Home - List All Discussions

Private Decision

by: JasonFontaine

If those who support Life and those who support Choice could reach a middle ground - it could indeed save innocent children from being slaughtered all for the sake of convenience.
What if Choice remained? In the Privacy of your visit between your doctor - you made the ultimate decision as the parents for this child.
What if Life were promoted?
No abortions "out of convenience." If you couldn't prove the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother - no abortion.
If the OBGYN couldn't determine beyond a reasonable doubt the health of the baby - no abortion.
Two signatures required for abortion - the mother AND father. A 2 week consultation and a 2 week "rehabilitation" after the abortion.
I believe those on the side of choice would not want to see abortion become a birth control measure. Why not do something like this?
Rhetoric says Choice is not an easy one - and should be measured and carefully considered. Why not impose rules to allow the greatest opportunity for the unborn without restricting choice?

reply from: 4choice4all

I think the only person that gets to decide if her abortion is necessary is the woman. Saying abortion should remain legal only if the woman's health was at risk would essentially end most abortions. That's not much of a compromise because it's just "abortions are illegal except in the case of the mother's health".
I don't agree with the two signatures. First, there's no way to prove that the other person is actually the father without dna testing. And even so, it's still her body and imo, her choice. If the father didn't sign, that could essentially force a woman to be a human incubator for a man...handmaid's tale anyone?
That is absolutely restricting choice...and it's allowing the government to make the choice for her.

reply from: JasonFontaine

That's the fundamental flaw.
I see where you are coming from - but please hear me out.
Unregulated choice - just like unregulated, unlimited freedom is not good. All things must have a set of rules - parameters governing them. Otherwise - it's out of control. Ask the Romans how this philosiphy of unlimited freedom went for them!
Seriously - adjustments could be made - but I also think the father should have more responsiblity. Otherwise - what's to prevent selective breeding? Man - deadbeats dad get away with murder with you guys! (LITERALLY!)
Would you be opposed to regulating SOME choice for the sake of preventing unnecessary abortions.
Remember - everything has regulation. Without it - we become a slave to the animals we are....

reply from: 4choice4all

Although I'm personally ok with abortions in all situations....I can see a point where the state has interest in the choice...and that's elective abortions post viability. At that point there is a legal way to absolve the woman of incubating the fetus...induce delivery and let nature take it's course.

reply from: AshMarie88

Your avatar is an insult to worms everywhere. Worms have more brains than you do.

reply from: 4choice4all

I totally disagree...I have enough sense to not be burned to death on the sidewalk by the sun. Give credit where it's due.

reply from: carolemarie

There is a set of rules regarding abortion.
Dr. have to do them
mom has to make the decision
there are various laws in various states that have to be followed.

reply from: Yuuki

Obama is proposing legislation where doctors would NOT have to do them.

reply from: yoda

No, he's just giving lip service in a speech or two. He's actually backing legislation that would remove all choice for physicians.

reply from: Cecilia

abortion already is a birth control measure?
and the choice is not an easy one, but who get to measure it? who gets more 'weighty' decision than the one who will have the abortion?
two signatures is a grand ideal but I don't think its feasible.

reply from: galen

how about the one being killed... why don't they get a say celia...?

reply from: Cecilia

because they can't talk? b ecause of the obvious?

reply from: 4choice4all

probably because they are unborn....just a hunch. Oh..and that whole her body...her decision.

reply from: lukesmom

because they can't talk? b ecause of the obvious?
Born babies can't talk either. Neither can some disabled people and I know many elderly people that can't talk either. Do you advocate killing them too. Would that be too obvious?

reply from: lukesmom

Tell the truth here, only the wanted and perfect unborn should be allowed to continue their life? "her body...her decision" doesn't really count as the body belonging to "her" isn't the one being killed. No one has the right to end another human beings life without their consent regardless or age or developement.

reply from: Shenanigans

You have basically described the case in NZL.
Yet we have 18,000 a year in a country of only 4 million.
The law is an ass.
Such bullocks doesn't work, all we've done is create a semi-underground of hushed conversations in family planning clinics about what GP will refer you to the certifying consultant.
Of course, the father has no say.

