside and off of someone elses' body. The length of time this occurs is irrelevent. If there is something inside/on your body that you don't want there you have every right to remove it, period.
And whether you want to admit it or not there are complications that come with pregnancy. It's not a mere 9-month inconvenience as I know your side often likes to portray. There can also be long term affects to both a woman's physical and mental health. It's not all "Life vs. Death". Try concentrating, maybe you'll see the grey matter.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Lol, like what kind of "life and death" things come into pregnancy? Not being able to wear your favorite pair of jeans?
Serious complications are rare.
And parasitism is totally different from pregnancy, just ask Ashley.

reply from: Tam

And there is a big difference between forcing someone to do something and preventing someone from doing something. They're opposites, aren't they? Get the difference? You are "forced" to refrain from killing people, you think, by murder laws? You're not forced to refrain from killing them. You just know that if you do, and you get caught, there will be legal consequences. Say what you really mean. The whole "forced to stay pregnant" bit is neither accurate nor fair.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

And what right is this "removing unwanted things in your body"?

reply from: bradensmommy

hmm...where are these "pro-choicers" at when women are FORCED to get abortions?!?!
I'm waiting still....

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Nope. Tapeworms aren't human, and don't get human rights, whereas children do.
And there can be long- term effects to a woman's body from abortion, also. But you really don't care about the dangers of abortion, do you?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

And please do tell me why you think it is okay to force ONLY unborn children to sacrifice their lives for someone else's right to comfort.

reply from: AshMarie88

Hm, where is my "The unborn aren't parasites post"? I'm going to bump that up.

reply from: Loki

Once again, please tell me why ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN are expected to sacrifice their bodies and health to ensure the survival of someone else.
You all keep telling me about how pregnancy seems to be such a flippin' walk in the park. Someone provide actual, unbiased PROOF to me that pregnancy complications and maternal deaths are oh, so very rare these days. Seriously, I want to see it.
While we're on it, what consistutes rare? In my opinion, even if ONE woman dies a year (although, I highly doubt it's even that uncommon) as a result of her pregnancy/labor, then abortion should remain legal. The possibility of death is a real one and if a woman wants to help lower her risks by terminating a pregnancy early, can you honestly blame her?
Also, as I've said before there are complications to a woman's physical and mental health, both long term and short term as a result of preganacy and labor. I'm not saying that every pregnancy should go the way of an abortion because there are health risks, either. I'm saying that since there are health complications involved a woman should have every right to avoid them by being able to terminate her pregnancy.
You are absolutely wrong. A woman has every right to remove an unwanted organism from her body. It doesn't matter what reason she gives for doing it. If she does it because she is afraid damaging her health, so be it. If she does it for any other reason, so be it as well. It's still living off of her body and if she wants it removed she has every right to do so.
You obviously have not deemed tapeworms worthy of existing. Why is this?
They share the same type of existence as an "unborn". How can you deny this? They are literally using the resources of someone else's body to survive. My comparison works, in this sense.
This "anything" that was given to us by our mothers was given with their consent. Unless they were unfortunately forced by someone else to give this "anything" to us. I would never ask my mother to undergo an unwanted pregnancy for me. I just got lucky that I was born to a mother who desperatley wanted a child. Honestly, would I have cared if she didn't want me? Of course not because I wouldn't be here right now and I wouldn't know the difference. I wouldn't know anything. Seriously... think about it.
You really think abortions are done "on a whim"? For poops and giggles? I'm sure women just love getting knocked up so they can randomly head on down to the clinic one day... "Hmm, what should I do today? Well, I've never had an abortion before... Ooh, that sounds like fun!"
Yes a pregnant mother has every right to remove an unwanted organism from her body, just as other members of society have a right to remove an unwated organism from their bodies.
Women do SACRIFICE THEIR BODIES to ensure the survival of the "unborn". There is just no possible way to deny this.
We are not talking about "mommyhood", here. We are talking about the actual, phyiscal demands a woman goes through during pregnancy. Once a child is born a woman need not do any "mommying" because it is then possible to give it to someone else if desired.
Again with the rare. Provide me proof that it's so rare for women to conceieve from rape. Nevermind the fact that rape is one of the least reported crimes due to the humiliation and mental and physical torment of the victims.
Shame on her for opening up her legs, huh? Do we deny accident victims medical care for their injuries because they took the chance of driving? Too bad for them, they should just deal with the results of their actions? Of course not.
This is ridiculous. You honestly think women abort because they "want them dead"? Women abort because they don't want to be pregnant. I have never heard of a woman aborting because she just felt like killing something.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

I dont think that it is wrong to prohibit abortion at all... In fact I would say that that it is a moral responsibility to have the child. You think that it is wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term? Did anyone force the woman to use her body for her own sexual pleasure before she was engaging in sexual intercourse prior to becoming pregnant? I think that for many women abortion is a post contraceptive to used free up their sexual choices and alleviate the act of sex from any kind of responsibility.

reply from: Loki

Glad to amuse you.
That's right... she got herself into it... It's apparently a well known fact that women are able to reproduce by themselves... Oh, what's that you say? She had sex? *GASP* How dare she. Shame on her for seducing that poor, unfortunate man. Oh, oh, let me guess... she also purposely got pregnant from this man just so she could experience an abortion? Oh, what a riot, indeed.
Okay, enough of that... women have sex. They don't always have sex to get pregnant, that's what birth control is for. Mind you, birth control isn't 100% effective. You need to understand that consent to sex is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy. You don't expect women who never want to have kids to go their entire lives without sex do you? Eh?
Why, what fierce words you've bolded there. When one fails on making a good argument, use strong, bolded words to appeal to one's emotions, I always say. Once again, glad to amuse you.
It's supposed to happen? Well, good job reducing me and every other woman on the face of the earth to mere broodmares. Do you realize that there are some women who never ever want to have kids? It's not "suuposed to happen" in their minds.
And using the "because it's natural" argument isn't a good one, either. There are plenty of things that are natural. Cancer is natural. Should we just let it go because it's there and it's natural... let it run it's course?
I smell human elitism.
That's beside the point. It doesn't matter which gender gets pregnant, but it so happens that it's "the womens". If men could get pregnant I reckon I'd be a'fightin' for their right to remove an unwanted organism from their bodies, as well.

reply from: Tam

Once again, please tell me why ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN are expected to sacrifice their bodies and health to ensure the survival of someone else.
That's odd--your response doesn't seem to address what I posted. Obviously, it is not at all the case that ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN are expected to refrain from killing others who are cramping their style. I'm sure you can, without much effort, imagine several scenarios in which a man, a non-pregnant woman, or even a child would be put in a position of having to choose between taking the life of an innocent person and assisting that person in some way. If you really, really, really can't think of a single one, let us know, but at least give it some thought before you give up.
You all keep telling me about how pregnancy seems to be such a flippin' walk in the park.
Where in the above paragraph did I say anything remotely resembling what you are claiming I said?
Oh yes, that's right--nowhere. Care to respond to what I actually said, rather than the "she must hate women because she's opposed to abortion" song and dance that seems to be playing like a broken record in your head, obscuring the actual words typed by actual posters?
Just wondering--if in 200 years medical technology has changed the face of childbirth so that no woman suffers whatsoever, ever--would that change in any way your "women should be permitted to kill their unborn children" position? If NOT, then isn't this issue wholly irrelevant to you? If SO, then what is the basis of your pro-abortion position?
I'm sure you have access to a dictionary, but in case you don't, there's one at www.dictionary.com.
What if it were ZERO? In other words, is this the reason you support abortion?
If even ONE woman is killed by her husband in a year, all women should have the right to kill their husbands, to lower their risks of dying themselves.
Yeah, makes about as much sense as what you just said. Killing off our family members in order to "lower the risk" of accidentally dying because of something they've done is NO way to live (no pun intended).
What "complications" need to exist before women should have the right to kill their husbands? Just wondering where you draw the line. Should women be allowed to kill anyone that might get in their way?
There are risks to sexual activity--disease and pregnancy. Every woman has the right to avoid those risks by avoiding sexual activity. If someone forces sexual activity on her, that person can lose his/her freedom. And if a woman forces death on her child, she should be held accountable as well. Her fears are not a license to kill anyone.
You are absolutely wrong. A woman has every right to remove an unwanted organism from her body. It doesn't matter what reason she gives for doing it. If she does it because she is afraid damaging her health, so be it. If she does it for any other reason, so be it as well. It's still living off of her body and if she wants it removed she has every right to do so.
Ah, it's as I thought. You don't really care about her health, per se, it's just that whatever HER reason is, no matter how disgusting or casual, you think that's good enough, she should be allowed to kill her babies. That's what I was expecting you to believe, based on your posts.
You obviously have not deemed tapeworms worthy of existing. Why is this?
That's an interesting response. Tell me, where in my statement was it so "obviously" revealed that I consider tapeworms unworthy of existing? Frankly, I think your post showed more disdain for tapeworms than anything I've said.
They share the same type of existence as an "unborn".
An "unborn"?? LOL Can't spit out the word "child", eh? Is that because you are ignorant of the fact that every unborn human is a human CHILD? If so, I will take more time to inform you.
There are entire threads devoted to this specious argument; I leave it to you to find them (one's already been bumped, for your benefit I believe).
This "anything" that was given to us by our mothers was given with their consent.
Yes, they consented by being sexually active--just as every other sexually active person who has not undergone surgical sterilization (or otherwise sterile) consents to children.
LOL Maybe YOU don't care about YOUR life, and maybe you can convince yourself that you wouldn't ever have known the difference, and that your destruction would have been just, but I care about my life, and I know that no one has, or has ever had, the right to take it from me by murdering me.
It's your life--it's your prerogative to hand it to someone else on a silver platter. But it's not your prerogative to hand over the life of someone else on a platter to his/her mother, knowing that mother intends to kill him/her.
In other words: speak for yourself. You don't speak for me, and you don't speak for every person not yet born.
You really think abortions are done "on a whim"? For poops and giggles? I'm sure women just love getting knocked up so they can randomly head on down to the clinic one day... "Hmm, what should I do today? Well, I've never had an abortion before... Ooh, that sounds like fun!"
You yourself said earlier in this very post that
I think it is quite clear that I NEVER claimed that ALL abortions are done in such a way. But you seem to be trying to twist around what I said (a FACT--that in no other circumstance is one human being permitted to kill another on a whim) into saying that all abortions are done for stupid reasons. You know that's not true, and so do I. Sometimes there are very compelling reasons! But even in the most dire of circumstances, there is always a better option than intentionally killing a child.
Furthermore, you have made it perfectly clear that YOU think it would be fine if a mother killed her unborn child on a whim--that whatever HER reasons are, no matter how ridiculous, that's ok by you. She could abort her baby because he was a boy, or because she was a girl, or because she didn't want to buy a maternity dress. She could kill her baby because she doesn't like the color pink, because she wants to fly to Paris, because she wants to wear a certain sexy bra. She could kill that baby for any reason at all, right? Isn't that how you feel? If not, what's the deal?
Yes a pregnant mother has every right to remove an unwanted organism from her body, just as other members of society have a right to remove an unwated organism from their bodies.
Oh, you think so, eh? Well, how do you figure that she has that "right"? On what evidence do you reach such a conclusion?
Women do SACRIFICE THEIR BODIES to ensure the survival of the "unborn". There is just no possible way to deny this.
Well, I deny it. If you want to debate this point, let's make sure we're clear on your position. As it seems, your position is that every woman who has ever been pregnant has sacrificed her body to ensure the survival of her child. I frankly think the burden of proof is on you, here. What you consider sacrifice is just a part of life for many women. Do you consider that you sacrifice your free time in order to go to the restroom? Is that a big sacrifice for you? It's a choice you make, because your body has needs and you want to meet those needs. When your body is gestating a child, your body, and your child's body, have needs as well. If you consider meeting those needs to be a sacrifice, that is your opinion. Only if it were a fact could you contend that there is no possible way to deny it.
Again with the rare. Provide me proof that it's so rare for women to conceieve from rape.
Isn't it about 1%? Someone must have the statistic. Anyone? And you can look it up yourself JUST as easily as I could do it for you, Loki.
Not sure why you think we shouldn't pay that any mind. Rape is a very serious crime and the way our society handles it is pathetic. It's a very important issue that I take very seriously. No woman should be the victim of a man's choice to abuse her. And no baby should be the victim of either a man's choice to rape a woman, or a woman's choice to kill.
Shame on her for opening up her legs, huh?
NO!!!!! No shame on her, not whatsoever. I said nothing of the sort. She has a perfect right to her own sexual identity and her own sexual choices.
What I said was that if she is pregnant by consentual intercourse, it was HER CHOICES that led to that pregnancy. It was not forced upon her unless it was by rape. Surely you can concede this.
Of course not. When someone is injured, we try to help. And we try to help prevent injury. That is why I oppose abortion--because I oppose violence and I wish to prevent injury to women, children, and also men.
This is ridiculous. You honestly think women abort because they "want them dead"? Women abort because they don't want to be pregnant. I have never heard of a woman aborting because she just felt like killing something.
LOL What do you think happens when you artificially abort a pregnancy by killing the baby? You get a dead baby.
As a matter of fact, I can say with absolute clarity that this is indeed what some women want. I had a conversation just a week or two ago with someone in my own family, and when I said that abortion isn't a choice between having a baby or not having a baby, it is a choice between having a live baby and having a dead baby--she said that in that case, she'd want a dead baby.
Yes, she said it just like that. And she wasn't even trying to upset me, just stating a fact. Don't kid yourself that most women don't know what they're doing when they walk into that clinic. The majority KNOW they're killing a baby, and they WANT TO DO IT ANYWAY.
They justify it in a million ways, but it all boils down to: they would rather the baby die than live long enough to be born.

reply from: Loki

I do know the definition of innocence. I was more asking what all the previous poster was encompassing when they stated "the innocent". The exact quote was:
And I believe women shouldn't be able to kill the innocent because it's WRONG.
From that statement, I gather that only women terminating pregnancies are in the wrong. Unless I was mistaken and she meant that only women aren't allowed to kill but it's okay when men do it.
The problem is that society, as a whole, condones "killing the innocent" quite a bit yet that doesn't seem to bother you lot. How many people here eat meat? How many would be more than happy to rid themselves of a virus or a parasite? How many would squash an intruding bug? How many condone war in any circumstance? How many are for the death penalty even though it's been proven that sometimes an innocent person is accused of a crime and this fact is discovered too late? Catch my drift?
I'm not sure if I would or not, honestly. I hate being nauseous, it's the worse feeling in the world to me... and frankly I don't think it's my respsonsibility to maintain anyone's survival but my own THROUGH THE USE OF MY BODY. I typed that in capitals because I know someone is going to respond, with "Aha, you only care about yourself. You'd just kill everyone if you had the chance, wouldn't you?" No one has the right to survive by MY body and bodily resources but ME.
Way for the pro-lifers to trivialize pregnancy yet again. You are sadly mistaken if you think that women just sit around with a big tummy for 9 months and then a cute little baby pops out.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Loki,
What is more laughable is that you have just equated abortion with killing cows, lambs, pigs and their like. Animals are food and they have no intrinsic rights. I would not suggest that you only care about yourself, but I would suggest that are being blatantly callous towards unborn life. If a woman has the thought and will to have sex, full well knowing that she might become pregnant (abstinance being the only 100% effective birth control method) than she is irresponsible. If she then goes ahead and has sex anyways, than she is reckless in her disregard for human life since she knows and accepts that killing (abortion) will be her way out of the situation.

reply from: Loki

Heaven forbid you ever have complications during a pregnancy and then find yourself in a situation where you have to relie on someone with the attitude you've shown here for help. It's repulsive that you find pregnancy complications even remotely funny.
Please do prove this to me, if you are so sure of it. You must have read some statistic somewhere in order to be able to say this.This seems to be the pro-lifers' main motto. The burden of proof is on you for making this claim. I personally think you are all lying for the sake of your argument.
As I have already stated, both parasites and the "unborn" survive by living off the bodily resources of another. Do you deny that an "unborn" lives off it's mother? Do you deny that a parasite lives off it's host? There are similarities.

reply from: bradensmommy

Still waiiting....hmm..I should make that my siggie..

reply from: AshMarie88

See my "the fetus is not a parasite" post.
Why are you afraid to learn new and truthful things?

reply from: Loki

I was really trying to respond to everyone in order, but since you seem to be getting your knickers in a twist over this and since you obviously have no reading comprehension skills, whatsoever, I'll kindly break it down for you... I did not say that a fetus is a parasite. Ever. Go back and READ. I have been stating that there are similarities between an "unborn" and a parasite - both literally use another's body and their bodily resources for nourishment and survival. Please tell me you can properly read and understand that last sentence. If I get another reply from you saying that a fetus is not a parasite I will ignore it. It's like beating a dead horse.
Here, I'll break it down even further for your convenience:
**There are females. There are males. Females are not males. Males are not females. Yet, it is correct to say that males and females are similar in certain ways.
**There are "unborn". There are "parasites". The "unborn" are not parasites. Parasites are not the "unborn". Yet, it is correct to say that the "unborn" and parasites are similar in certain ways (of which I have stated several hundred times by now).
See how that works?

reply from: coco

I think if a person is having sex no matter at what age they should have access to birthcontrol and emergancy contraception pills just in case to prevent an abortion from occuring that is why it ec pills should be sold over the counter

reply from: Loki

Alright, I've decided to reply to you out of order as well. Although I think your post wandered around in cyberspace for a while, forgot where it was going, and plopped itself down here, I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Birth control being available to anyone and everyone = good.
I don't understand why pro-lifers would object to any method that's main aim is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. No pregnancy equals no abortion.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

No, I'm saying she was irresponsible to have sex and just expect herself not to get pregnant. The point is, unborn children's lives are more important than their mothers' comfort.
Like I said, having sex without consent of a pregnancy is irresponsible.
Actually, I bolded them because they're important. I notice you haven't replied to the actual meaning of those words, just paid attention to how I wrote them. Please answer this question: do you think it's fair that an unborn child has to die so their mother may live as she wishes?
Let me rephrase that: a woman's body is designed to carry a child, thus an unborn baby is no invader.
Why do you keep comparing unhuman organisms to humans? HUMANS get Constitutional rights, not tapeworms, not cancer cells, not trees, not fish, humans.
Then what is your point when you say only pregnant women get the "oppresson"?

reply from: Loki

Hey what ever you feel like calling it, either way, a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy if she is prevented from getting an abortion, no?
If your only two options are "carry to term" or "abort" and you take away "abort", you are forced to "carry to term" because there are no other options left.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

And you point would be...?

reply from: AshMarie88

Hey what ever you feel like calling it, either way, a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy if she is prevented from getting an abortion, no?
If your only two options are "carry to term" or "abort" and you take away "abort", you are forced to "carry to term" because there are no other options left.
But if you take away "carry to term", wouldn't you be forced to abort?
Either way you look at it, LIFE is the better option.

reply from: bradensmommy

Hey what ever you feel like calling it, either way, a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy if she is prevented from getting an abortion, no?
If your only two options are "carry to term" or "abort" and you take away "abort", you are forced to "carry to term" because there are no other options left.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a251/armyguyssweetie/4a8f.jpg

reply from: Loki

It's simple, really. You own your body. You should be able to remove unwanted organisms from it if it's your desire. I'm sure you wouldn't want to leave those tapeworms be, would you?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Parasites, yes, human beings, no.
Please quote someone who said removing tapeworms should be illegal.

reply from: Loki

I most certainly find this type of thing just as despicable as you do abortion. That's why I am pro-CHOICE. A woman should NEVER be forced to get an abortion any more than a woman should ever be forced to carry to term.

reply from: Loki

More human elitism, hooray! I should turn this into a drinking game.
By the way, of course children get human rights. They also don't require someone else's bodily resources for their survival.
No doubt. There are possible long and short term effects involved with any medical procedure. If you are going to use this as part of your argument, however, you must prove (with unbiased sources) that the effects of abortion are considerably more damaging than the effects of pregnancy and childbirth. Otherwise, there's no point in stating this.

reply from: Loki

I don't, silly. What I've been trying to get at this whole time is that we as a society (I'm guilty of this as well) expect "the innocent" to sacrifice their lives all the time. We expect animals to sacrifice their lives for our delicious meals. We expect bugs to sacrifice their lives so that we don't get the willies seeing them crawling up our walls every once in a while. We expect bacteria, parasites and viruses to sacrifice their lives for our sanitation and health.

reply from: Loki

Thanks for sharing. If you ever become pregnant feel free to give birth to it. That's your right.
Absolutely. It's a horrible injustice.
Oh, you're one of these, huh? Instead of wasting my time I'm just going to repeat myself, here:
"Women have sex. They don't always have sex to get pregnant, that's what birth control is for. Mind you, birth control isn't 100% effective. You need to understand that consent to sex is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy. You don't expect women who never want to have kids to go their entire lives without sex do you? Eh?"
Except... perhaps you do. I'd bet big money on you being male.

reply from: AshMarie88

Absolutely. It's a horrible injustice.
It's wrong to "force" someone to carry a child to term, but it's not wrong to force that child to die? Uh, wow...

reply from: bradensmommy

I most certainly find this type of thing just as despicable as you do abortion. That's why I am pro-CHOICE. A woman should NEVER be forced to get an abortion any more than a woman should ever be forced to carry to term.
Ok, so where are all you pro-choicers when a woman is forced to abort? Are you right up there with us lifers fighting? I don't think so....
I think you really need to get your facts straight because not every woman wants to abort and I think you guys need to start your own alliance against this inhumane act against women. BTW, abortion is NOT a reproductive right unless you are 100 percent sure you are going to die if you give birth. (And even so, most women would die instead of thier child)

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I don't, silly. What I've been trying to get at this whole time is that we as a society (I'm guilty of this as well) expect "the innocent" to sacrifice their lives all the time. We expect animals to sacrifice their lives for our delicious meals. We expect bugs to sacrifice their lives so that we don't get the willies seeing them crawling up our walls every once in a while. We expect bacteria, parasites and viruses to sacrifice their lives for our sanitation and health.
Lol, don't you think that anti-virals and anti-biotics would seriously hurt the bacterial population? Or Orkin killing every bug ever? All the bugs outwiegh all the humans. I don't think they're very worried.
And dude, meat-eating is natural. I mean seriously, have you seen a cat catch a birf or rabbit? Why aren't you complaining about the rabbit? Because another "innocent" has gotten it, thus cancelling out any evil?
and since when does a baby have to give up its life for a mother's comfort? How does that make sense? How does killing ant innocent PERSON protected by the CONSTITUTION ever make society any better? Have you seen child abuse, poverty, teen abortions have ever decresed? Instead, they increased. Just because the woman "doesn't want it there" for fricking nine months? Don't you think someone else would want that baby for a lifetime? Just because a woman has an unwanted pregnancy does mean she has an unwanted baby. I know of girls who've thought they wanted an abortion, and instead had the baby, and loved their child from the first moment they saw them.
I think you need a clue.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Let me ask you something. do you think it would be very fair if someone forced death upon you because they were tired of taking care of you? Let's say they only had to take care of you for nine months. Or even just 22 weeks to 40 weeks. Do you think it would be fair?
But I'm sure you wouldn't mind, because they'd just be practicing their right of not having to give up their energy, food, oxygen, and everything for you. In fact, I'm sure you'd be proud of them, when they ripped you apart while you were alive, or burned you in saline. You'd be very proud. Especially if that person was a woman. Even better, your mother.

reply from: bradensmommy

I think Loki never has been pregnant nor wants children since she seems to act like babies are such a d*mn inconvenience on her part. Who wants to join an alliance to have her get her tubes tied so she never has to have an inconvenience happen to her because she had sex?
Wow, I have never seen so many hateful human beings in my life til I came to this board and y'all know who many more I'm talking about.
Oh, Loki, I have a one year old son and I had a great pregnancy except for the fact I had gestational diabetes. No, labor is not a walk in the park (of course til you have an epidural). We all sacrifice for someone or something, have you ever had the chance? You should, maybe it'll do some good on your part.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

I am a male (33 and celebate) and I dont need sex or to use women for sex. Therefore I know that no woman would ever feel that she need have an abortion because she does not want my child.
The excuses for abortion are endless, and worse among them are such that go as these... "I thought he loved me", "I am not having his child", "He isn't who I thought he was and I am not having his child" , "I am too young", "I am not raising this child alone"
When you have sex, you consent to the possibility of pregnancy regardless of age or income. The human reproductive system exists to create offspring, not for the pleasure of women who would kill their offspring rather than raise it as their own flesh and blood.
And as guilty as the men that pressure women to have abortions that would not otherwise have them. I can almost hear these men now... "I am not ready for kids", "I am not paying for a child", "You should have been more careful" and on and on as if the woman alone created this child.
I expect men and women to be responsible in regards to sex. If they dont want children, dont have sex. I dont expect that I should live in a culture where men and women murder the unborn in order to continue to satisfy their insatiable sexual appetites.
If you dont want to go to Boston, dont get on the train!

reply from: Loki

How funny, neither did yours.
See, you tried to avoid responding to my actual request just now. I'm on to you, however...
I specifically asked for someone to: "tell me why ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN are expected to sacrifice their bodies and health to ensure the survival of someone else."
You respond with: not "ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN are expected to refrain from killing others who are cramping their style."
If you seriously can't tell the difference in those two statements there's something wrong with your reasoning skills. I will tell you once again that no one else is expected to give up their body and/or it's resources to another even if it's the only possible way for that other to survive.
I gave this example a ways back... say a person causes a vehicular accident and causes severe damage to other people in seperate cars who had absolutely no fault in the accident. The accident causer, even then, isn't required to give up their organs, blood or any other kind of bodily resource to his victims even if this means that this will surely result in the death of the innocent victims.
So, I ask you again... Why are pregnant women expected to give up their bodies to ensure their "unborn's" survival when no one else is ever put in the position to ensure someone's right to life in this way?
I don't even know where you are coming from with this stuff. Of course people are put in the position to choose whether they want to help someone or not. They aren't ever required to sacrifice their bodies for anyone else, however, so I fail to see how this is relevant.
Here: "In those rare, rare cases in which the mother's right to live actually and verifiably conflicts with the baby's right to live..."
All I keep hearing from you guys is how rare it is for there to be any complications in pregnancy and childbirth these days. Pregnancy is just a 9-month inconvenience to you all, apparently.
Pot, this is kettle. Run along and make nice, now.
Seriously, stop inaccurately responding to my own posts on purpose before you go accusing me of these things.
If medical technology could ever accomplish this I assure you I would be seeing the entire world in a different light. The fact is I don't see this happening at all, let alone any time soon. However, if it ever does I would still maintain that no one should ever be forced to use their bodies against their will to ensure that an organism of any type may survive.
It's not irrelevant. It certainly does help contribute to why I'm pro-choice because there's not just ONE reason I have chosen my stance.
By asking "what constitutes rare", I did not mean "give me a dictionary definition of rare". I know how to use a dictionary, thank you. I was specifically asking you what YOU considered "rare" when you constantly say that pregnancy and labor complications are rare these days. Rare to you may not be considered rare to me. Rare is a rather subjective word.
It would never be zero, let's get real.
This is one of the reasons I support abortion, yes. It's not the only one.
Oh, we have a taker... even if ONE tree falls on a woman each year all women should get together and chop down all the trees in the US to lower their risk of being clomped by trees.
Listen, women do have means of getting away from things that threaten their lives. If they have an abusive husband they have the chance to get away, to escape. If the are afraid that a tree is going to fall on them they can stay away from forests. There is no way for a pregnant woman who is afraid of possible pregnancy and labor complications to escape her situation unless she ends the pregnancy early on. Even then she may suffer complications.
You're right. And pregnant women have the right to try and avoid the risks of pregnancy and childbirth by having an abortion.
"Her fears" are very real ones. When it comes to any entity directly threatening her life, health, and well-being she has a right to do something about it.
I absolutely care about her health. I also care about her bodily autonomy. If she believes that there is any organism living off of her that she doesn't want living off of her for ANY reason, I feel she has the right to remove it.
Oh dear, you certainly are tiring. Try paying attention, would you? The fact that you stated that it was "telling" for me to use tapeworms as a comparison in this debate indicates to me that you believe tapeworms should be denied the right to survive by using one's bodily resources, yet you allow the "unborn" to do the same. It shows to me that you have deemed "unborn" worthy of existence, but not the tapeworms.
Hey, you guys were the ones using the word first. I just thought I'd play along.
Also, calling an "unborn" a child is scientifically inaccurate. Using the word "child" for a zygote/embryo/fetus is what we like to call a "term of endearment". You might call your husband "honey" but does that mean he's HONEY? You might call your wife "sugar" but does that make her SUGAR? Of course not, let's not be ridiculous, here.
There are entire threads devoted to this specious argument; I leave it to you to find them (one's already been bumped, for your benefit I believe).
Thanks for leaving this part out of the above
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU PEOPLE THAT I NEVER SAID A FETUS WAS A PARASITE?
Consent to sex is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy. How unfortunate that you can't see the difference.
Of course I care about my life now. And you care about your life now, but don't kid yourself, here. How much do you remember from your time in the womb? You were not aware of your existence. You would have never known the difference if you ceased to exist from that point. No one has the right to kill you now, of course. You still don't have the right to try and survive by using someone else's bodily resources against their will, either.