reply from: Shenanigans

YOu know what I like about worms? If they get chopped in half both wriggle about.
I never had the patience to stick around and see if both ends died.
Poor worms.

reply from: faithman

because they can't talk? b ecause of the obvious?
Then hear low life scum bag scanc, lets us speak for the womb child. http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: yoda

because they can't talk? b ecause of the obvious?
So anyone who can't talk can be killed morally?
Wow........

reply from: yoda

So being unborn makes you unworthy of life? Or being where you were created makes you "fair game" for anyone that wants to kill you?
Talk about unfair rules.....

reply from: yoda

Cecilia seems to be a perfect advocate for eugenics.... "kill everyone who can't talk".

reply from: 4choice4all

awww Yoda, no one ever told you life wasn't fair?
Yes...being unborn robs you of certain rights that we bestow upon birth.

reply from: yoda

Hmmm...... you know, you're right. Life isn't fair. So, that makes rape, robbery, kidnapping, and murder all okey dokie, right?
What a concept!

reply from: yoda

Right. What do you say about life being unfair? Do you say that makes abortion okey dokey too? Come on, don't be shy!
Now then, are you fine with that concept?

reply from: 4choice4all

I'm catching on to that tactic! lol

reply from: yoda

Good....... now how about the question? Do you claim that the fact that life isn't fair makes abortion okay?
A simple yes or no would be a great start...... or, you could divert, deflect, and dodge some more........

reply from: Cecilia

because they can't talk? b ecause of the obvious?
Born babies can't talk either. Neither can some disabled people and I know many elderly people that can't talk either. Do you advocate killing them too. Would that be too obvious?
they don't get a "say" because they are inside a uterus.
I think we should have the option to abort those who can't talk who resides inside a uterus.

reply from: 4choice4all

Yoda...you are being obtuse. You know that I've made it clear in many threads that YOU have responded to why I support a woman's right to choose abortion. It's just that BECAUSE you act like a 3 yo I gave you a response I would've given to one of my own at 3......Life's not fair...boo sniffle.

reply from: sk1bianca

it's ok to kill someone because of his location an inability to speak? wow... that's a really good reason...

reply from: Rosalie

So being unborn makes you unworthy of life? Or being where you were created makes you "fair game" for anyone that wants to kill you?
Talk about unfair rules.....
It's not nor has it ever been about being 'worthy' of life. It's about the fact that no born OR unborn person has the right to live inside of another person who is unwilling to gestate them.
There's no such thing as a 'right to be born' or a 'right to remain inside of a body of an unwilling person'.
Being inside of the person who created you, living inside of that person, taking her resources and directly affecting her health and life in every sense of that word does make you a fair game when that particular person who's gestating you no longer wants you inside of them.
Woman is NOT just a location. But I don't suppose you realize that, do you? You don't even realize that you have just attempted to reduce women to a location. That simply blows my mind.
Maybe you are as unimportant, unfeeling and dead inside that you consider yourself just a mere location. But that doesn't mean other women do.

reply from: JasonFontaine

Rosalie you are so wrong - it's just embarrassing. Did the baby CRAWL inside this womb? Uh....no.
Do we not forget the decision was made uh....about 9 months prior to all the rights you bestow upon this poor, pitiful creature you call a female. Give her a little more credit - o.k.?
Your reasoning would be ideal - if the child had a CHOICE and picked which belly to crawl into - but wait a minute....this baby has NO choice.
Argument nullified.....sorry.

reply from: Cecilia

you make a decision to have sex.
you don't make the decision to be pregnant.
why is this so signifianct? http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/6-weeks.jpg

it's not. it is an amazing biological process for sure, just like a flower, a worm, it is all amazing and 'miraculous'. but to me, it is not worth legally forcing a woman she has to gestate it because of whatever i might think she should do. it is certainly not worth threatening, intimidating, scaring, controlling women.
it is just so insignificant. i can't understand this obsessive focus people have with this topic. i came on this forum to better my english, honestly, and it is something personal to me. but what i have learned so far is that prolifers on hereare generally very unpleasant, judgemental people, or they are very religious, and some of the prochoicers are a little naive, maybe a denial, but not out to hurt anyone.

reply from: Cecilia

Isn't the pregnancy a direct result of the decision to have sex? Don't most women understand that, if they choose to have sex, they will most likely eventually conceive a child whether they want to or not? How can a conscious choice be separated from the reasonably expected results of that choice? Is this meant to imply that the mother is not responsible for the fact that she has conceived a child if she did not want to, even if she willingly accepted that risk? If she didn't want a child, that justifies her killing her offspring if she conceives?
i don't know if it is "most likely".
How can a conscious choice be separated from the reasonably expected results of that choice? a woman does not alway intend to be pregnant when she has sex.
but then she must follow through to full term pregnancy because prolifers believe the results are 'expected'?
and yes, if she didn't want a child that justifies killing her offspring if she conceives.
Who is doing these things? How is this an issue here? Is saying that women (and men, but since men are already never allowed to kill their offspring, it's not an issue) should not be allowed to kill their offspring "threatening, intimidating, scaring, controlling" them in your view or are you referring to something else here? You're not still on that "prolife = controlling women" thing, are you? I was hoping you might have gotten something out of our last discussion....
Obviously, all laws "control" people to some extent according to the views you espoused before, and I'm pretty sure you agreed that was not necessarily a "bad" thing. Lots of prochoicers play that "controlling women" propaganda to demonize prolifers, but I actually had high hopes that you were going to be more reasonable about all that after our last discussion....
Who? do you read this board? do you also fail to understand how frightening it is to me, and other prochors, it would be to elimnate legal abortion? im being as 'frank' as i can, it is scary. threatening.
i don't think that the fetus which picture i provided for example is worth any of this, i certainly dont think that the united states government or any government should be involved in this at all.
i don't think prolife intend to control women on the nose exactly, it is just the "expected results" -to use a concept you seem comfortable with. it's pretty obvious that prolifers want women to live their lives their way. and while control is not necessarily always a "bad" thing, it is when it comes to this.

reply from: yoda

Oh gee, now I'm responsible for the juvenile way that YOU post..... oh my!
No, you honestly think that saying "life's not fair" justifies the elective killing of the innocent, don't you?

reply from: yoda

Then why stop at birth? Suppose the child is born alive, but she decides that her situation has changed and she no longer "wants" the child? Morally, why shouldn't that "justify" killing the SAME offspring that you would have her kill before birth? Hey, if you're going to justify child slaughter, why stop just because of it's location?
Just think of the "fear" you would have if you were an unborn baby, and knew you were about to be torn limb from limb, or suffocated to death?
No, I guess your main source of "fear" is the thought that someone might prevent you from tearing a baby limb from limb, or suffocating it to death, right?
Understood. And how does that same "fetus" gain so much "value" by changing it's location? Is it not the same "fetus"?

reply from: JasonFontaine

You want choice - but it was never taken away. Choice begins before pregnancy. You want convenience. Call it what it is. The choice has been made already.
In cases of rape - was this your choice? O.k. then. That's an entirely different subject that is in the privacy between the family, the physician and hopefully a good priest or psychologist.
Who is taking your choice away from getting pregnant? Oops! You ARE pregnant so instead of allowing this life to continue - you take IT'S choice away as your highest power of, well, choice.
You Pro-Choicers do not "choose" very well....do you.....

reply from: 4choice4all

For me, there is a fear of having a fetus declared a person and getting the same rights. That would lead to a reversal on birth control options and would close the door to woman aborting for rape/incest/maternal health/ fetal health...and I find that to be extreme in it's lack of compassion for women. Taking all abortions off the table frightens me as a mother...to think that my daughter could be raped at 10 and be forced to give birth. Well, that wouldn't happen...I would fly anywhere to make sure that didn't happen. Pregnancy isn't always 9 months of moderate inconveniences...it can be much more involved than that.

reply from: yoda

I'll bet that any future children of yours would love it.......
What do you think?

reply from: Yuuki

Why should an innocent child die because of a rapist?
If your child's life was in danger, then of course abortion would be allowed if it were the only way to save her. No one is condemning anyone to death here except pro-choicers who want elective abortion to stay legal.