I would suggest you take your own advice, I don't believe you speak for every "unborn", either. You certainly don't speak for every woman.
Don't try to play stupid with me. You say:
"in no other circumstance is one human being permitted to kill another on a whim"
Implying that abortions are the "killing of others" done "on a whim". If you didn't mean it, then why did you say it?
Maybe for you there's a better option than terminating a pregnancy, but to another woman that may be the best option to HER.
Of course I feel that any reason a woman wants to remove an unwanted organism from her body is good enough, because it all boils down to the fact that it's her body and she has the right to maintain it's autonomy. If she wants it out of her body because she wants to look good in a swimsuit, she still has the right to remove it. If she wants it out of her body because she is afraid of dying in chidbirth, she still has the right to remove it.
This is the entire point of my original post. I have mentioned the fact that no other person is required to give up their bodies for others' survival so many times I'm going to be saying it in my sleep.
Why aren't drunk drivers required to give blood and organs to their victims? They don't have to take responsibility for the actions by sacrificing their bodily resources. Why should pregnant women?
Fine, let's put it this way. Every woman who has ever been pregnant has had an "unborn" living off of their bodily resources whether against their will or with their consent. The use of their bodies has been shared with another being.
What's this burden of proof thing you just mentioned to me a few minutes ago? YOU made the claim that it's rare, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Also... 1%? That doesn't tell me much at all. 1% of what does what is what has what?
I'm saying that there is the fact that rape goes unreported quite a bit. Any statistcs that you find will not be very accurate because we don't know which pregnancies are conceived from rape unless the woman speaks up.
I agree with this.
That makes absolutely no sense.
A woman who has conceived from raped also has the right to remove any unwanted organism from her body if she so wishes.
You just want her to take responsibility by allowing an "unborn" to use her bodily resources against her will.
It wasn't just HER CHOICES if it wasn't rape, now was it? It takes two to tango.
Way to miss the point.
The point is not that a woman aborted because she wanted to kill a baby. She did it because she didn't wish to be pregnant at that time for various reasons.
When you word things the way you say you did, what do you expect? If you offer someone a snack and hold up an apple and a banana, but tell them that you can't have an apple or a banana, but you can have a red or yellow, and that person felt like humoring you they might say I want a yellow. I however probably wouldn't have felt like playing your little games and I suspect this lady didn't either. The poor woman was probably tired of you patronizing her and wanted to shut you up.
I'm sure most women are aware that terminating a pregnancy requires the "unborn" to die. Why wouldn't they? They still have every right to maintain their bodily autonomy.
They would rather have the pregnancy terminated than to carry to full term.

reply from: AshMarie88

"How much do you remember from your time in the womb? You were not aware of your existence. You would have never known the difference if you ceased to exist from that point."
I don't remember being in the womb. I also don't remember being a tiny newborn or a child at the age of two. Does that mean it would have been okay for someone to kill me as a small child?
I really love the excuse "it wouldn't have known" to get an abortion. It's like trying to justify the killing of a person who is sleeping in their warm, comfy bed. If you were in a deep sleep and someone went into your room and shot you, and they said that it's alright because you weren't aware you were going to die, does that make it alright?

reply from: AshMarie88

"Also, calling an "unborn" a child is scientifically inaccurate. Using the word "child" for a zygote/embryo/fetus is what we like to call a "term of endearment". You might call your husband "honey" but does that mean he's HONEY? You might call your wife "sugar" but does that make her SUGAR? Of course not, let's not be ridiculous, here."
A child is a human being, a "fetus" is a child in the womb, a human being in the womb. It's a fact. Those other two stupid "comparisons", however, do not even match up to calling a fetus a child.
child Audio pronunciation of "child" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil┬Ědren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.

reply from: Loki

And what makes you think you have the authority to deem what is worthy of life and what isn't? Why do you feel that the "unborn" deserve to live off of another human against their will yet a cow doesn't even have the right to be left alone when it isn't bothering anyone?
It goes both ways, mister. You've just shown me that you don't give a flip about animals' rights. Why do you feel that humans are so special?
Why are so many of you under the belief that women self-reproduce? Were is the man in all of this responsibilty mumbo jumbo?

reply from: Loki

Maybe in your mind, but I certainly would never consider a non-sentient entity living off of my body to be more important than me in any way, shape or form.
Oh well, I tried. I can't make you understand if you're not willing to.
Oh, I payed plenty of attention to those words and all I got from them is that you ran out of things to say so you tried to appeal to the emotions. Not a good debating tactic.
Absolutely, because the mother has every right to remove an unwanted entity from her body if she so wishes. It just so happens that this will end the life of an "unborn".
... You have not improved that statement at all. Just because my body is able to carry an "unborn" doesn't mean it should have to.
And the "unborn" may be seen an invader from the woman's view point if it's there against her will.
It just shows to me that humans only tend to care about human life. What is so special about human life that it gives us the right to trample all over the other species that live on this Earth?
Because last time I checked pregnant men weren't being oppressed.

reply from: AshMarie88

Your whole calling the child a "an unborn" is getting pretty annoying. I don't like this alternative, but why not call it a "fetus" instead?
"What is so special about human life that it gives us the right to trample all over the other species that live on this Earth?"
And what is so special about a woman that gives her the right to trample on her own child's life by killing it?

reply from: Loki

My point would be that if someone has only only two choices and you take one of the choices away you are essentially forcing them to go with the other choice.

reply from: Loki

If you can't understand what I'm saying, then that picture most certainly applies to you.

reply from: Loki

Maybe that's how you feel for YOURSELF, but some people don't want other human beings living off of their bodies, either. It's the same principle.
Rrriiight... please show me where I said that as well. Seriously, are you intentionally missing the point or what?

reply from: Loki

Correct. It is not wrong to remove it from it's mother if she wants it out of her.

reply from: Loki

Well, dear, where exactly do I find you? Is there a common meeting place for pro-lifers to stand around and "fight"? I certainly don't plan on joining in on the harrassaing of any woman who steps within 1oo feet of a Planned Parenthood. Just because I don't stand out in the street with signs you think I don't care when a woman is forced to have an abortion?
Yes, because that's what I have been saying all along... that every woman wants to abort. Is it a requirement to have a lack reading comprehension skills in order to hang around this joint, or what?
Well, now I think you need to get your own facts straight before you go posting stuff like this.

reply from: Loki

Do you think that a few abortions are going to hurt the human population? I fail to see your point and, at that, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what you are quoting from me...
Oh, I see... you completely missed the point again. Sheesh, you guys are seriously wearing me out with all this repeating, but I'll spell it out for you. Pay attention this time, please...
Someone asked me why I thought it was okay to expect ONLY unborn children to be forced to sacrifice their lives for someone else's right to comfort.
I replied saying that I DON'T expect only unborn children to sacrifice their lives for the sake of other's convenience and that apparently neither does our society as a whole.
I then went on to give common examples of when we expect other "innocents" to give up their lives for the sake of our convenience and comfort: We kill animals to eat them. We squash bugs because we think they're "gross". We kill germs, etc.
Then you quote what I said and ask me why I am concerned about the bacteria and bug population being diminished and why I'm complaining about cat's catching rabbits for food. HELLO? I'm not. I never said that. I have no idea in flipping heck why you thought I was concerned about bug populations and the like. Where do you people come up with this stuff? You are just pulling all this crapola out of your arse.
It doesn't. A baby can be given to someone else to care for it if the mother is uncomfortable with it.
Killing innocent people and ending a pregnancy early are not equatable in my eyes. A woman terminating her pregnancy does not effect society whatsoever.
What does this have to do with abortion?
The amount of time is irrelevant, really. If the woman does not want it there at all, she should be able to remove it.
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter if someone would want to take it if the woman doesn't desire to carry it for nine months. It's not her responsibilty to provide children for anyone else.
I was just going to tell you the exact same thing.

reply from: Loki

No. However, if I were literally surviving off of their bodily resources I could understand why they might consider me a bit of a nuisance.
Let's see, someone is supposed to take care of me for a short period of time and you're asking me if I think it would be fair for them to kill me instead? What the bleep kind of question is that? If someone was tired of taking care of me, they could quit their job and hand me over to somebody else. Comparing this to abortion is inaccurate. There is a difference in taking care of someone in the traditional sense and giving someone your bodily resources for their survival.
You come up with some of the most ridiculous posts, I swear. Please tell me in what situation someone would be giving me their energy and oxygen, literally, in the way that a pregnant woman does for her "unborn". I certainly would never expect anyone to lend me their live bodies for my survival. What would be the point of someone ripping me apart and burning me in saline at this point in my existence other than the fact that they're extremely psychotic? Just completely ridiculous, this paragraph.

reply from: Loki

Whether or not I ever want to reproduce is not anyone's business but my own, thankyouverymuch.
And whether or not you felt like your pregnancy was just easy peasy is irrelevant as well.

reply from: Loki

So, what's your point? You have also just pointed out that forced gestation is unconstitutional. Thanks for the backup.
Is a sperm a human? Is an unfertilized egg a human?
I have yet to be provided with any sources on how rare preganacies conceived from rape are...
Yes, and to some people having an abortion IS taking care of that responsibility.
I'm glad you brought this up again. Someone please respond to the drunk driver analogy I've mentioned several hundred times already.
What do you consider a normal pregnancy?
Not necessarily. There may be stretchmarks, minor or extreme, which are permanent and irreversible scars. Women who give birth vaginally can have their pelvic floors destroyed and may suffer incontinence. They may become desensitized to sex. There is also the risk of Post Partum Depression among various other things, but alas, you haven't even mentioned the woman's MENTAL health.
Pregnancy can be detrimental to a woman's health whether you want to admit it or not. Some women aren't well adapted for gestation. Some women have extremely narrow hips that could severely complicate childbirth. Also, what about a woman who needs to be on a certain med, for instance, that isn't able to be taken because it may cause birth defects and cause problems for their "unborn". What if this med were crucial for her survival? What if they helped her keep a well-maintained mental state? Should she stop taking these meds for nine months and risk her life for an "unborn" or should she have the option to abort?
The sharing of nutrients has nothing to do with it, it's the fact that an organism is in you and thriving off of you. If there is anything at all in me and using my resources without my consent, I will damn well make sure it is removed.
My solution to being afraid of other humans harming me is to stay away from humans. Become a hermit. The only possible way for a pregnant woman to escape her related fears is to become "unpregnant".
Born children do not need to depend on their biological parents for survival the same way an "unborn" does.
If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and doesn't want to take care of a child later on in life I would still maintain that she has the right to terminate her pregnancy. As I've said before it's not her responsibility to provide children for other people. If the woman didn't mind carrying an "unborn" for 9 months and didn't want to raise a child, she would have given birth and put the child up for adoption. Obviously, if a woman has an abortion she didn't plan on carrying to term anyway, let alone provide someone else with a child.
The woman does have two choices: to end her pregnancy along with her "unborn's" life or carry the pregnancy to term and give her "unborn" life. My point in using the phrase in the first place is to say that no one is expected to give their bodily resources to people they'ved harmed in order to save them. Only pregnant women are expected to take responsiblity by harboring an organism for 9 months.
^ carry the pregnancy to term and give her "unborn" life
^ end her pregnancy along with her "unborn's" life

reply from: Loki

They most certainly are expected by you and your lot to use their body and its resources against their will.
Are you saying you endorse the act of forcing one to do labor against their will? That's called slavery, I do believe.
It is becoming very apparent to me that you don't understand what I am meaning when I say the use of one's body and it's resources against one's will. Men are not FORCED to LITERALLY keep their children alive through the USE OF THEIR BODIES. Once a child is born it doesn't matter who takes care of it, it no longer depends on its mother's body to survive. Huge difference here. If a child becomes a burden to it's parents it is possible for it to be taken care of by some one else.
I have no clue what you are talking about here. If it's child support, though, you are aware that women are required to pay it as well, if it's the father that keeps the child, aren't you.
This is not relevant to this debate at all. Your wife's values and principles are none of my business.
Forced to use their bodies against their will = forced to use their bodies against their will, period. NO ONE is required to USE THEIR BODIES against their will.
As they should if that is what they want. You don't realize that you also used your body freely to have sex?
I wish nothing of the sort. I certainly don't condone the killing of children, as you say. It's possible that abortions help prevent the killing of children, you know.

reply from: Loki

Why do you grant higher value to a human than to a tapeworm? Why do you feel it is okay to remove tapeworms from our bodies but not "unborn"?
I have no idea why you would kill someone to remove them from your home. If you want them gone that bad how about just asking them to get off there arse and leave? Why would you kill Junior to avoid stress? Junior can be removed from your home without him being killed.
If a pregnant woman wants an "unborn" to leave because of stress, it's life will end because it depends on her BODY. Junior is three months old. He most certainly could be taken care of by someone else if need be.
Already did, yo.

reply from: Loki

It doesn't matter, as I've said a gabazillion times, BOTH ARE SURVIVING THANKS TO ANOTHER'S BODILY RESOURCES.
They are still using it. They are still present when they may or may not be welcome.
Get real, here. I'm not sure why someone would want their heart surgically removed. If they want to kill themselves wouldn't it be easier to down a ton of pills?
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that, while one certain surgeon may not be willing to perform certain surgories to remove unwanted... things... you still have a right to remove it.

reply from: Loki

It doesn't necessarily, smarty. But what about that one poor woman that does die? It could be any woman that becomes that statistic. If a woman feels that it could happen to her, she has a right to defend her health.
No, but every pregnant woman faces a real and POSSIBLE immediate threat to her life and well-being. There's no way to tell which pregnancies are going to end up having complications and which aren't. It's not fair to make a woman hope that she isn't one who does while forcing her to carry to term.
That's good for them. Are you trying to tell me that becasue some women have peachy pregnancies and come back for more that it must be that way for all? *ANHH* You lose.
It may very well be, fact is YOU don't know any more about a specific woman and her situation than SHE does and if she feels threatened she has a right to take care of it. Don't sit here and try to tell me that you can tell if a woman is going to face complications or not. That's riduclous.
Only the woman should be expected to be given due consideration unless she expresses otherwise.

reply from: Loki

Yadda yadda. You are not expected to use your body to keep your offspring alive for 18 years are you? There is a little thing called adoption. Once a child is born it can be taken care of by someone else. The biological parents don't NEED to even be present in the child's life again to ensure it's survival.

reply from: Loki

There is always a grey area. There is more to life than being alive. Ever heard the term "quality of life"? Of course, with you lot, I have my doubts on that.

reply from: Loki

Thanks for sharing...
Merrily we roll along.
However, you do not consent to pregnancy.
Why can't it be both?
If a woman wants to remain childless, then so be it.
If a man has any objections to a woman who WANTS to give birth to the child he has the ability to sign his rights away. People who force women to abort are just as disgusting as those who force women to gestate.
However, not everyone shares the same beliefs and morals and expectations of themselves as you. Can you really expect an entire culture to conform to your views because it makes you uncomfortable to be around people with a sex life?

reply from: Loki

Again, it would not be the same because after it's born, a baby does not need to depend on it's mother's body to survive. Therefore she need not "remove it" and by doing so, end it's life. Don't you understand the difference? Women don't have abortions to kill babies, they have abortions to end their pregnancies. If a woman is no longer pregnant, there is nothing there for her to remove. If she wants to get rid of a baby after it's born she doesn't NEED to kill it, she can just hand it over to someone else. I don't know how many more time I can state this before I go crazy.
It is nothing like that and I've already explained why.

It is not right to shoot me in my sleep, no. I am aware of my existence. My family and friends and animals are aware of my existence. I already have an invested interest in my life. If a woman wants to rid her self of an "unborn" the only one who would know the difference would be that woman and if she wanted to abort it in the first place, she obviously wanted it's existence to cease.

reply from: Loki

Your reasoning skills are seriously lacking. An adult is also a human being, does that mean that a fetus is an adult in the womb?
Those were perfectly good analogies to help describe to you what TERMS OF ENDEARMENT are since you seem to have no idea how the concept works.
With the definition you provided, the first one given is the scientifically correct one when describing stages of human life... "a person between birth and puberty." Well, that certainly excludes the "unborn" doesn't it? Calling anyone at any other stage of life a child is either used as a term of endearment or an insult.

reply from: Loki

That is living off of another human being who has the full right to not allow anyone the use of their bodies.
To her, taking responsibility for getting pregnant may mean getting an abortion.

reply from: Loki

We've been over this. It's up to the woman to decide if she wants to experience a minor inconvenience, as you say. A minor inconvenience to you may mean the world to someone else and vice versa.
So. It's also my "own flesh and blood" that I flush down the toilet every month. My "own flesh and blood" doesn't mean anything to me.

reply from: Loki

Now you're just being ridiculous for the fun of it. You equate paying taxes and cleaning your room with someone being forced to use their body against their will?

reply from: Loki

I'll call it whatever I damn well please. You certainly don't seem concerned enough to call anything by it's actual name, why should I?
Women have the right that every other human is granted... to not use be forced to use their bodies without their consent. This includes the forced use of their bodies to keep an organism alive.

reply from: Loki

If the rapist had only two choices and you took one choice away, then yes you essentially would be forcing them go with the other choice. This scenario works for everyone. If a dolphin had two choices and you took one away, you'd be forcing them to go with the other option. These are accurate statements, what's your problem?
Of course, you only mean other HUMANS... but what about the right to defend yourself from someone? It could involve harming somone else, yet we condone it.
Abortion is the removal of an unwanted entity from a woman's body that results in the death of an "unborn".

reply from: Loki

Again with these ridiculous statements. How many people do you know that want to remove their internal organs other than someone who wants to commit suicide? There are more peaceful and less complicated ways to get the job done. Why would anyone want their organs removed?
No she cannot demand that a surgeon remove her organs, however if one were available who would be willing to provide this procedure she'd have the right to go thorugh with.
Where this argument is lacking is that women who want to remove the unwanted "unborns" do not go to random surgeons and demand that they give her an abortion. There are abortion clinincs for this very reason. There are medical professionals who are willing to perform this procedure, and since this is so, she has every right to remove the unwanted "unborn" from her body.

reply from: bradensmommy

wow Loki we should all vote to make you team captain since you are just so good at making yourself look so much smarter than us. I'll get started on the shrine....

reply from: Tam

Ok, I agree with you about abortion, and I know this isn't even directed at me, and we don't even have to get into a discussion about it, but I just wanted to state my most emphatic disagreement with this statement.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

reply from: coco

LOKI The reason why i posted this message on here is because some people on here think that having the ec pills over the counter is wrong and they have issues with it! My point is if these pills were avaliable over the counter then the abortion rate would plummet (not completley go away).

reply from: Tam

I disagree. Abortion is never a reproductive right, because it has nothing to do with reproduction, which has to have taken place for abortion to even be possible. Terminating a pregnancy in a case of a threat to the mother's life is an issue of self defense, not of reproductive rights.

reply from: Tam

Do you even see the glaring contradiction in juxtaposing those two statements? You KNOW FULL WELL that birth control does NOT prevent pregnancy, and so if you use it, you KNOW FULL WELL that you might get pregnant. THAT IS CONSENT. If you take an action KNOWING FULL WELL that a certain outcome might result, that is implicitly consenting to that outcome.
Example: if you really, really didn't want to get into an automobile accident, if you absolutely want to be sure of it, don't drive. Many people don't drive for this and other reasons. If you drive, you accept that there is a risk of an accident. You don't WANT an accident. You do your best to PREVENT an accident. But you know that nothing can GUARANTEE that you won't have one, and you choose to accept the risk of an accident because you want to drive.

reply from: Tam

How funny, neither did yours.
See, you tried to avoid responding to my actual request just now. I'm on to you, however...
I specifically asked for someone to: "tell me why ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN are expected to sacrifice their bodies and health to ensure the survival of someone else."
You respond with: not "ONLY PREGNANT WOMEN are expected to refrain from killing others who are cramping their style."
If you seriously can't tell the difference in those two statements there's something wrong with your reasoning skills. I will tell you once again that no one else is expected to give up their body and/or it's resources to another even if it's the only possible way for that other to survive.
I gave this example a ways back... say a person causes a vehicular accident and causes severe damage to other people in seperate cars who had absolutely no fault in the accident. The accident causer, even then, isn't required to give up their organs, blood or any other kind of bodily resource to his victims even if this means that this will surely result in the death of the innocent victims.
So, I ask you again... Why are pregnant women expected to give up their bodies to ensure their "unborn's" survival when no one else is ever put in the position to ensure someone's right to life in this way?
I don't even know where you are coming from with this stuff. Of course people are put in the position to choose whether they want to help someone or not. They aren't ever required to sacrifice their bodies for anyone else, however, so I fail to see how this is relevant.
Let me clear up all your above confusion in one fell swoop: my entire point, which you misinterpreted as dodging (LOL!!) was to say that a pregnant woman is NOT required to "sacrifice her body" but only to refrain from killing others who are cramping her style.
This has already been made clear in other posts, and I'm still trying to catch up. For now, I hope this helps you sort out what I was saying.

reply from: Tam

Here: "In those rare, rare cases in which the mother's right to live actually and verifiably conflicts with the baby's right to live..."
All I keep hearing from you guys is how rare it is for there to be any complications in pregnancy and childbirth these days. Pregnancy is just a 9-month inconvenience to you all, apparently.
Ok, let's get to the bottom of this. You said
I said that I hadn't said any such thing.
Now you are trying to use the FACT that cases in which the pregnancy genuinely threatens the mother's life are RARE to falsely claim that I said pregnancy is " a flippin' walk in the park."
Do you even comprehend the vast gulf between acknowledging honestly that life-threatening pregnancies are unusual and claiming that pregnancy is "a flippin' walk in the park"?

reply from: Tam

I would still maintain that no one should ever be forced to use their bodies against their will to ensure that an organism of any type may survive.
No surprise there.
Whatever. Obviously, if there's a tiny risk of chipping a fingernail, you'd be ok with killing a child because of it.
Oh, we have a taker... even if ONE tree falls on a woman each year all women should get together and chop down all the trees in the US to lower their risk of being clomped by trees.
Makes as much sense as your position on abortion.
There IS a way--waiting it out. Generally speaking, it works like a charm. Your issue is not that there is no way, it's that you don't want her to have to wait for it to happen naturally.
You're right. And pregnant women have the right to try and avoid the risks of pregnancy and childbirth by having an abortion.
On what premises do you base your conclusion that a woman has the right to kill a child in order to avoid a hypothetical risk to herself?
"Her fears" are very real ones. When it comes to any entity directly threatening her life, health, and well-being she has a right to do something about it.
There has never been a law prohibiting abortion when the pregnancy is life-threatening. Everything else can be handled in other ways. There is never a need to intentionally kill the child.
Oh dear, you certainly are tiring. Try paying attention, would you? The fact that you stated that it was "telling" for me to use tapeworms as a comparison in this debate indicates to me that you believe tapeworms should be denied the right to survive by using one's bodily resources, yet you allow the "unborn" to do the same. It shows to me that you have deemed "unborn" worthy of existence, but not the tapeworms.
ROFL!! For someone so arrogant and patronizing, you certainly seem to be unable to follow along. As usual, rather than trying to comprehend what anyone is ACTUALLY *telling* you, you jump to some random conclusion and try to put words in my mouth. You are the one who brought up tapeworms. Surely you were not trying to use them as an example of something precious and worthy. Yet nothing I said either stated or implied anything of the sort. Your post didn't tell us anything about tapeworms--it just told us volumes about you.
If you're upset that anyone noticed, maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place. The implication that tapeworms were unworthy of existence was clearly YOURS, not mine, and I was *calling attention to it* and indirectly implying that you are lacking in compassion and kindness. I, on the other hand, won't even step on an ant, let alone eat flesh. So unless you can say the same, or can find a single shred of evidence that I'm some sort of tapeworm hater, just own your own words, dude. You wrote it, all I did was notice what you said.
Tell me honestly, now: when you made your little comparison to tapeworms, was it not your blatant attempt to imply that an unborn child is of no more or less importance than a tapeworm? If NOT, then what was your intent?

reply from: Tam

Hey, you guys were the ones using the word first. I just thought I'd play along.
Also, calling an "unborn" a child is scientifically inaccurate. Using the word "child" for a zygote/embryo/fetus is what we like to call a "term of endearment". You might call your husband "honey" but does that mean he's HONEY? You might call your wife "sugar" but does that make her SUGAR? Of course not, let's not be ridiculous, here.
You couldn't be more wrong. Not only does the word "child" properly apply to any gestating human being, that is in fact the *original* and arguably still most proper usage of the word "child" in the English language. If you look into this a bit, I am sure you will find this to be absolutely factual.
As for the word "unborn"--it is an adjective that can (but does not need to) modify the word "child" to help clarify that it is a child in the womb who is being discussed.
Completely unfounded and unproven assumptions, by the way.
I wouldn't dare! You could kick my butt at "stupid" even blindfolded and with both hands tied behind your back!
SOME of them ARE done for frivolous reasons. Surely you must realize that, or you must be living in a cave. You are implying that I said that all abortions are done for frivolous reasons. Yet what I SAID, and it is absolutely factual, is that "in no other circumstance is one human being permitted to kill another on a whim." You may HOPE that women aren't killing on a whim, but you MUST ACKNOWLEDGE that if a woman wanted to kill her unborn child on a whim, it would be permitted, and that there is NO OTHER circumstance in which a human being is legally permitted to kill another human being on a whim.
The problem is, SHE is not the only one whose needs must be taken into account.
Even "on a whim"--right?
Acknowledge that NOT ONLY is it legal for a woman to kill her unborn child on a whim, BUT ALSO that it is perfectly ok with you for her to do so.

reply from: Tam

I personally oppose only the killing of children--of any age and stage. I have no problem with something that prevents a child from being created in the first place; but if a child exists, that child needs to be treated with the same human rights as any other human child.
The big controversy comes when trying to redefine pregnancy as beginning when the child *implants* and claiming that procedures or medications to kill the child prior to implantation are not "abortions". That's debatable but irrelevant to the basic position of opposing all babykilling.

reply from: Tam

Hey what ever you feel like calling it, either way, a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy if she is prevented from getting an abortion, no?
If your only two options are "carry to term" or "abort" and you take away "abort", you are forced to "carry to term" because there are no other options left.
Did you even read what I wrote??? The option does not CEASE TO EXIST, it just becomes an illegal act rather than a legal act. She is not forced to refrain from killing the child, but there would be consequences if she did.

reply from: Tam

Just give us the short list.............
LOL

reply from: AshMarie88

Correct. It is not wrong to remove it from it's mother if she wants it out of her.
You know HOW they remove that child?
Would YOU want to be mutilated and torn apart, and thrown away?