reply from: Rosalie

What is embarassing is that you think that someone who disagrees with your opinions is automatically wrong. How old are you, twelve?
No, of course it didn't. I never said it did, either. Consent to sex is consent to sex, it's not consent to automatic continuation of a potential pregnancy. That's just ridiculous.
You do realize that your sentences do not make sense, right?
So? Why should it have any choice? It's not CAPABLE of choice nor should it have any choice even if it was capable of it because it is residing inside someone else's body and there's no reason why the baby should have any say in that.
You wish. You didn't present anything but your outrage that someone has a different opinion. Try again.

reply from: Rosalie

You mean call it what YOU want to call it, right?
A choice to have sex has been made. But there's no inherent promise to continue a possible resulting pregnancy in it. No matter how much you'd like that to be true, there's no such thing.
Maybe your life is so pathetic and unimportant that 40 weeks of gestation and increased health risks is 'inconvenience' but most women have so much to take into consideration - which is obviously something you absolutely do not understand.
I am aware that in your twisted little world a fetus trumps everything but that's simply not the case in real life.
And as long as the fetus uses MY body, I will be the one to make all the decisions. It's not anyone else's call but mine because my body is always MINE, whether a fetus takes up residence in it or not.
I choose very well, thanks for asking.

reply from: Rosalie

Why should an innocent woman be further traumatized and scarred for the rest of her life by an unwanted pregnancy that results from rape?
If you understood the fact that there are more important things in this world than simply being alive maybe this would start making sense to you.

reply from: Rosalie

I think women who are mortally terrified of giving birth must be a small minority, and judging by the fact that most women seem to actually choose to repeat the experience, I'm certainly not convinced that your fears are rational....
The one thing that I truly can not understand is why you would fear prohibition of abortion even if you really do have some kind of phobia about pregnancy. You do realize that pregnancy is preventable, right? Do you mean to tell me that you have this "terror" of pregnancy, yet your fear is not great enough to extend to the act that causes it?
Am I to understand that abortion must remain a legal option because you insist that you are terrified at the thought of not being allowed to kill your offspring, but not sufficiently afraid to avoid pregnancy? Gee, I have genuine difficulty wrapping my mind around that concept, to be perfectly honest....Is your position basicly that you insist on having sex, but also that you should be allowed to kill your offspring because you are so afraid of pregnancy? Do I have this right? Is it pregnancy and childbirth you fear, or is it losing the right to kill your offspring that terrifies you so?
It's not about a fear of pregnancy of most. It's about the outrageous notion that a woman no longer should have complete say when it comes to HER body, HER private medical decision and HER life because of an embryo/fetus might be present in HER body.
No self-respecting, intelligent woman would ever allow anyone else control over her own body, life, health and other private, medical decisions - unless of course she would be bullied by the likes of you, which is sometimes the case.

reply from: Cecilia

no, it hasn't, since abortion is a perfectly legal, perfect acceptable choice that you can to make. So no, choice doesn't begin before pregnancy, it happens afterwards.
plus, since I do not choose to be pregnant when I have sex, then I made my choice, didn't I?
prochoicers choose to let others hae autonomy over their reproductive systems. i cannot think there would be a better choice to make!

reply from: Cecilia

I think women who are mortally terrified of giving birth must be a small minority, and judging by the fact that most women seem to actually choose to repeat the experience, I'm certainly not convinced that your fears are rational....
The one thing that I truly can not understand is why you would fear prohibition of abortion even if you really do have some kind of phobia about pregnancy. You do realize that pregnancy is preventable, right? Do you mean to tell me that you have this "terror" of pregnancy, yet your fear is not great enough to extend to the act that causes it?
Am I to understand that abortion must remain a legal option because you insist that you are terrified at the thought of not being allowed to kill your offspring, but not sufficiently afraid to avoid pregnancy? Gee, I have genuine difficulty wrapping my mind around that concept, to be perfectly honest....Is your position basicly that you insist on having sex, but also that you should be allowed to kill your offspring because you are so afraid of pregnancy? Do I have this right? Is it pregnancy and childbirth you fear, or is it losing the right to kill your offspring that terrifies you so?
It is not fear of pregnancy, but fear of that kind of authority being 'allowed' in our world.
it is the fear of being told what to do with a pregnancy but an uninvested third or fourth party that is frightening to me. it is so intimate and personal that I find that 'violating'.
does that make sense?