reply from: Tam

This is the entire point of my original post. I have mentioned the fact that no other person is required to give up their bodies for others' survival so many times I'm going to be saying it in my sleep.
Oh, I see. It's based on a mistaken interpretation of pregnancy as sacrifice of one's body. Ok, carry on.
That's better. Sharing, not sacrificing. Probably makes no difference to you, I suppose.
What's this burden of proof thing you just mentioned to me a few minutes ago? YOU made the claim that it's rare, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Also... 1%? That doesn't tell me much at all. 1% of what does what is what has what?
Dude, look it up yourself. Everyone knows it's rare, unless you feel like finding out the statistic and redefining "rare" to be exactly one woman less than the statistic would indicate.
Well, never mind, then, right?
I agree with this.
That makes absolutely no sense.
A woman who has conceived from raped also has the right to remove any unwanted organism from her body if she so wishes.
Back up, back up. Let's go back to where we agreed--that men have no right to rape women. The thing you said makes no sense was my way of trying to illustrate that a child conceived by rape is to some extent an additional victim of the rapist, if you want to see it that way. My point was that in addition to being unjust towards the woman, it's also unjust for the baby who comes into existence as a product of a violent crime. I further went on to point out that for the mother to commit yet another violent crime, abortion, with her innocent baby a victim of that crime, is also unjust.
Now, I know you don't agree with that, but try to see where I'm coming from. Abortion as a human rights violation, as a violent crime, as child abuse. I know you don't see it that way, but try to see how someone else might. I am not asking for anything I am unwilling to give--I do know how it can be seen as a woman's right. I don't agree with that position, but I am a passionate feminist and I can see the reasons others like me feel as I once felt and as you feel now. But because first and foremost I am a pacifist, I don't believe women should be permitted to commit this violence against tiny babies.
Yes, I support women--more than you could possibly realize having known me only a few days--but standing up for women, particularly mothers, is something near and dear to my heart. One way I'm involved is as one of the most active members of a pro-choice/pro-life alliance working to help women have the freedom to choose to parent. You'd be surprised, or maybe you won't be, at all the ways our society, and certain institutions within it, can indirectly "force" the choice to abort in the same way that the laws against abortion would indirectly "force" the choice to give birth.
You just want her to take responsibility by allowing an "unborn" to use her bodily resources against her will.
I want her to take responsibility by bucking up and not killing a baby for the very short duration (less than one year! more like half a year!) that she has to put up with any inconveniences that resulted from her choices.
Sounds a bit different when you put it that way, doesn't it?
It wasn't just HER CHOICES if it wasn't rape, now was it? It takes two to tango.
If you are making the point that the father of this child shares equal responsibility for creating and caring for him/her, then I agree wholeheartedly. But if you're trying to avoid conceding that a woman who consents to intercourse is making a choice for herself, then you are just demeaning women.
I had intercourse recently--yes, it took "two to tango" but if I had not chosen to participate, it would not have happened. It was my choice to do it, and I knew pregnancy was a possible outcome.
Way to miss the point.
LOL I didn't "miss" your so-called point. I turned it on its head and made my own point.
When you word things the way you say you did, what do you expect?
An honest answer, which is exactly what I got. This woman, unlike yourself apparently, was honest enough to acknowledge that the aim of abortion is in fact to kill a baby--for whatever reason. The "reason" changes with the woman, but the constant across all abortions (all "successful" ones, anyway) is that they all produce a certain result: a living child becomes a dead child. That is the desired result of abortion, that is the purpose of abortion, and that is the spoken or unspoken, acknowledged or unacknowledged aim of every woman who seeks an abortion.
The humorous part of this ridiculous analogy is that it is FAR more applicable to your game of denying the dead baby than it is to the acknowledgement of the motivation behind abortion (the desire to change a live baby into a dead baby--your mileage may vary as to why).
You are so far off base that it's more amusing than insulting. Nothing about the conversation was a game, there was no patronizing on either side, and we continued talking nonstop about a variety of subjects, mainly feminist issues, until the last possible moment at which point amid a shower of mutual affection, we reluctantly parted. How about you stick to mouthing off about things you actually have a clue about, rather than projecting your own BS onto my relationship with someone in my family of whom you've heard exactly one sentence of information, but whose birth I attended?
Not only was your little jab wildly inaccurate, but it was also also egregiously disrespectful. Spare that "poor woman" your feigned pity, as she and I are more than capable of discussing a difficult subject without resorting to the sort of nonsense that is apparently all too familiar to yourself, probably based on your great familiarity with your own family relations rather than your even greater ignorance of mine.
Does it feel threatening to you that other women are more comfortable than you about acknowledging the sole purpose of an abortion, which is to kill an unborn child? Do you feel that it undermines your pro-abortion position to acknowledge what abortion does? It is, after all, debatable whether or not abortion should be legal. What isn't debatable is whether or not abortion's sole aim is to change a living child in his/her mother's womb into a dead child thrown away as garbage or, more recently, perhaps sold for spare parts.
Are you putting "unborn" in quotation marks because you are deliberately misusing it and trying to call attention to that, or because you remain unconvinced that the individual being discussed is, in fact, not born? Just wondering.

reply from: Tam

Well put. That's the central question, isn't it.

reply from: AshMarie88

9 months of a woman's discomfort is nothing compared to a child's entire life being stolen.
A woman can go 9 months (or even less, in many cases) with being uncomfortable just so a person can keep their life and live it to the fullest once born.
Abortion is about selfishness. The majority of the time it's all about the woman and no one else. "Me me me! It's all about what I want!"

reply from: Tam

Which of the following is true of you?
a) you actually believe that an unborn human being is not properly called a "child" but you have never taken the time to research whether or not this is true
b) you actually believe that an unborn human being is not properly called a "child" even though you know full well that this view is not supported by the facts
c) you know full well that an unborn human being is properly called a "child" but you are pretending otherwise in order to detract attention from the humanity of the unborn
And while I'm asking, are you at ALL aware that my use of "the unborn" in "c" was using it as an adjective describing all who are unborn, not a misuse as a noun as though "unborn" were another word for the child in the womb. It's like saying "the land of the free" means that you are "a free" and I am "a free" and we're all frees. In other words, it's nonsense. "The land of the free" means "the land of the people who are free" just as "the humanity of the unborn" means "the humanity of the children who are not yet born." That's a free lesson, although I suspect you'll neither appreciate it nor learn from it.

reply from: Tam

Your reasoning skills are seriously lacking. An adult is also a human being, does that mean that a fetus is an adult in the womb?
Please tell me you understand the basic concept that all apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples.
All human beings are children of their parents. I am my mother's child, although I am not a child. Paradoxical? Too confusing for you? The word "child" has several meanings--over a dozen, I believe. The first and best established, from which all the others sprang, is an "unborn or newly born infant"--notice there is no distinction between "unborn" and "newly born" in this meaning of the word child.
Using the meaning as "offspring of one's parents" we are all children all of our lives.
Using the meaning as "a prepubescent human being" we are all children until puberty.
Using the meaning as "an unborn or newly born human being" we are all children at the beginning of our lives.
In other words, an unborn child is "once, twice, three times a child" LOL Get used to it or don't, but be aware that when you claim otherwise it just makes you seem like an ignorant fanatic (ironically, what you mistake me for, probably! ROFL).

reply from: Tam

I'm sure that the aforementioned "minor inconvenience" means the world to the baby whose life depends on the mother being able to handle it without resorting to homicide!
So. It's also my "own flesh and blood" that I flush down the toilet every month. My "own flesh and blood" doesn't mean anything to me.
It was a figure of speech meaning "a member of your family", I think. The whole point is that the baby is NOT your flesh and your blood, s/he is his/her own person whom you have no right to attack over said inconvenience.

reply from: Tam

If the rapist had only two choices and you took one choice away, then yes you essentially would be forcing them go with the other choice. This scenario works for everyone. If a dolphin had two choices and you took one away, you'd be forcing them to go with the other option. These are accurate statements, what's your problem?
Those ARE accurate statements. The "problem" is that there is no way to take a choice away from someone, there is only a way to recommend certain actions that the community as a whole can CHOOSE to take in RESPONSE to that action.

reply from: Tam

Good question. I bet if you were one of the babies whose organs are removed with a curette and a vacuum aspirator, you might ask the same question for a different reason.

reply from: xLoki

I agree with you again for the most part.

reply from: AshMarie88

What happened to your other name?

reply from: xLoki

If you are using contraception to prevent becoming pregnant, I think it's pretty obvious that you are not giving your consent to become pregnant.

reply from: xLoki

I wasn't able to log in with the other for some reason. I think it may be because I deleted my e-mail address.

reply from: faithman

Just like all pro-abort maggot punk scum bag liars, you totally misrepresent the issue. No woman was forced to die of child birth before roe. Abortion was already legal. What roe did was make abortion on demand legal. That has resulted in over 98% percent of abortions preformed on perfectly healthy womb children, in perfectly healthy moms for non-medical reasons. Modern science has made medical abortion totally unnessisary. The only reason for abortion on demand is for selfish killer moms, and the money for planned parenthood. How about murder being forced on the child, punk? The more you baby killers open your mouths, the stupider you look.

reply from: xLoki

You can not deny that ONLY pregnany women are required to use their bodies, whether against their will or not, to keep another alive.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ok, this is getting really annoying. Please stop comparing humans to non-humans, because as a Christian, I don't believe any other species has the Breath of Life.
Yes, actually, I do. And I'm female.
It's pro-babykillers, not us, that want men to stay away from abortion. Oh, unless they're going to threaten/coerce/convince the woman to have an abortion. Otherwise, they should stay out.
I never said they were more important than the woman. They're lives are more important than the mother's comfort, however.
Understand what? Pregnancy comes from sex, and that is a fact, whether people like you want to accept it or not. Pregnancy can come from sex wheter the people having sex are using contraception or not. Get over it.
No, I bolded them because they're important words. How many times have pro-babykillers put the words "forced through a pregnancy" in italics, bold-faced, and underlined? And who really cares how I wrote them?
As Mother Theresa said, this is a poverty. It's really pathetic that you think comfort is more important that the only life that this child will ever have on Earth.
I'm not saying it has to. I'm saying the baby is no invader since the female body is designed to carry a child.
As I've said a millions times, a child's life is more important that their mother's comfort.
...?

reply from: xLoki

If this is such a FACT why aren't you able to prove it by showing me not even one source at all, let alone, a good one?
To me, you definitely seem to want to trivialize the seriousness of pregnancy into a mere 9-month inconvenience, yet you show me no sources that state that pregnancy complications are rare, rare, rare.
Show me unbiased well-informed sources, now, or I will continue to believe that they aren't rare.
You've never said those exact words, but obviously think pregnancy complications seem to be virtually non-existent these days.

reply from: xLoki

Whatever's what I say. No woman is going to say that a pregnancy is going to increase her chances of breaking a nail to get an abortion. If she says that and does get an abortion she obviously had other reasons as well.
If that's HER choice.
It's not about what I want, it's all about what SHE wants and what she feels is best for HER situation and if SHE doesn't feel safe waiting it out she shouldn't have to.
If a woman feels threatened she can get away from what she feels threatened of. The only possible way for her to get away from pregnancy is to terminate it.

All pregnancies are potentially life-threatening, therefore a woman has a right to protect her life by "escaping" from pregnancy.
You actually TOLD me that it was "telling" that I should compare tapeworms to the "unborn". Please enlighten me on why you thought it was "telling" that I should make that comparison, if I apprently misunderstood you.
My whole point of bringing up a tapeworm is that I find it rather hypocritical for people to say that an "unborn" human has the right to live off and make use of someone else's body against their will but tapeworms who, as far as we all know, may more know of its existence than an "unborn", is not allowed that right. It's pure human elitism.
So you would allow a tapeworm the right to life inside your body the same way you would an "unborn"?
And I seriously doubt you have gone your entire life without killing an insect, whether intentionally or not.
I've already told you my intent. Are you implying that an "unborn" has the right to use another's body against their wil but not a tapeworm?

reply from: Motherto5

xLORI,
SERIOUS Medical complications to the MOTHER are extremely rare!! Serious medical complications that endager the mothers life almost never end up in the death of the mother with proper prenatal care.
More over the majority of complications are minor and are treatable with medication, bed rest, and diet!!! But occassionaly-delivery of the baby is neccesary before term (when deemed the mother will die immediately without it)One of the only times when a serious medical complication endangers a healthy womens life is during an eptopic pregnancy (when the baby will most certainly die early on in the pregnancy!!)
HERE IS YOUR PROOF FROM THE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_deathWIKIPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA- A NONE BIAS SOURCE!!
Maternal death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Maternal death ICD-10 O95
ICD-9 646.9
Maternal death, or maternal mortality, also "obstetric death" is the death of a woman in relation to a pregnancy. In 2000, the United Nations estimated global maternal mortality at 529,000, of which less than 1% occurred in the developed world. However, most of these deaths have been medically preventable for decades, because treatments to avoid such deaths have been well known since the 1950s.

The major causes of maternal death are bacterial infection, toxemia, obstetrical hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancy, puerperal sepsis, amniotic fluid embolus, and complications of abortions.
Firstly I want to point out the last cause- COMPLICATIONS OF ABORTIONS- DO YOU SEE THAT- Way to liberate these women!!!!
And secondly as you read above- Most of these are PREVENTABLE- ESPECIALLY WITH PRENATAL CARE- Which is available to the poor (just want to avoid another Stupid pro-death argument)
Your statement
Only shows your willingness to stay ignorant... or as I like to say... "Dumb on Purpose". A child's LIFE is at stake- and your not willing to do your own research!!!
Does anyone else wonder how they (pro-aborts) can continue to come back with these stupid arguments- TAPEWORMS- My goodness!! They never cease to make me sick!
~Mother to 5

reply from: Shiprahagain

Welcome, Motherto5 and thanks for the research!

reply from: coco

xloki i also welcome you to this board, please excuse those that are trying to change your mind about abortion with insults. Just wondering how did you come to your view of abortion??

reply from: Tam

If you are using contraception to prevent becoming pregnant, I think it's pretty obvious that you are not giving your consent to become pregnant.
If you are doing The Thing That Gets People Pregnant, I think it's pretty obvious that you are giving your consent to become pregnant. All contraception does is reduce the number of times you will get pregnant over the course of your fertility. There is a great thread with some stats about this, by NorthStar.

reply from: Motherto5

Just feel the need to add more:
So if I get your posts correctly you stand on "Abortion is a safe medical procedure- safer than a full-term pregnancy and childbirth"?????????????
As you could see in the post above and here is another reference from the American Medical Association Encyclopedia of medicine, ed. Charles B Clayton (New York: Random House 1989) PAGE 58
LESS THAN ONE IN 10,000 pregnancies result in the mother's death.
A 2000 Government-funded study in finland revealed that women whom abort are 4 TIMES more likely to die in the year following the abortion than women who carry their preganncies to term. Women who carry to term are only half as likely to die as women who are NOT pregnant!!
Reasearchers from the stistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Developmental Center for Welfare and Health Exaimed the death cerificate records for all women of reproductive age (15-49) who died between 1987 and 1994, a total of 9,129 women. Then they examined the national health care database to identify pregnancy-related events for the women in the 12 months of prior to their deaths.
The researchers found that, compared to women who carried to term, women who had aborted in the year prior to their deaths were 60% more likely to die from natural causes, 7 TIMES more likely to die from SUICIDE, four times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents and 14 TIMES more likely to die from homicide. Researchers believe that the higher rate of deaths related to accidents and homicide may be linked to higher rates of suicidal or risk-taking behavior.
I can keep going if you'd like- There is plenty of documented information on this subject!!! I think I will !!
EPTOPIC PREGNANCIES