reply from: yoda

Well, just offhand, maybe the "choice" not to kill anyone might be "better"?

reply from: yoda

Sure.
Serial child killers resent being told what NOT to do, also.

reply from: BossMomma

That is cruel, to purposely deliver an extreme preemie and just let the baby gasp until it dies. It takes a real harpy to do that to a child. If the woman isn't in danger why butcher the child at all? Carry to term, then let nature take it's course, everyone gets to go on with their lives upon birth of the child.

reply from: Yuuki

Why should an innocent woman be further traumatized and scarred for the rest of her life by an unwanted pregnancy that results from rape?
If you understood the fact that there are more important things in this world than simply being alive maybe this would start making sense to you.
So POSSIBLE emotional trauma is a good enough excuse to kill an ALREADY LIVING baby. Despite the fact that the pregnancy could also help emotionally HEAL the woman. We don't know if she's going to be traumatized or not. We DO know the baby is alive and that abortion WILL kill it. It's a case of possibilities vs REALITY.
There really isn't any more important thing than getting the CHANCE to live. What you do with that life when it is your own and in your own hands is up to you. Sacrifice yourself for your nation or your beliefs or your family. But you don't have the right to sacrifice someone ELSE'S life.

reply from: Cecilia

I think women who are mortally terrified of giving birth must be a small minority, and judging by the fact that most women seem to actually choose to repeat the experience, I'm certainly not convinced that your fears are rational....
The one thing that I truly can not understand is why you would fear prohibition of abortion even if you really do have some kind of phobia about pregnancy. You do realize that pregnancy is preventable, right? Do you mean to tell me that you have this "terror" of pregnancy, yet your fear is not great enough to extend to the act that causes it?
Am I to understand that abortion must remain a legal option because you insist that you are terrified at the thought of not being allowed to kill your offspring, but not sufficiently afraid to avoid pregnancy? Gee, I have genuine difficulty wrapping my mind around that concept, to be perfectly honest....Is your position basicly that you insist on having sex, but also that you should be allowed to kill your offspring because you are so afraid of pregnancy? Do I have this right? Is it pregnancy and childbirth you fear, or is it losing the right to kill your offspring that terrifies you so?
It is not fear of pregnancy, but fear of that kind of authority being 'allowed' in our world.
it is the fear of being told what to do with a pregnancy but an uninvested third or fourth party that is frightening to me. it is so intimate and personal that I find that 'violating'.
does that make sense?
The kind of "authority" that says you may not kill your offspring? That is "frightening?" Hell, the tyrants over here in the U.S. won't let you kill your parents or husband, or even telemarketers! If you live here, I'll bet you can hardly sleep at night! Just imagine how we men feel...We aren't allowed to kill anyone, not even our offspring! A lot of us are pretty upset about the government interfering in our "choices" in such a cruel and frightening way. I hope you'll support our fight for the right not to be controlled in this way by our government...
I support your right to choose to kill anything inside you if you wish.
once again another prolifer brushing aside fears of others.

reply from: BossMomma

I think women who are mortally terrified of giving birth must be a small minority, and judging by the fact that most women seem to actually choose to repeat the experience, I'm certainly not convinced that your fears are rational....
The one thing that I truly can not understand is why you would fear prohibition of abortion even if you really do have some kind of phobia about pregnancy. You do realize that pregnancy is preventable, right? Do you mean to tell me that you have this "terror" of pregnancy, yet your fear is not great enough to extend to the act that causes it?
Am I to understand that abortion must remain a legal option because you insist that you are terrified at the thought of not being allowed to kill your offspring, but not sufficiently afraid to avoid pregnancy? Gee, I have genuine difficulty wrapping my mind around that concept, to be perfectly honest....Is your position basicly that you insist on having sex, but also that you should be allowed to kill your offspring because you are so afraid of pregnancy? Do I have this right? Is it pregnancy and childbirth you fear, or is it losing the right to kill your offspring that terrifies you so?
It's not about a fear of pregnancy of most. It's about the outrageous notion that a woman no longer should have complete say when it comes to HER body, HER private medical decision and HER life because of an embryo/fetus might be present in HER body.
No self-respecting, intelligent woman would ever allow anyone else control over her own body, life, health and other private, medical decisions - unless of course she would be bullied by the likes of you, which is sometimes the case.
I'm a very intelligent self-respecting woman and agree that my rights and control over my body are important. However, I also realize that my body ends where my baby begins. The my body my choice notion is illogical because YOUR body is not what is aborted, the babys body is.

reply from: lukesmom

And that says it all.

reply from: Yuuki

And that says it all.
Exactly true.

reply from: Yuuki

You know, that's a damned good point Concerned...

reply from: Cecilia

And that says it all.
Exactly true.
Execpt for the FACT that my body has the abortion. My body, my choice.

reply from: Cecilia

Right....I have a problem taking a woman seriously who claims to be deathly afraid of pregnancy, LIE yet tinks nothing of allowing a man to inject sperm into her vagina. That leaves me asking "what's wrong with this picture?" Of course, as long as you are alklowed to kill your offspring in order to allay your fears, I'm to believe it's not a problem for you, even though you can obviously still conceive a child.
If you were no longer allowed to kill your offspring, would your alleged "fear" be great enough to prevent you from risking pregnancy? You could still have sex, just not vaginal intercourse, unless you or your partner were sterilised...You act as if you think the life of your offspring means nothing, so killing it means nothing. You seem to think you should not be compelled to make any sacrifices based on your "fears," whether they are reasonable or not, that your offspring should be required to sacrifice life itself in order that you should be free of "fear..." I do not view that as reasonable.
You still grasp this lie, which i never said.
you are dishonest.

reply from: Yuuki

And that says it all.
Exactly true.
Execpt for the FACT that my body has the abortion. My body, my choice.
Not the baby's body though. The baby is the one that dies, not you. ITS body is aborted, not yours.

reply from: scopia19822

"Not the baby's body though. The baby is the one that dies, not you. ITS body is aborted, not yours."
You are just wasting your time with her. Ignorance is bliss for these people and you made it sound too simple for them.

reply from: yoda

You see, that's what makes me doubt all this "sincere prochoice beliefs" propaganda..... they already KNOW what we are saying, they just DON'T CARE.

reply from: scopia19822

You see, that's what makes me doubt all this "sincere prochoice beliefs" propaganda..... they already KNOW what we are saying, they just DON'T CARE.
Classic sociopathy

reply from: Yuuki

I thought I was being made fun of on another topic? So, are THESE "words of wisdom"?

reply from: Yuuki

When I was pro-choice, the concept was frightening to me too, but that's also because I was terrified of accidental pregnancies.

reply from: Yuuki

Any unintended pregnancy is accidental. I have no problem with the idea that a woman can have sex without intending to get pregnant, and in fact trying to prevent it.
It's the fear of losing the right to have sex, and the fear that has been instilled upon us by anti-choicers who believe the only right choice is abortion. It's the fear of your life being changed permanently and in a bad way, which is another lie of the pro-aborts. And pro-choicers. I promoted that lie myself. Because I believed it. I thought an accidental pregnancy (we called them "unwanted") was the worst possible thing that could have happened to me aside from death.

reply from: scopia19822

"Technically, you may be right, but I object to the implication that any pregnancy was unavoidable....If a woman wants badly enough not to conceive, this is certainly something she can accomplish, and if she intentionally risks it, I have a problem with the implication that it was through no fault of her own when it happens. "
I find it laughable when a women finds herself pregnant and the first thing she says is I dont know how that happened.

reply from: Yuuki

I think there is a right to have sex in the sense that if sex is available, you have the right to do it. Not a right in the sense that everyone should be provided with the chance to have sex.

reply from: 4choice4all

I find the government having control over reproduction to be most frightening. If they can call it a legitimate state issue...what's to stop them from becoming China and forcing women to abort?

reply from: faithman

It's called the constitution that protects the basic right to live dumb a$$.

reply from: 4choice4all

And according to the SCOTUS abortion is one of those protected rights.

reply from: yoda

Making abortion illegal again would not be "control over reproduction", it would be "control over the elective killing of innocent human beings".

reply from: Yuuki

Darling, if you're pregnant, you have already reproduced. Abortion is control of a baby's life, not reproduction. You have the RIGHT to reproduce, not the right to kill babies.

reply from: Banned Member

Would you agree that, if a pregnancy could be terminated without causing the death of the woman's unborn offspring, she should not be legally allowed to have it killed, or do you assert that, if she wants it dead, she has the right to have it killed even if it is not "necessary?"
In that case, the woman shouldn't be able to have it killed. But she also should not have any further responsibility to it either.
But then I don't support abortions past viability unless it is for the mothers health.

reply from: JRH

Would you agree that, if a pregnancy could be terminated without causing the death of the woman's unborn offspring, she should not be legally allowed to have it killed, or do you assert that, if she wants it dead, she has the right to have it killed even if it is not "necessary?"
In that case, the woman shouldn't be able to have it killed. But she also should not have any further responsibility to it either.
But then I don't support abortions past viability unless it is for the mothers health.
Well, suppose that A is using the body of B to live. B does not wish A to use 's body, but the only way to get rid of A is to kill A. In this situation B is justified in killing A if B did not agree to allow A to use B's body. If there is a way to remove A from B without the death of A or significant harm to B then it could be said that the situation is different and it is moral for the state to force B to take the non lethal option.
I am not saying this is my opinion. Just that the opinion can seem to make sense.
Why? I mean, if it's not a "person" and it's life is insignifant in your view, why should it's life "trump" the desires of the mother if she wants it dead?

reply from: Cecilia

Right....I have a problem taking a woman seriously who claims to be deathly afraid of pregnancy, LIE yet tinks nothing of allowing a man to inject sperm into her vagina. That leaves me asking "what's wrong with this picture?" Of course, as long as you are alklowed to kill your offspring in order to allay your fears, I'm to believe it's not a problem for you, even though you can obviously still conceive a child.
If you were no longer allowed to kill your offspring, would your alleged "fear" be great enough to prevent you from risking pregnancy? You could still have sex, just not vaginal intercourse, unless you or your partner were sterilised...You act as if you think the life of your offspring means nothing, so killing it means nothing. You seem to think you should not be compelled to make any sacrifices based on your "fears," whether they are reasonable or not, that your offspring should be required to sacrifice life itself in order that you should be free of "fear..." I do not view that as reasonable.
You still grasp this lie, which i never said.
you are dishonest.
Oh, BULLSHYTE, Cecilia.... You said: "do you also fail to understand how frightening it is to me, and other prochors, it would be to elimnate legal abortion? im being as 'frank' as i can, it is scary. threatening." It's only one page back, for dog's sake!
wow you really weren't lying just didn't read what I wrote over and over and over again?
I am not afraid of pregnancy.
I am afraid of someone having autonomy over my pregnancy.
is that clear enough?

reply from: lukesmom

And that says it all.
Exactly true.
Execpt for the FACT that my body has the abortion. My body, my choice.
Not the baby's body though. The baby is the one that dies, not you. ITS body is aborted, not yours.
As good ole Ronald Reagan stated, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

reply from: JRH

The implication appears to be that person A is "victimizing" person B by using person B's body against his/her wishes. If person A created this dependency, having caused person A to be in a position where s/he requires temporary use of his/her body in a way that is not life threatening to person B, and allows person B to go on with his/her life as usual, does that change anything? Would person B then be obligated to temporarily allow person A to use his/her body? After all, it was person B who put person A in the position where s/he will die if not temporarily allowed this "use," and who actually caused pers A to be using his/her body in the first place, right?I understand where you are going, and I actually agree with you. I was trying to explain what I thought the other poster was going for. If I thought fetuses should have rights I would not support the legality voluntary abortions except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger.

reply from: Banned Member

I would have to say that woman don't go to clinics to kill a baby, they go to end a pregnancy, because they don't want to have a baby. If they pregnancy could be ended & the woman not have any further responsibility, then I don't think any women would object to that. In that case everybody wins.

reply from: faithman

I would have to say that woman don't go to clinics to kill a baby, they go to end a pregnancy, because they don't want to have a baby. If they pregnancy could be ended & the woman not have any further responsibility, then I don't think any women would object to that. In that case everybody wins.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/47.html [click blue text]

reply from: Banned Member

I would have to say that woman don't go to clinics to kill a baby, they go to end a pregnancy, because they don't want to have a baby. If they pregnancy could be ended & the woman not have any further responsibility, then I don't think any women would object to that. In that case everybody wins.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/47.html [click blue text]
https://http://www.kansascity.com/934/gallery/1226113-a1226072-t3.html

reply from: faithman

I would have to say that woman don't go to clinics to kill a baby, they go to end a pregnancy, because they don't want to have a baby. If they pregnancy could be ended & the woman not have any further responsibility, then I don't think any women would object to that. In that case everybody wins.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/47.html [click blue text]
https://http://www.kansascity.com/934/gallery/1226113-a1226072-t3.html
Taking out the trash day in kansas.

reply from: Rosalie

Darling, if you're pregnant, you have already reproduced. Abortion is control of a baby's life, not reproduction. You have the RIGHT to reproduce, not the right to kill babies.
Darling, that's only your opinion. I consider reproduction successful when a viable baby is born.

reply from: faithman

Darling, if you're pregnant, you have already reproduced. Abortion is control of a baby's life, not reproduction. You have the RIGHT to reproduce, not the right to kill babies.
Darling, that's only your opinion. I consider reproduction successful when a viable baby is born.
That is your opinion, but who are you to force that opinion on the womb child? Who are you to hate them to death, and force your anti womb child morality on poor little children? Why are you such an anti womb child extremist hater?

reply from: lukesmom

I would have to say that woman don't go to clinics to kill a baby, they go to end a pregnancy, because they don't want to have a baby.
So you do agree the woman is pregnant with a "baby", your words, not mine. So, in straight line common sense thinking, if a mother intentionally ends her pregnancy, she has killed her baby, right? Or maybe you want to talk to 4choice and twist the truth to fit what your conscience can handle. You and 4choice sure do a lot of round about thinking to justify abortion to yourself. Funny how you 2 can't even see this when it is so obvious to the rest of us.

reply from: sk1bianca

2 words: birth (ends the pregnancy naturally) and adoption (no responsibility towards the child).
but women who abort don't want to have a living child out there somewhere... right?

reply from: faithman

I would have to say that woman don't go to clinics to kill a baby, they go to end a pregnancy, because they don't want to have a baby.
So you do agree the woman is pregnant with a "baby", your words, not mine. So, in straight line common sense thinking, if a mother intentionally ends her pregnancy, she has killed her baby, right? Or maybe you want to talk to 4choice and twist the truth to fit what your conscience can handle. You and 4choice sure do a lot of round about thinking to justify abortion to yourself. Funny how you 2 can't even see this when it is so obvious to the rest of us.
Absolutist!!!!! Don't confuse them with the truth, thats not relative!!!

reply from: sk1bianca

in romanian fairy tales, prince charming is called "fat frumos", which is translated "beautiful fetus"... in rural areas, people keep calling their kids "my dear fetus" even after they grow up... interesting, isn't it?

reply from: faithman

That is because the word fetus in latin means little one, whether born, or pre-born. Romanian is a latin language, so not big suprise at all.

reply from: yoda

Is my question to you not clear enough?

reply from: yoda

Why should the "fetus's" rights be canceled out by what his/her father and/or mother did?

reply from: 4choice4all

Because a fetus has no rights.

reply from: faithman

Why do you hate the pre-born SSSSOOOOO much that you would want them dead?

reply from: yoda

That's an interesting answer. It's like someone asked why an innocent political prisoner was being beaten, and you answer: "Because he is a prisoner".
We as a society condone abortion, and decree through our government that we will not allow the unborn to have rights. And now you say that because we take that position, babies conceived in rape and incest should not be protected?
That sorta makes us like gods, and babies like mortals, doesn't it?

reply from: faithman

That's an interesting answer. It's like someone asked why an innocent political prisoner was being beaten, and you answer: "Because he is a prisoner".
We as a society condone abortion, and decree through our government that we will not allow the unborn to have rights. And now you say that because we take that position, babies conceived in rape and incest should not be protected?
That sorta makes us like gods, and babies like mortals, doesn't it?
HHHHHMMMM... lightening bolt abortion..... SHOCKING!!!!

reply from: 4choice4all

No...prisoner's have rights..so I wouldn't condone beating one.


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