Serious Medical Problems such as an increased risk (2 times more likely) of an ectopic pregnancy for women who have had ONE abortion, and up to 4 TIMES as high for women with two or more previous abortions- STATISTICS FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH (March 1982) page 258- Written by Ann Aschengrau Levin, "eptopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion".
There has been a 300% Increase of ectopic pregnancies since abortion was legalized. In 1970 the incidenced was 4.8 Per 1,000 births; By 1980 it had risen to 14.5 per 1,000 births- U.S. Department of health and Human Services, Morbidity and Motality Weekly Report 33 (April 1984)
PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE
Researchers state, "Pelvic infection is a common and serious complication of women having induced abortion and has been reported in up to 30% of all cases-American Journal Of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Nov. 1984) Pages 669-703
"Women with Postabortal Pelvic inflammatory disease had significantly higher rates of... spontaneous abortion, secondary infertility, dyspareunia, and chronic pelvic pain." -American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (July 1986) page 79: By lars Heisterbert, M.D..
OTHER
"Other Infectious complications, as well as endometriosis, follow approxiamtely 5% of abortion Procedures"- American Journal Of Obstetrics and Gynecology (July 1977) Pages 556-559. Ronald T. Burkman, M.D.
Numerous Scientific studies demonstarate that the chance of miscarriages significantly increases with abortion, as much as tenfold- Journal of the American Medical Association (June 1980). Ann Anschengrau Levin. -AND- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (march 1981) pages 516-521. Carol Madore- TWO MORE references are listed- But you get the idea.
Some women are even unable to conceive after having abortions. Tubal infertility has been found to be up to 30% more common among women who have had abortions- Fertility and Sterility (March 1985) Pages 389-394. Janet R Daling, PH.D.
THESE ARE JUST A SMALL AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTED FACTS on the mothers health- I haven't even begun to list the health risks to future children to women who have had abortions!!
I think its time to find a different excuse to keep abortion on demand- This one is just not working- All your left with is that Pregnancy is an inconvience. As if your former argument wasn't evil enough!!
Thanks For the Welcome !
P.S. sorry if there were any typo's- Alot to type, don't feel like proof reading!!
~Mother to 5

reply from: Tam

Only shows your willingness to stay ignorant... or as I like to say... "Dumb on Purpose". A child's LIFE is at stake- and your not willing to do your own research!!!
Does anyone else wonder how they (pro-aborts) can continue to come back with these stupid arguments- TAPEWORMS- My goodness!! They never cease to make me sick!
~Mother to 5
Welcome to the forum!!!

reply from: Tam

If this is such a FACT why aren't you able to prove it by showing me not even one source at all, let alone, a good one?
To me, you definitely seem to want to trivialize the seriousness of pregnancy into a mere 9-month inconvenience, yet you show me no sources that state that pregnancy complications are rare, rare, rare.
Show me unbiased well-informed sources, now, or I will continue to believe that they aren't rare.
You've never said those exact words, but obviously think pregnancy complications seem to be virtually non-existent these days.
Well, since our new member answered those issues, and since you claim to know what I "obviously think" better than I do (ROFL), maybe you already know everything I could possibly have to say to you. In which case, I am sure you are getting the unwritten message I'm sending you right now. LOL
So I think I'll let you glory in your omniscience for awhile as I choke with laughter at the nonsense you actually believe, and wrestle with the fact that some of what you say (thank goodness, I wasn't foolish enough to buy into all of the proabort dogma you are spouting, which is above and beyond any semblance of reason) is stuff I once had the naivete, ignorance, and gullibility to take seriously myself. I do have compassion for you, but once you started deliberately (IMO) playing games, my patience has worn thin. You have no answer for 90% of what I post to you, and what you choose to answer is answered with BS you don't even know is BS yet.
It's going to be a painful awakening for you--presuming that you do ever manage to wake up--to realize that these ideals you are holding so near and dear are nothing but a sham, that what you are supporting is the cause of--not the solution to--much misery for women, and that you are with an attitude I can only call cold, supporting infanticide. Not something that is "practically infanticide" or "tantamount to infanticide" or "similar to infanticide"--just plain infanticide. And you're clearly ok with it. It is really stomach-turning to read your callous, twisted posts. And when I spend my valuable time responding to them, only to have my responses ignored or worse, then it's really not worth it. (Although if it will make you feel you've saved face, you can call me a quitter. I am confident that no one other than you or your ethical equals would make that mistake.)

reply from: thecatholicamerican

In fact I dont care about animal rights. In fact I dont even believe that animals have rights. Humans are the only creature that has the capacity to make a value based decision, that is, a decision that has a moral component to it. You seem to place the animal above the human being.
You have gone about the dangers of pregnancy, which you refer to as being forced on a woman and occuring against her will. I might point out that sex in and of itself is far more dangerous to a womans health in the way of sexually transmitted diseases than the pregnancy that occurs afterwards. A women gets pregant because and only because she has sex with a man. It takes two, but all it takes is the woman to decide to kill the child.
Abortion is premeditated murder, plain and simple.

reply from: bradensmommy

That'll shut 'ol Loki up.....for a minute (Had a Ron White moment!)

reply from: bradensmommy

In fact I dont care about animal rights. In fact I dont even believe that animals have rights. Humans are the only creature that has the capacity to make a value based decision, that is, a decision that has a moral component to it. You seem to place the animal above the human being.
You have gone about the dangers of pregnancy, which you refer to as being forced on a woman and occuring against her will. I might point out that sex in and of itself is far more dangerous to a womans health in the way of sexually transmitted diseases than the pregnancy that occurs afterwards. A women gets pregant because and only because she has sex with a man. It takes two, but all it takes is the woman to decide to kill the child.
Abortion is premeditated murder, plain and simple.
I hope that you aren't for cruelty to animals though. I think that sex is only dangerous when people are irresponsible.

reply from: Shiprahagain

In fact I dont care about animal rights. In fact I dont even believe that animals have rights. Humans are the only creature that has the capacity to make a value based decision, that is, a decision that has a moral component to it. You seem to place the animal above the human being.
You have gone about the dangers of pregnancy, which you refer to as being forced on a woman and occuring against her will. I might point out that sex in and of itself is far more dangerous to a womans health in the way of sexually transmitted diseases than the pregnancy that occurs afterwards. A women gets pregant because and only because she has sex with a man. It takes two, but all it takes is the woman to decide to kill the child.
Abortion is premeditated murder, plain and simple.
The thing is, animal rights have nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong -- and I believe in animal rights. For example, suppose that one person who believed using animals for farm work was wrong also said that human slavery was wrong -- another person could agree that human slavery was wrong but disagree that animal labor was a farm of enslavement. Still, the human's rights aren't contingent upon animal rights.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

I am certainly not for cruelty to animals. I think that humans have every responsibility to treat animals with the kindness and respect within our means. But at the same time, I think that certain animals are food and resourses to used, responsibly.
I am however greatly disturbed by the radical thinking in animal rights circles that puts humans and animals on the same footing. The killing of an animal is no way has moral equivalence to the murder of an unborn human child and I think it very hypocritical of any pro-abortionist to make the comparison.

reply from: NewPoster1

It's rather peculiar, everytime an anti-choicer posts a study claiming that abortion is dangerous, I notice that said study is more than 20 years old.
As far as that Finland study is concerned, it's inherently flawed. Notice, it doesn't find that a woman is four times more likely to die from an abortion than she is from giving birth, it (purportedly) finds that a woman is four times more likely to die in the year following an abortion than she is in the year following giving birth. The biggest problem with this study is that it doesn't take into account preexisting risk factors. As an example, let's say Jane Doe is severely depressed, uses drugs, has no health insurance, doesn't have a job, and is in an unstable relationship with an abusive man, while, at the same time, her neighbor is perfectly happy, doesn't use drugs, has health insurance, has a well-paying job, and is in a committed relationship with a good man. Jane Doe is obviously more likely to have an abortion than her neighbor, she's also obviously more likely to die from suicide, drug overdose, health problems, or homicide, but it's blatantly misleading to blame her subsequent death on abortion, unless any and all other risk factors have been taken into account and eliminated.
Even if this study lacked it's methodological problems (and was applicable), according to CDC statistics, a woman is approximately 20 times more likely to die while giving birth than she is from an abortion. Taking both in to consideration, this would mean that abortion would still be 5 times safer than giving birth. Of course, it's not applicable, because we're debating abortion in the United States, not Finland. The 2 countries have completely different laws, regulations, practices, etc, and as such you can't use a study from one to prove something in the other.
Edit: Just in case someone thinks I'm just making up numbers from the top of my head, you may refer to this thread for the sources of my information.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear&catid=7&threadid=1913

reply from: NewPoster1

Here's what's truly ironic...
If a woman is walking down the street and is abducted, almost beaten to death, brutally raped, and impregnated as a result of this vicous attack, anti-choicers have absolutely no problem with forcing her to remain pregnant against her will, regardless of how much it threatens her mental or physical health, or her life.
Yet, if a drunk driver plows into an innocent pedestrian, anti-choicers would never even consider forcing him to donate some of his blood or spare organs to his victim, even if doing so was the only way to save his victim's life and he could do so with virtually no risk to himself.
I wonder why anti-choicers give more credence to a drunk driver's rights and right to bodily autonomy than they do to a rape victim's?

reply from: AshMarie88

NewPoster, I don't usually bring up age in a debate, but you're probably the youngest person here. You're still very young and you have so much more to learn. Take it from the grown-ups on the forum, they're very educated and are in what you would call the "real world". Why not learn something from them?

reply from: thecatholicamerican

The very small number of pregnancies connected with rape is nothing compared to the 1.5 million premeditated deaths that are the result of elective abortions.
If a man nearly killed me I dont want his body parts or blood to save my own life, but I would not have him killed either.
And what of that woman that was raped? What if she chooses to keep the child? Does that trouble you? Are you so concerned that the woman will be harmed by keeping the child or that she might carry to term the child of a rapist?
Do we now kill the offspring of the criminal?

reply from: bradensmommy

hmm...I had to reply to this because as a pro-lifer and a woman I wouldn't "force" anyone to do anything like that. As a woman I would help my fellow female out by giving her all the information needed. IF by chance she wanted an abortion I could not stand in her way but I would talk to her about it and let her know the cons of having an abortion. My pro-life side would try to come out but I will try my best to not upset her more but to be HELPFUL. If you don't ever notice, not all pro-lifers are psycho, most of them sit outside of clinics and pray.
I am an organ donater but I wouldn't make anyone donate blood/organs if they don't want to. I think you take pro-lifers side very negatively.
And BTW, I wouldn't want some drunk person's organs in my body thankyouverymuch. I'm sure I can find a family member who will be more than happy to do so.
I think if you get to know more people you'd be more open-minded to people who don't agree with you.

reply from: Motherto5

Oh Boy- This one will be fun!!!
Firstly, I see only one of my satistics being argued against- WHAT about the MANY others?
Secondly, as it was stated in the WIKIPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA- a NON BIAS source (VERY MUCH UNLIKE THE CDC- Just wait I will get to that!) PLEASE SEE THE BOLD AND UNDERLINED PART OF THE PARAGRAPH!! THANKS!
Maternal mortality is a sentinel event to assess the quality of a health care system. However, a number of issues need to be recognized. First of all, the WHO definition is one of many; other definitions may also include accidental and incidental causes. Cases with "incidental causes" include deaths secondary to violence against women that may be related to the pregnancy and be affected by the socioeconomic and cultural environment. Also, it has been reported that about 10% maternal deaths may occur late, that is after 42 days after a termination or delivery (1), thus, some definitions extend the time period of observation to one year after the end of the gestation.
And as for citing a study from finland- I do not think that this would vary that much from america- I highly doubt they do their abortions any different from our Home grown killers!! They are not a third world country- They are fairly advanced in medical tech. Also, A Fairly SIMILAR study was done in California that had the same findings!!
Anyways I don't care to debate the finland study anyways... As I've said what about the other statistics from our OWN medical Journals and such!!
And about your Planned parenthood facts provided by the CDC- There are tons of WELL KNOWN articles out there about their mis reporting of the deaths because they do not have all the facts ( I.E. Death certificates do not always have all the infomation related to the death- Medical records are neccesary to report acurrately!)
I LOVE THIS THOUGH Here is a little info about the CDC
Even before this latest study discrediting the accuracy of accessing pregnancy associated deaths from death certificates alone, the CDC=s reports on abortion associated deaths had been severely criticized by abortion opponents. One of the chief complaints was that the top physician=s in the CDC=s abortion surveillance unit had clear conflicts of interest since they were not only outspoken advocates for expanding abortion services but also, when not on government payroll, practicing abortion providers.
If you would really like to educate yourself on Deaths associated with abortion and childbirth read http://www.afterabortion.org/research/DeathsAssocWithAbortionJCHLP.pdf
Ah, thats enough for now.
~Mother to 5

reply from: laurissamarcotte

But we provide help, counseling, free baby itmes, ect for raped women.

reply from: yoda

Newposter, abortion is ALWAYS dangerous for the baby.
But then you don't really care, do you?

reply from: Tam

My my, NP, welcome back. I am pretty sure that when you left, you dropped balls all over the floor. If you can't remember where, maybe someone else could helpfully bump unresolved issues.

reply from: xLoki

Look, I could care less if you want to place an "unborn" into the "child" stage of human life, you are free to show your ignorance all you want.
My 90 year old grandmother is someone's child, however you would most certainly be looked at funny if you stated that she was still at the "child" stage of human development. You are falsely trying to place an "unborn" into this same stage of human development.
So please tell us all about your known existence inside your mother's womb. Enlighten us all. I would challenge anyone to do the same.
When it comes to making decisions about what lives off of and makes use of her body, she is the only one whose needs and wants should be taken into account.
I am absolutely okay with a woman removing an "unborn" from her body for whatever reason she gives. I believe I have made that clear enough.

reply from: xLoki

In the literal sense if there are only two options and one is taken away, someone is being forced into taking the other. That is all I was addressing.
And are you saying you don't care if women "kill innocent children" as long as they face consequences for it? Was I mistaken to believe that you wanted to prevent any abortions from taking place?

reply from: xLoki

For what purpose would I ever need to be "mutliated, torn apart and thrown away" at this point in my life?

reply from: xLoki

Of course I believe it wrong to starve an infant, however, a woman need not starve an infant if she doesn't want to breastfeed it, you see, because there is this little thing called formula. That or they could give it to someone else to take care of and feed it, so I fail to see your point. A woman certainly should not be FORCED to breastfeed an infant just as they shouldn't be forced to keep someone else alive with their bodies.

reply from: Shiprahagain

For what purpose would I ever need to be "mutliated, torn apart and thrown away" at this point in my life?
Maybe you're on welfare. Maybe I no longer want to use my money and efforts to support you. I shouldn't be forced to.
Or maybe you're a conjoined twin and your twin whose organs you depend upon is tired of supporting you -- why should she be forced to do so?
Maybe you're homeless and I'm sick of looking at you sleeping on the corner. You're unwanted -- and you know what happens to the unwanted right? Every person should be a wanted person.

reply from: xLoki

Only pregnant women are forced to keep another organism alive through the use of their bodies. Please read that sentence several times to let is sink in. You seem to be completely ignoring my points on purpose.
When it comes to SHARING one's BODY with another entity for it's survival, it's not hard to see why some people may see that as a sacrifice.
Just as I thought. You have no proof for your claims. I will now automatically disregard anything you state as fact because it's likely you are just pulling it out of your arse.
No, not "never mind, then". My point is that you are completely off base when stating that pregnancies conceived from rape are rare when:
A) You have no source whatsoever to back up your claim.
and
B) Any source stating the number of pregnancies conceived from rape may very well be inaccurate.
Point is, you absoltuely cannot make the claim that pregnancies conceived from rape are "rare" because THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING THIS FOR SURE.
I don't necessarily agree with you on this, unless the rapists intentions of raping a woman in the first place was to get her pregnant so that she would need an abortion. If a man rapes a woman it is a crime against HER.
It would be more of a crime, in my eyes, to force a woman to endure someone else using her body against her will for 9 more months, just as the rapist used her body without her consent in the first place.
You are entitled to feel that way but when you make an effort to prevent another woman from getting an abortion because YOU feel that way is where I personally draw the line.
Too bad for you. If she doesn't feel like putting up with any "inconveniences" for any amount of time because of a pregnancy it's up to HER, not you.
Not really, no.
I was making a response to this:
"...if she is pregnant by consentual intercourse, it was HER CHOICES that led to that pregnancy..."
That's an incorrect statement, because if it was consentual intercourse, it was her and her partner's choices that may have led to a pregnancy, not just HERS.
If your partner had not chosen to participate it wouldn't have happened either. Otherwise, it's called rape.
It was also your partner's choice to do it, was it not?
In other words you completely changed the subject to avoid responding to my actual statement. Hmm.
How about trying to ask an honest question, then, instead of playing word games?
The aim of abortion is to end a pregnancy. An "unborn's" life ends in the process, but the main intent is to end a pregnancy.
I have not once denied that in order for a pregnancy to be terminated early, a life must end.
Yet again, I must tell you that the intent of abortions are to end pregnancies.
Maybe you didn't realize it, but this woman may have found your way of breeching the subject patronizing. From what you described, I certainly would have.
The rest of this dribble is irrelevant. Your relationship with your family members is none of my business, nor do I care, quite frankly. Same goes for my realtionship with my own family members.
Your statements get more and more ridiculous as we go. I have told you a million times what the "aim of abortion" is. The aim is to end a pregnancy. The result is that a life ends.
I am putting "unborn" in quotation marks because that is not what I believe to be its accurate name, but what I feel like calling it.

reply from: xLoki

Why would you expect only pregnant women to have this responsibility, eh, when no other person in society is ever required to "go 9 months (or even less, in many cases) with being uncomfortable just so a person can keep their life"? TELL ME WHY, ALREADY!
Are you kidding me!? Of course it's all about what she wants when it comes to HER body! Whose say should it be when it comes to the use of their body?

reply from: xLoki

You are so sure, huh? You are quite sure of a lot of things, aren't you.
Women who abort are not "resorting to homicide".
I have every right to remove this "flesh and blood" from my body if I so wish.

reply from: xLoki

Go on, tell us how you really feel.
As it should be.
Teehee! Womb children... I like that! Too bad I've already made up my mind to use "unborn".
Modern science has found a way for a woman to remove an unwanted "unborn" from her body without having an abortion? Do tell.
I'm sure Jesus called those he believed to be in the wrong the same type of names you have. You must make him proud, eh?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

What the heck? What else is the child? Born? It's either born or unborn, it can't be neither.
Because pregnancy isn't a disease. It rarely causes organ failure. Since the mother made the choice to have sex in the first place, she got pregnant. It's not like she's a victim of her pregnancy.
If women get control over their bodies, why don't unborn children?
Yes, actually, they are. Homicide is intentionally killing another human being, which is what abortion does.
Ugh... You just don't get it. You know, I wonder how people like you can sleep at night, knowing that you're letting women kill their own children. It's really sad that you can just go out and defend the killing of babies, go home, and have your conscience clean. Wait, you don't have a conscience, do you?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Why would you expect only pregnant women to have this responsibility, eh, when no other person in society is ever required to "go 9 months (or even less, in many cases) with being uncomfortable just so a person can keep their life"? TELL ME WHY, ALREADY!
Just so that a person can keep their life? Yeah, why is allowing somebody to keep their life a valued reason to do anything? Guess what? Some people actually treasure life.
Are you kidding me!? Of course it's all about what she wants when it comes to HER body! Whose say should it be when it comes to the use of their body?
Spoken like a rapist.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

...? A womb child is a child in the womb....
Abortion is never necessary, unless the mother's life is at risk, which is very rare. Oh, and if you disagree to that, why don't you find a source that says life-threatening pregnancies are oh-so-common?

reply from: xLoki

Well, good for you. I am not a Christian.
I could care less whether your religion has deemed "any other species" worthy of living or not, because I do not believe in nor follow your religion's beliefs.
Trust me, when I feel like having sex with someone, I will. I WILL NOT be taking YOUR opinions and morals into account when it comes to MY sex life, thankyouverymuch.
If a woman wants to include a man in on the decision-making when it comes to her body, then that's up to her. If she doesn't, however, then no man should have a say as to whether she can get an abortion or not.
Re-read my statement. I said that I would never consider an organism "living off of my body to be more important than me in any way, shape or form."
Like I said, I can't make you understand, especially when you aren't trying.
I was not talking about HOW you wrote them but about WHAT YOU WROTE. I only mentioned the words being bolded because they were. I could care less that you bolded certain words, however, you WERE using those particularly strong words specifally and only to appeal to one's emotions. I am telling you that that is not a good way to make a substantial point in any debate because it shows that you don't really have a good point and that you've resorted to making someone FEEL bad or getting someone upset about an issue regardless of any facts.
If this life is only being kept alive through the use of my body and I find that this use of my body makes me uncomfortable enough to want to remove this living thing, then I absolutley will. Simple as that.
...
That's all I have to "say" about that...
In your opinion, as I've said a million times. In my opinion it is not unless the specific woman so deems it HERSELF.
Well, if you know of any pregnany men being opressed, kindly point me in their direction. Sheesh...

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you believe humans are no different than fish?
I honestly don't care what you do. It's just incredibly stupid to assume that you won't get pregnant, even if you do you contraception.
Say that there are some siamese twins connected by the stomach. One gets tired of the other one. Does that one have the right to go to a clinic and have its twin ripped limb from limb? After all, their twin's life shouldn't be more important than them in any way, shape, or form.
Understand what!? Pregnancy comes from sex. Deal with it. It's a fact, and nothing you say or do will change that. Ever.
Oh, okay. Next time I'm debating with a Nazi, I'll be sure to be sensitive to their feelings and not make them feel bad in any way for helping kill millions of Jews.
And this is what makes you cold-hearted.
And why is this? It's true. Why do you think our pelvises are formed different from men's, and why do you think us women have wombs? For extra storage??
Oh, so it's based on the opinion of the woman that counts. So what if a child molester thinks it's okay to molest children since the child's comfort is less important than their lust?

reply from: xLoki

Well, that's entirely laughable considering that Wikipedia's information and articles are compiled by it's users. Any Tom, ***** or Harry could state whatever they want on any subject, which I would say is hardly unbiased.
Don't waste your time in the future.

reply from: AshMarie88

Well, that's entirely laughable considering that Wikipedia's information and articles are compiled by it's users. Any Tom, ***** or Harry could state whatever they want on any subject, which I would say is hardly unbiased.
Don't waste your time in the future.
Funny, I see pro-choicers using that site all the time. I also see them using info from "religioustolerance".

reply from: xLoki

There isn't really any special way that I came to choose my stance on abortion. I guess it just all boils down to the fact that I believe it to be an injustuce to force someone to allow another organism to live off of their body against their will.
I do appreciate the kind welcome.

reply from: xLoki

When you drive are you consenting to an accident? No. You may be consenting to the possibility of an accident. However if one were to get into an accident we allow that person to try and reverse any damage done. They can try to get their car fixed up and they certainly can get medical help if injured.
We don't simply say "Well, since they consented to driving they consented to having an accident. They got themselves into this and they should have known better. Just let them deal with the consequences of being injured and having a smashed car, that'll teach 'em!"
Same applies to sex. When consenting to sex, one is not necessarily consenting to pregnancy and should not be denied the right to "reverse any damage" that was done as a result.

reply from: xLoki

If a woman feels she has a better chance and would be safer by getting an abortion instead of giving birth than that's HER choice.
From 1989, eh? Have you any sources that aren't quite so old?
Of approximately how many pregnancies total? Even if I only cared about abortion to save a woman's life, this doesn't appear to be "rare" enough to justify forcing women through a pregnancy.
Where is your source for all of this? I would like to read more on it than just the info you've stated here.
As for the rest of your post, all of the sources are from the 80's and before. Do you realize how ancient this is considered to be in the medical field?

reply from: xLoki

I'm not going to waste my time responding seriously to your personal "attacks".

reply from: xLoki

Well, there you go. You're a human elitist.
Why does it bother you that I don't believe an "unborn" should have rights over it's mother? It certainly doesn't seem to concern you that I don't share your opinion that animals should receive any rights at all.
Well, for the most part I would agree with you here but it's not necessarily true that STDs are more life-threatening than a pregnancy. However, if there are treatments and cures available for a particular STD a woman has every right to try and "fix the problem". Much like she is able to "fix the problem" of an unwanted pregnancy if she so wishes.
This is false. I guess you've never heard of in vitro fertilization?
Well, the woman is the one who has to potentially carry the pregnancy. If the man had to carry it, it would be his absolute right to end his pregnancy as well.
If that's the way you enjoy looking at it.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

There seems to be a pattern amongst pro-choicers. They ignore all your questions, CP. Either they have eye problems or they are cornered. As though they haven't been already...

reply from: domsmom

Loki,

I've seen you mention several times about the mental and physical health of women who are forced to let their child live. What about the health (especially mental) of women who have an abortion and later very much regret it and regress into depression and drugs?(Not sure about this but I'd be willing to bet is the majority)
What about the women who are blatently lied to and told that "its not a baby" or the women who are denied seeing the ultrasound during the exam so they wont change their minds?

reply from: bradensmommy

There isn't really any special way that I came to choose my stance on abortion. I guess it just all boils down to the fact that I believe it to be an injustuce to force someone to allow another organism to live off of their body against their will.
I do appreciate the kind welcome.
Wow, someone follows the teachings of the infamous Sigma.....could they possibly be connected somehow?
BTW Loki, you are a sad, sad little person just like Sigma, I think you guys should get together and get sterilized that would bring the population of stupid people down dramatically.

reply from: xLoki

Why? Because you say so?
So, we do not have the right to remove unwanted organisms from our bodies? Our bodies are the only true things that we can own. It is only right that we be allowed to have them used as we wish. Even dead people get rights to their bodies.
If you don't wish for your organs to be used after your death to possibly save a life, you are certainly allowed to have them left alone. You are hoping for pregnant women to not even have as much say over the use of their bodies as dead people? Seriously?
So what was your point in implying that a non-human can never become a human?
Perhaps you meant to say something non-human can never become human, in which case I apologise.
Forced gestation is what it is. If a woman is pregnant but prevented from getting a wanted abortion she is being forced to continue gestating, whether the pregnancy came about through unconsentual sex or not.
Of course that would be unacceptable, if the man never wants to have contact with his offspring or it's mother again he can sign his rights away and move to avoid contact with them. There isn't a need to kill the woman along with her "unborn".
You deny that a woman must allow the use of her body to another organism in order to gestate? This can be seen as a sacrifice to some women. She must give up her usual way of living and possibly her well-being in order for there to be proper development of an "unborn" making use of her body.
If there are specific conditions that may come about from pregnancy and childbirth why would you deny a woman the right to try and avoid it?
If the woman finds her appearance more significant than a potential child, that's her right, whether you find it offensive or not.
So are you okay with a woman terminating a pregnancy conceived from rape or not? Cause if not, THESE women you wish to prevent from aborting would be, literally, being forced to reproduce.
Maybe potential children aren't more significant than their appearance to the majority of women on this Earth, but for some it is. The fact that an "unborn" is only kept alive through the use of her body gives her the right to remove it no matter her reasoning.
Why do you get to say what the exceptions to the rules are? Do you know every woman who has ever gone thourgh pregnancy and labor? Do you know what's better for every single woman on the face of the Earth's and their individual situations?
Apparently you don't really feel this way. Do you wish to allow raped women to abort or not?
It is suffucient justification for a woman to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes.
The woman has the right to weigh out the risks of either option and if she feels she'd rather take the risks of aborting than giving birth, that's her choice to do so. If she feels she'd rather take the risks of giving birth than aborting, that's also her choice to make. Not yours.
I see. You don't give a bean about the quality of life. Just make sure it stays alive, no matter how much it may have to suffer, huh.

The "unborn" should not come into account at all unless the woman carrying it expresses that she wants it to.

If a woman wants to do her best to avoid said procedure, that's her call, not yours.
Listen, you, if I were ever forced to be taken off my "crazy pills" I probably would try to kill myself. I've been there before and I don't ever want to return to that low point. For your information, I owe my life to "drugs that help keep me in a well-maintined mental state." I take my mental health very seriously, and I find it extremely insulting that you would take the issues of people who suffer mentally so damn lightly.
And you know what? These same meds I rely on are not to be taken while pregnant due to birth defects. If I ever became pregnant the only choices for me would be to continue the pregnancy, go off my meds and risk becoming so depressed and mentally ill that I end up killing myself along with my unborn or terminate the pregnancy early on so that I can continue to properly medicate myself and stay relatively sane. Which would you rather have me do? Actually, you know what, don't even answer that, I'm pretty sure I already know.
Here's another lovely scenario for you to ponder over... a woman in a long-term realtionship has been having sex with her partner. She goes for a routine checkup at the doctors and finds out that she is not only pregnant but has cancer as well. The dotors tell her that her chances of making it without immediate chemotherapy are slim. However, this chemo treatment will undoubtedly cause considerable damage, if not death, to her "unborn". What would you rather she do? Skip the chemo so that her "unborn" may live but most likely have her own life ended soon after giving birth? Or abort and start with the chemo right away in hopes to keep her alive and healthy? Honestly, what would you rather she do?
Trust me, if there was a "roll your eyes" smilie, I would be using it right now.
It is not only taking the nutrients I ingest, it is also taking my uterus and turning it into a shelter without my consent. It is there, in my body, using it without my consent. What is it that you don't get about this?
My position has basis in both the fact that it has the potential to harm me and that an organism is making use and shelter of my body when I DON'T WANT AN ORGANISM TO BE MAKING USE AND SHELTER OF MY BODY. If it is in MY body and I want it in MY body, I WILL REMOVE IT. Get it? Got it? Good.
I don't believe I have made any references to the word "violation", let alone frequent.
If a woman wants to welcome an "unborn" to make use of her body, that's her choice. If a woman feels that she is being violated by an "unborn" making use of her body, than that is her choice to feel that way as well. No two women will feel the same about any given situation. We have the capability of thinking and making our own decisions about things, believe it or not.
Please tell me why it would be necessary to kill a human from time to time in order to avoid them. It IS possible to avoid actual human contact, if it's your desire.
And what exactly is so wrong in bringing up a sociopath? Are they not worthy of consideration to you? Not everyone is blessed with the most healthy of mental states, you know. Should they not matter?
Absolutely. Was this not already apparent to you?
It only applies to "unborns" because, as far as I know, no other human is ever allowed to live off of another's body without that other's consent. If it came about that other persons' were being allowed to make use of another's body without their consent I would be against this act as well.
I believe no one has the right to use someone else's body and it's resources against that person's will.
It be "alive", but it does not have true, independent life until it is literally no longer connected to it's mother's body.
In allowing the "unborn" to reside inside of her the woman is giving it the gift of life. She doesn't have to allow anyone or anything to make use of her body if she doesn't want.
They are not expected to help them to continue to live through the use of their bodies, either.
It's perfectly comparable.
The woman is expected by you and your lot to keep another organism alive through the use of their bodies. If the woman doesn't agree to keep an "unborn" alive through the use of her body, it will die.
No one else is expected to keep another organism alive through the use of their bodies even if it means that the organism will most certainly die. If someone else doesn't agree to keep this organism alive through the use of their bodies, it will die.
Why must pregnant women be the only ones expected to ensure another organism's survival through the use of their bodies?
She may have helped create life, but she has not "given it life" unless she has carried to term and birthed it.

reply from: Shiprahagain

If the woman finds her appearance more significant than a potential child, that's her right, whether you find it offensive or not.
Intererstingly enough, if I consider my desire more significant than an animal, it's not my right b/c you find it offensive.
Why do you get to say what the exceptions to the rules are? Do you know every woman who has ever gone thourgh pregnancy and labor? Do you know what's better for every single woman on the face of the Earth's and their individual situations?
Prolifers provided evidence that it was rare, if you believe otherwise you need to find proof. Otherwise you're just running your mouth.
[QThe child is not "thriving off you," it is thriving off the nutrients you ingest" (the sharing of nutrients). You seem to have contradicted yourself here.
It is not only taking the nutrients I ingest, it is also taking my uterus and turning it into a shelter without my consent. It is there, in my body, using it without my consent. What is it that you don't get about this?
In fact, research from Dr. Lejeune (the guy who discosvered the chromosomal reason for Down's Syndrome, shows that babies don't steal nutrients from their moms, even if the mom is malnourished.
It only applies to "unborns" because, as far as I know, no other human is ever allowed to live off of another's body without that other's consent. If it came about that other persons' were being allowed to make use of another's body without their consent I would be against this act as well.
You still haven't answered my conjoined twin question.
I believe no one has the right to use someone else's body and it's resources against that person's will.
Great, let's end welfare right now.
It be "alive", but it does not have true, independent life until it is literally no longer connected to it's mother's body.
Embrologists disagreed. Study Dr. Dianne Irving.
It's perfectly comparable.
No it's not. In ethics, an act of omission is fundamentally different from an act of comission. In otherwords, omitting someone from saving a person is different from comissioning them to kill them.
No one else is expected to keep another organism alive through the use of their bodies even if it means that the organism will most certainly die. If someone else doesn't agree to keep this organism alive through the use of their bodies, it will die.
Ever heard of a draft? Don't those men have to use their bodies to protect others and keep them alive?

reply from: thecatholicamerican

By this do you mean that I believe than man has dominion over nature? Because yes, I do believe that man has dominion over nature and notably, animals.
Humans are obliged to treat all life responsibly, even animals. That does not mean that we elevate the animal above or even to the level of the human being.
Animals have no rights, constitutional or otherwise.
Have you ever heard of a woman recieving invitro fertilization and then referring to that resulting pregnancy as unwanted? If that was the case I would think that mother a despotic killer with a god complex. In the meantime please keep our discussion in the realm of naturally occurring pregnancies resulting from sexual reproduction.

reply from: yoda

Can't argue with that. On the other hand, what about the injustice of killing an innocent human being? How does that rank on your scale of priorities?
Just behind being inconvenienced at a convenience store you say?

reply from: Tam

Look, I could care less if you want to place an "unborn" into the "child" stage of human life, you are free to show your ignorance all you want.
My 90 year old grandmother is someone's child, however you would most certainly be looked at funny if you stated that she was still at the "child" stage of human development. You are falsely trying to place an "unborn" into this same stage of human development.
(emphasis mine)
You do understand what ignorance means, don't you? It means being unaware of something. Ignorant of the facts.
I have provided facts, you have provided opinions and then have the gall to accuse ME of ignorance.
I suggest, if you wish to have any credibility whatsoever, that you address the facts I posted rather than pretending I never posted them. If you think the information is not factual, check for yourself and you will see that it is quite accurate. Have you bothered to check? I can post some more info for you if you are too busy or lazy or threatened to look for yourself.

reply from: Tam

In the literal sense if there are only two options and one is taken away, someone is being forced into taking the other. That is all I was addressing.
And are you saying you don't care if women "kill innocent children" as long as they face consequences for it? Was I mistaken to believe that you wanted to prevent any abortions from taking place?
HUH?? You do understand the difference between LITERAL and FIGURATIVE, don't you??? The woman is most assuredly NOT being literally forced into anything--that is my entire point in this post. You should be saying that to legally prohibit one option is IN EFFECT to force the other option--and that would be a sensible statement--but instead you are claiming it is LITERALLY forcing someone, which makes it obvious that you don't understand either the word "literal" or the word "force" or both.
As for whether I care about women killing innocent children--yes, of course I recognize that a law would only reduce, not eliminate, abortion. My goal is to eradicate abortion, and I see criminalization as just one way of working towards a better world, where violence against unborn children is a thing of the past.

reply from: Tam

Only pregnant women are forced to keep another organism alive through the use of their bodies. Please read that sentence several times to let is sink in. You seem to be completely ignoring my points on purpose.
When it comes to SHARING one's BODY with another entity for it's survival, it's not hard to see why some people may see that as a sacrifice.
Yes, and clearly YOU are one who sees that as a sacrifice. But that doesn't make it one, it just makes it a sharing that YOU SEE as a sacrifice. In a normal pregnancy, no body sacrifice is required whatsoever. But of course you see pregnancy in general as a sacrifice of one's body. Your opinion, and you're welcome to it. It's just that you keep presenting it as though it were a fact.

reply from: Tam

Just as I thought. You have no proof for your claims. I will now automatically disregard anything you state as fact because it's likely you are just pulling it out of your arse.
Tell ya what. You tell me what YOU would consider rare--WITHOUT looking up the statistic you are clearly too threatened to seek--and THEN I will look it up for you, since you want to play that stupid "If I'm too lazy to find it myself, it must not exist!" game.
Note that I'm not claiming that what you consider rare IS rare--as I said, it's easy to find out what "rare" means by consulting a dictionary. But I feel that if I provide a statistic, you will simply say, "Well, that's not rare! Rare would be [ insert one fewer than the statistic ] !"
Oh, well I guess I can't make the claim that pregnancies resulting from being abducted and artificially inseminated by extraterrestrials are RARE either, then, because THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING THIS FOR SURE since people block out those memories or don't want to admit to them for fear of being thought crazy.
You think it would be "more of a crime"? That indicates that you do recognize that killing an innocent child is a crime--just not as much of a crime as preventing someone from killing an innocent child. Care to elaborate?
You are entitled to feel that way but when you make an effort to prevent another woman from getting an abortion because YOU feel that way is where I personally draw the line.
You can, or cannot, comprehend WHY someone might consider the killing of unborn children to be a violation of their human rights?
What would you consider appropriate action to protect someone from human rights violations?
Well, I'll agree with you--to a point. It is indeed up to each mother whether or not she will kill her unborn child. That is her choice to make--and nothing I can say, nothing I can think, and nothing I can do could ever change that fact.
However, what IS up to me is how I respond to her choices. And each of us makes his/her own choices as to how s/he will respond to the choices of others. When elected representatives choose to criminalize a behavior by passing a law against it, it is their prerogative to make THAT choice, just as it is the mom's prerogative to choose to kill, or not to kill.
Whether or not a law against it exists, every mother can choose to kill her children--born or unborn. What society chooses to do in response to that is determined by group choices, recorded as laws.
So in a way, it IS up to me--it is up to me to make the choices I feel are best, just as it is up to every mother to make the choices she feels are best. If I saw a mother with a knife to her child's heart, about to run him through, I would choose to snatch that baby away from her and go straight to the police. That's my choice, just as it was her choice to engage in attempted murder. If the law prohibits her from murdering her child, that doesn't mean she can't choose to do it anyway (do you know a single adult who has never broken any laws? Unlikely.), it just means that the society as a whole chooses to hold her legally responsible for her action.

reply from: Tam

I was making a response to this:
"...if she is pregnant by consentual intercourse, it was HER CHOICES that led to that pregnancy..."
That's an incorrect statement, because if it was consentual intercourse, it was her and her partner's choices that may have led to a pregnancy, not just HERS.
If your partner had not chosen to participate it wouldn't have happened either. Otherwise, it's called rape.
It was also your partner's choice to do it, was it not?
In other words you completely changed the subject to avoid responding to my actual statement.
Did you miss the sentence bolded above?
This remains my response:
So which is it? You never answered.

reply from: Tam

How about trying to ask an honest question, then, instead of playing word games?
LOL You actually think it's a "word game" to say that abortion changes a living baby into a dead baby. Right? That's what you're calling "word games"? You DO understand that abortion changes a living baby into a dead baby, but you think it's a "word game" to say so. That about right?
Maybe you don't realize it, but you weren't there and are engaging in what can only be termed rank speculation.
I'm not surprised that you don't care about your relationship with your family members.
Your statements get more and more ridiculous as we go. I have told you a million times what the "aim of abortion" is. The aim is to end a pregnancy. The result is that a life ends.
Hmm. I stand by what I said about what is threatening to you and why. Just my opinion.

reply from: Shiprahagain

According to xloki
Your statements get more and more ridiculous as we go. I have told you a million times what the "aim of abortion" is. The aim is to end a pregnancy. The result is that a life ends.
Hey, for Scott Peterson, the aim was to end a marriage. The result was that a life ended - or two if you care about the life of the unborn baby.

reply from: Tam

I am putting "unborn" in quotation marks because that is not what I believe to be its accurate name, but what I feel like calling it.
So it's the first thing? You are deliberately misusing it and trying to call attention to that? Well, it's working--your misuse of the words "unborn" and "child" has been noted by most everyone here by this time.
You are so sure, huh? You are quite sure of a lot of things, aren't you.
A word of advice--as sure as you are right now of your rightness in this argument--I was right where you are, defending abortion as a woman's "right" and all that.

reply from: Tam

It's called "live birth," and it has actually been around for quite some time. Without it, abortion would not be an issue, since human mothers would not exist.
LOL!

reply from: Tam

When you drive are you consenting to an accident? No. You may be consenting to the possibility of an accident. However if one were to get into an accident we allow that person to try and reverse any damage done. They can try to get their car fixed up and they certainly can get medical help if injured.
We don't simply say "Well, since they consented to driving they consented to having an accident. They got themselves into this and they should have known better. Just let them deal with the consequences of being injured and having a smashed car, that'll teach 'em!"
Same applies to sex. When consenting to sex, one is not necessarily consenting to pregnancy and should not be denied the right to "reverse any damage" that was done as a result.
Nope. A more apt analogy would be to say that permitting abortion is like permitting someone who has been in a car accident to kill the person in the other car as retribution for the accident. You knew it was a possibility when you set foot in the car.
Yes, if you suffer an INJURY, that INJURY should be treated--and the same is true of pregnancy! If the pregnancy causes the woman INJURY then the INJURY must be treated.
But if the car accident inconveniences you, you aren't allowed to kill the insurance agent so he'll stop calling you, or the auto body repair folks so you won't have to pay them.

reply from: Tam

Ooh, that was an even better answer than the one I just wrote! (I'm catching up!)

reply from: Tam

I'm not going to waste my time responding seriously to your personal "attacks".
LOL You mean, you're not going to respond to any point you find threatening. But I already noticed that...

reply from: Tam

I didn't quote the entire thing (yes, yes, don't thank me, it was nothing) but I just wanted to say that I am impressed by your reponse and also your ability to respond to such things without losing your cool. Nice going.

reply from: Tam

ROFL You're so cool I get chills reading your posts. (ok, maybe not the best pun I ever made LOL)

reply from: galen

another good one to bump.
Mary


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics