Abortion can be a VERY good thing
It's so hard for me to understand the radical anti-choice position because abortion stopped me from going insane. During college I was raped by a man who I have never been able to identify. I don't want to go into the details of the rape itself because it is too painful, but I ended up pregnant as a result. If you want to know why I didn't taken Plan B or something it's because I was so shocked and depressed it was a few days before I let my apartment. As soon as I found out I was pregnant I become so depressed that I want to kill myself, and I felt deeply unclean. It was like my body was covered with a dirt that would not wash off. I decided to get an abortion during the 2nd month of my pregnancy. I instantly felt better, as if I had been cleansed on a fundamental level. Abortion is an option that women need to have in certain situations.
I am so sorry to read about your ordeal, but I am glad that you were able to access the full range of medical care. Myself, I am pro-choice because I was in high school before Roe v. Wade. One of my classmates died from a back alley abortion, back in 1972.
The only exception that most anti-choice extremists believe in is their own. I have seen people that protest at one clinic bring their pregnant daughter to another clinic. Then they are back protesting at their usual clinic the next week. For some reason they don't see their own hypocracy, because their situation is different.
Thankfully, the law is indeed committed to women making their own decisions about their bodies, rape or not. They all probably are sleeping just fine at night.
I am sorry you were raped. I am also sorry you chose to kill your unborn child and put yourself on the same level as the monster who raped you.
Forgive me for just posting links, but these articles make the point much better than I ever could.
So you agree that abortion should be legal in cases of rape? Clarify your stance. Also, "babies" are born. Fetuses are not.
Even if fetuses were people, they would not have the right to use women to live. I have the right to stop the fetus from using my body if I did not consent to the sex that produced it, since I never made any choice that put it there.
You're missing the point entirely. The man who raped you used his power against you and did not care in the least what harm he did to you. When you became pregnant, there were then TWO victims of the rape. Instead of taking the high road and showing compassion and empathy for your unborn baby, you chose to use YOUR power against a helpless victim, not caring in the least what harm you were doing to him/her in the process. In short, YOU became as much as a monster as the man who raped you.
I find it hard to believe that Arda's story is real. Sorry Arda.
Also, abortion is never a "good" thing for the fact it's made to kill a living human being. Maybe to some women it's "good" for them, but it's not "good" for the VICTIM.
Why do you find it hard to believe Arda's story? Is it because you don't want to believe it? Does the possibility that someone has to face those real life decisions upset your preconceived notions?
Well, I've got news for you. It does happen and people have to deal with it. Like it or not, they often deal with it by getting an abortion. They need to be supported. They don't need to be yelled at, or called a murderer. Nor do they need to be told that they will regret their decision for the rest of their life, because most of them will not. Most will put this painful part of their life behind them and move on.
Why do you say that I'm not much of a questioner? Especially when I started that post with 3 questions. It appears that you just edited that part out for the purpose of making a point which didn't exist.
Whatever newsboy. She has no reason to tell this nefarious tale other than to either assuage her guilt or to advance the agenda of death. You seem more like a teller of ill-informed opinion and not much of a questioner at all really.
Typical! If you can't answer the questions, just attack the questioner.
Speaking of embarrassing yourself completely, if you even bothered to read my first posting on this Topic you would see that I am quite a bit older than 30, since I had a high school classmate that died from a back alley abortion in 1972.
As for the rest of your gross misconceptions, I am 57 years old, attended parochial school for 7 years, before attending public high school, college, and graduate school. I will have been married for 30 years, come this June. I was raised in a two parent household, where my Dad worked and my Mom stayed home to raise the kids. I never claimed to be a genius, but I think I am understood by those who are not prejudiced and are willing to listen.
You will be happy to know that you got one thing right. I am a liberal progressive, not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.
1972, hmmm? So she was one of the 39 women who died that year from ILLEGAL abortions? Odd that we're expected to feel sorry for someone who dies in the process of killing another human being. BTW, it is not LEGALITY that has been lowering the number of deaths in abortion since the 1940s, but the discovery of antibiotics and progress in medical techniques.
Please think for a moment that 39 deaths were reported as directly related to abortion. You must realize that the sheer numbers of abortions would indicate that other deaths may have occurred that were not reported and certainly not as they related to abortion due to the stigma perceived by the families and the providers avoiding confrontation. You are naive if you think only 39 women died.
For a modern comparison, think of how many drug deaths occur in today's society in drug houses and on the street that are never reported. Illegality instantly means unreliable statistics because no one wants to report the behavior. Common sense and human nature.
The fact is that women died and whether it was one or one million, it matters. Isn't that your postion? That EVERY fetus matters? One or a million?
I believe that her death certificate said that she died of an internal hemorrhage. That was technically correct. Besides if it had read "abortion" as cause of death, her parents would not have been permitted to bury her in the local Catholic cemetery.
What's the matter? Are you so embarassed by having your prejudices pointed out that you refuse to respond and attack me any more? Or have you just gone into the corner to sulk?
MILLIONS of women did not die annually. The number was MUCH, MUCH less.
joueravecfous, I am willing to accept that the official count might have been somewhat low, but unless you can provide another figure and can back it up. that's the one I'm going to go by.
Questioner, so her family hid the truth out of shame? To protect their daughter's reputation? That should tell you something right there.
There are a few things that you two seem to be ignoring.
1. I refuse to feel sorry for anyone who dies in the process of killing another human being.
2. All these deaths you keep citing? They. Did. Not. Have. To. Die. They CHOSE to perform a life-threatening act, and it didn't work out for them.
Confusing to me. Hitler determined that a certain group of people should die for what they done to him. He also determined that those with defects should die. How can we make those decisions today and not be called the antichrist and be invaded by the world.
I find her story very sad in numerous ways and I find a lot of the comments here to be very sad. She went through a very traumatic experience in being raped and for that we should all have compassion. No one wants to go through that and they certainly don't want people yelling at them during the mourning process. With that said, I also think that she made a tragic mistake by aborting that child. Abortion does not cure the trauma of rape. it may make her forget temporarily but it will not make that incident disappear. That is the lie that abortion proponents like to tell. One wrong does not correct another wrong. Killing her unborn child does not make the rape go away. It just wounds her soul in a different way. We, as humans, must get to the point that we realize that even though we cannot make a bad thing go away we can try and turn it into a good thing. Take the evil this world hands out and show it how strong we are and turn the situation around. What if this scenario had happened? What if she carried the baby with the help of pro-life groups (don't roll your eyes, there are plenty of them out there that will help), then placed that baby for adoption. The child would have been a picture ofwhat mercy and good looks like in the sense that someone hurt her but she did not let that turn her into a "hurter" instead she demanded by her actions that it turned her into a better person. A giver of life! She would have the satisfaction of knowing that her abuser didn't cause her to kill and she would have the satisfaction of knowing that he didn't "get her" all the while the baby would be enjoying it's new parents. But, the reality is that very few women in this situation choose this option because it's easier on them to become the aggressor than itis to become the giver. Sometimes the moral thing to do isn't the easiset. Usually it's the hardest. I am both an abortion survivor and an adoptive parent so I know several angles of this issue. And before the nay sayers get started no, I have never been raped and obviously not been impregnated by a rapist but that does not in any way change the morality of this issue. A death does not erase an abuse! http://www.shoutingitloud.com/
Some people and most prochoicers I think, believe that all women, raped or not are the best deciders of their own life. A rape victim has already had one choice taken away from her, but all women are entitled to live their rules, not yours (collective). You have no way of knowing her or what's better for her.
The way you dictate how rape victims should respond is indicative only of how you want to paint all women with the same brush thereby removing their individuality. It's so easy to sit at your computer and denigrate victims and call others names like a child, but the truth is that your opinions of others lives don't matter much when making important decisions. If a rape victim says abortion was better for her, then that's her answer and you don't have to like it. Even if you find it astounding or disappointing.
PCmom, frankly I don't care WHAT choices other people make, UNLESS another person is hurt or killed by said decision. Men don't have the right to CHOOSE rape. Men and women don't have the right to CHOOSE killing another person to advance themselves in some way. It's as simple as that. And what is abortion, but the deliberate killing of another human being for personal gain?
You clearly don't understand what bodily autonomy is. It's not what the law allows, but the control over your physical body and your determination of what happens to it. You enjoy it and don't even realize it and your claim that women want "special additional rights" is ironic since both men and women have the same degree of bodily autonomy, but yet you only want to remove the women's.
Unless of course, I'm premature in my assumption. Do you support the government mandating that all citizens must donate their bodily resources upon demand and against their will? If women can be compelled to donate theirs and you're all for men and women having all equal rights, then you won't blink an eye when someone needs one of your organs and the government tells you to fork it over whether you like it or not. If you indeed agree that all citizens have no right at all to bodily autonomy and that fair application is necessary, then I apologize for the assumption.
Sorry, PCMom, but your bodily autonomy stance simply will not stand up under scrutiny. For instance, if bodily autonomy rules all, then it should be just as permissible to have an abortion in the 8th month as it is in the early stages. To say that there should be time limits on abortion makes it clear that bodily autonomy has limits. Or for another example, if a woman is having nausea problems and the usual medicines aren't helping her, it should be perfectly valid for her to take thalidomide even if it causes great bodily harm to the fetus. After all, if she can kill the fetus for bodily autonomy, why shouldn't she be able to harm it also?
I agree. However, since 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, the limits are acceptable. If there were a large proportion of women wanting to abort in the 8th month, then a discussion would be in order.
Yes, it should be valid except that thalidomide is no longer on the market for hyperemesis and is very tightly controlled for other applications. A woman should be allowed to choose any treatment for any condition even to the detriment of the fetus.
At one point, a fetus resembles a fish more than it does a human. Actually, it even has gills!
I would just like to tell everyone here that you will never win this fight considering your entire argument is based on religious beliefs. The 1st Amendment really sucks doesn't it? What I absolutely hate about you people is the ignorance and hatred you display. You claim that you fight for the unborn fetuses but how could not feel compassion for Arda's story? and to have the audacity to call her a monster? Thats pathetic. This entire debate boils down to the fact that you people are violating the constitution. You quote the rape case as a typical defense so consider this:
A couple finds out that their child has Tay-Sachs. Do you honestly expect them and the child to suffer through that? Who are you to say that they should have to because of your beliefs in God which they do not necessarily share? You fight to stop abortions? How about you stop winging on a message thread and start trying to change the social economic factors that force women into situations that make the consider getting an abortion? Instead of calling Arda a monster, why don't you attack the cause?
Pro-lifers and Pro-choicers do nothing for this country. All you do is winge and cry and refer to the bible and stand on faulty positions that can be easily annihilated by anyone with a copy of the constitution and some legal sense. Roe vs. Wade happened. Accept it and move one. Do something Christian and help people who actually need help.
Again, a fetus isn't a human. Take biology class, learn embryology. And I'm pretty sure a man chooses to rape someone.
PCMom, well, at least you're consistent. Of course, the fact that you have no qualms about aborting even in the eighth or ninth month, or causing deformities in the baby just to help morning sickness, says volumes about you.
BTW, about thalidomide? It has many uses, but it is strictly regulated, to prevent future thalidomide babies. Intelligent people are able to balance the medical needs of the ill and the well-being of the unborn.
The precautions aren't foolproof, nothing is, but it is obvious that an effort is being made.
Equidistant, your ignorance of basic biology astounds me. And that you have the nerve to tell us to study biology and embryology is laughable.
Did you ask me if I had any qualms about it? Then how do you know? It matters little anyway as women are simply not aborting in the 8th month. What does trying to insult me accomplish?
Yes, I believe I said the same thing about thalidomide. Please find one woman who would take it after learning the facts. The point you wanted me to make was that I support all women making the decisions that are right for them when equipped with all the facts and options.
Two words: GEORGE TILLER.
Hahaha. Propaganda much? Do you really think someone's personal antiabortion website supports your claim? If you want anyone to believe that women are aborting in the 8th month, you're going to have actually provide a hard statistic. You know, one based on facts?
The fact that Tiller performed late term abortions is not news. Post-viability and late-term do not mean women aborting in the 8th month and you won't convince anyone otherwise without some serious proof. By the way, the 8th month is weeks 31-35. That should be directly referenced in whatever legitimate evidence you can provide.
Why are you so stuck on this idea of someone who might abort at 31-35 weeks (of which there is absolutely no proof) when almost 90% of abortions occur before 12 weeks? That's a statistic actually based in fact.
PCMom, you are missing the entire point. 5 months, 6 months, 8 months, the day before delivery, it doesn't matter. The point is that by your own words you support a woman's right to abortion at any point in the pregnancy for any reason whatsoever.
And you agreed. You then said:
So you at least are consistent in your support of bodily autonomy over the right to life. And yes, that DOES say volumes about you. If you choose to take that as insult, that's on you. Many, if not most, other pro-choicers hedge their support in various ways, anything from the first trimester to viability, making it clear that it is NOT about bodily autonomy for them.
And also, propaganda? PROVE that those statistics ARE NOT a matter of fact and public record before you call them propaganda, please.
I assumed you were trying to use that website to support your claim that women are aborting in the 8th month, which it did not. The statistics were on all late-term abortions which is everything after viability and I never disputed the fact that Tiller performed them. I consider all personal biased websites that include opinionated commentary to be propaganda. Facts speak for themselves and should be presented clearly and unaffiliated to be respected as science.
Where'd you get THOSE stats from? Planned Parenthood (the biggest abortion provider)?
You want facts... ok. How about the fact the heart begins to beat before the 4th week of pregnancy? How about the fact that the first pain sensors start developing before 8 weeks? How about the fact that at 8 weeks, you can clearly see a HUMAN BODY and limb movements. How about the fact that at 10 weeks, there are present fingerprints on the fetal fingers? How about the fact that some women begin to feel fetal movements at around 15 weeks?
Oh, do you support abortion in all months of pregnancy? Not too long ago, a baby born at 21 weeks of pregnancy went home healthy. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/23/german-baby-born-21-weeks-goes-home-easter/
How about some other stories of survival babies? It does NOT matter if the baby needs help or not, the fact that they SURVIVED means they are VIABLE (WITH HELP) and you are OK with MURDERING viable children!
However, viability still does not determine the HUMANITY of the preborn. It only determines AGE and LOCATION. Only monsters kill and don't feel bad about killing preborn people who obviously cannot defend themselves against the knife. It's sad that they have to be bullied and murdered just because the mother/parents did not want to take precaution to not get pregnant. Every abortion ends a HUMAN LIFE. That is FACT. That is BIOLOGY.
So what? Humans die every day and will continue to do so until they cease to exist. I don't find our speciation to be so remarkable as to exempt us from reproductive conflict.
I trust women to make their own decisions regarding their lives and their bodies whether I like them or agree with them or not. I do not consider anyone's fetus to be my or anyone else's business.
The chances are quite high, you know, that someone you know is a "monster" who had an abortion. It's so easy to judge from up there on your pedestal, isn't it?
No. Just no. I don't CARE if you don't like the source, I'm not going to just accept your dismissal of the statistics. Again I challenge you, DISPROVE them before you call them propaganda.
Oh, and I know of one confirmed and one unconfirmed abortion in my own family. I consider both acts to be monstrous indeed. The women themselves? Not intrinsically evil themselves, but there is no getting away from it. They both committed an evil act, the most evil act any woman can commit. They killed their own children.
The onus is on the person making the affirmative claim to prove it. In this case, you are claiming that women are aborting in weeks 31-35 so please show the statistic from your source that proves your claim.
It's not a surprise that you have a family member who has had an abortion, but I wonder if you've told her that she's a monster. Of course you are entitled to your opinion of what she did, but if abortion is the worst thing someone can do, then how is she not intrinsically evil? How is it that millions of women who we know to be good and loving people have had abortions? You can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. You may not like their choices, but it's really not your business and doesn't change who the person is. Just because they did something you disagree with does not make them a monster. If you asked, learned about and banished from your life every woman who aborted, you'd be very lonely indeed.
So, in your eyes, it's OK to kill any human person?
Do you consider a woman killing her 3 year old child in the privacy of her own house to be yours or anyone else's business?
I said "only monsters KILL and DON'T FEEL BAD ABOUT KILLING". I don't consider a woman who regrets her abortion a monster.
And I doubt you feel anywhere bad for the women in my life that I know who've aborted, because 90% of them REGRET IT and STILL CRY ABOUT IT. You DON'T CARE if a woman ends up in pain and misery over her "choice", you ONLY care about abortion. You don't like women who regret their abortions.
Whether or not you are actually telling the truth, stories like "your's" do exist.
A couple of points:
1. You should have been given proper emotional support. The fact you dont' want to go into details because its too painful, wehther here or otherwise, is evident you still have not healed, I suggest you go find a good counsellor.
2. People who are depressed or from post traumatic stress [from a rape] should not go making big decisions like having abortions until they have received adequate counselling and emotional support. Chances are good, the clinic you went too were only interested in the green in your pocket.
3. You killed a human being. Your own child. While your rape may deminish your culpilibility, you have still been responsible for the murder of a child. You could have easily given that child for adoption if you truly felt no connection with that child.
4. The child was as much a victim of the rape as you were. That child did not ask to exist just like it did not ask for you to have them killed.
5. "Anti-choice" as a term deminishes your own position more than the pro-life position. Choice implies a plural, people who are pro-life are only against ONE choice, which is abortion,. When a person says they are "pro-choice" every man and their dog knows they mean they support abortion. So if a pro-choice person supports abortion and an anti-choice person is against abortion, then choice = abortion, thusly, those who are "pro-choice" are in actual fact, pro-abortion.
I hope you find peace from your rape, if it did happen, and I hope you realise the magnitiude of what you did to your own innocent child. How old would they be now? Boy or girl? Smart and funny or sporty and extroverted? Who knows. You could have used the situation to turn around some of the darkness in teh world, instead of having some quack kill your child because you viewed them as some extension of the rape, you could have raised them to be loving, kind and respectful of women.
Your rapist has won. Your abortion has not made you un-raped. Its just added another black smear on your heart.
Is that what I said? What I said was that being human is not enough to exempt us from death. Humans die and are killed all the time and my support of killing depends on the circumstances. Abortion is one circumstance.
I thought it was implied and understood that when I said, "I trust women to make their own decisions regarding their lives and their bodies whether I like them or agree with them or not." it meant regarding pregnancy/abortion/birth. I know you're not that obtuse. Do I really need to put that qualifier in every single sentence for it to be understood? What does a woman killing a 3 year-old have to do with her making a decision regarding her life and body as it pertains to pregnancy/abortion/birth?
Of course I feel badly about anyone who regrets their abortion. In the same way I feel badly for those who regret having children, marrying the wrong person, not leaving a bad relationship sooner or any of the myriad of decisions we make throughout our lives. Life is full of regrets and abortion is an important decision. Does it mean anything relevant to you if I tell you that 90% of the women I know who aborted do not regret it? Personal anecdotes are not reason enough to legislate behavior of which we disapprove. The fact that some women may have pain and misery is not a good enough reason to remove the choice from everyone. Why would you think I don't like women who regret their abortion? I don't even know any, but their regret would not be a reason enough for me to dislike them. Their desire to take away the right to exercise the very choice they themselves were able to make would be the reason.
LOL! THIS is what is wrong with schools today. Send 'em to school, buy them books and THIS is what ya get? Distant, embryos have DNA and human embryos have human DNA, that's what makes them human and not a fish or a flower. Get it? Basic biology that a fetus IS a human if it has human DNA. Maybe you should take your own advice?
Do you control your physical body and determine what happens to it and how it is used? Welcome to bodily autonomy. If not you, then who?
Why is rape a crime? Kidnapping? Assault? Why can the government not currently compel organ matches to donate? What argument can and will be used to defend abortion?
If the government decides that women have to donate their bodily resources against their will to keep a human alive, then the same authority will have to be applied to ALL. Or do you think only women should have to donate their bodies?
These death supporters really astound me...
They're just poorly educated, or not at all and have teh added bonus of being unfortunate enough to fall for the whole "my body my choice" BS when it comes to the killing of a human being in the uterine stages of development.
They don't just need prayers, they need a good, solid education. Like that poor sap a few posts back who said a foetus wasn't human.
Should any person be allowed to use another person's body without their consent to stay alive?
You know what? If you don't want a preborn human person "using" your body to stay alive, then don't get pregnant! Quit complaining about the whole thing, stop complaining about your "rights are being taken away" and do something productive about it! Get fixed, go on a permanent method of birth control, don't have sex, use a "toy", anything, just don't get pregnant! It's easy, and I am sick of hearing "I wanna have sex!" and no common sense or self control to ensure you don't get pregnant.
Is this a reference to the lame violinist argument? If so, please read this article. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689
Also, about the earlier posts? Again, NO! YOU challenged the statistics provided, so YOU must prove they are in error or drop the propaganda claim.
It isn't a reference to anything. It's a simple question that can be answered with 'yes' or 'no'.
There was no statistic provided to support your claim that women are aborting in weeks 31-35 so it was and will continue to be dismissed. If you can show any evidence that clearly and irrefutably supports that specific, then please do.
Isn't it pro-choicers that claim every late-term abortion is needed for the health of the mother? There's my claim.
Why is rape a crime? Kidnapping? Assault? Why can the government not currently compel organ matches to donate? Even if YOUR OWN CHILD will die. What argument can and will be used to defend abortion? Still can't answer these questions? Wonder why. Well, not really.
If the government decides that women have to donate their bodily resources against their will to keep a human alive, then the same authority will have to be applied to ALL.
You want women to gestate and bear children they don't want. Its an ugly truth, but that's who you are and it's easy to see. Women either have total control over their bodies at all times or none at all and your desire for none at all makes your view of women repugnant.
There's a difference between not keeping someone alive and directly, deliberately and intentionally killing someone.
Say you have a nice warm house, and outside it is freezing - anyone who is outside will freeze to death. Outside, there are children in the street who have no home. Technically, you do not have an obligation to open your doors to them. No one can force you to take a child in. If they die, it is not through your doing (although it is definitely charitable for you to let them in and save them from certain death, and you ought to).
However, let's say you happen to have a child in your house now - perhaps you let him in earlier, perhaps he just appeared, it doesn't really matter. If you stab him to death, wouldn't you agree that's murder?
To answer your argument, you cannot compel organ matches to donate in the same way you cannot force someone to open their house to a street child. But you cannot let a woman kill a child in her womb the same way you cannot kill a child in your house. One is merely a passive act, and the other is an active one that directly causes the death of an innocent child by your own hand.
Abortion is not merely a matter of a woman giving resources against her will to keep a human alive - the act of abortion also involves directly killing a life. Yes, perhaps you cannot force anyone to give up their bodily resources, but you also cannot murder someone for the sake of letting others preserve their bodily resources.
(as a sidenote, why are there so many ad hominem attacks flying around? :/)
Nope, if a woman doesn't want to gestate and bear children, she needs to not get pregnant. It's HER that's choosing to gestate and bear a child when she gets pregnant, because she KNOWS there is a chance she could get pregnant.
If I was to bungy jump off a bridge, I would know there is a chance the cord could break. Should I be surprised if it broke?
If I was to hang off a ladder with a shaky leg, I would know there is a chance I could fall off. Should I be surprised if it did?
Also, pregnancy and hooking someone up to you to "keep them alive" is not the same. Pregnancy is natural, normal. Hooking someone up to you directly is not.
Originally posted by: Skyyra
There's a difference between not keeping someone alive and directly, deliberately and intentionally killing someone.
There is no difference between people who refuse to donate their bodies to keep someone alive. Without the consent of the donor, the other will die. People either have total say in how and when their bodies are used or they don't. Would you be fine if women chose to induce labor to expel the fetus instead of having abortions? That would accomplish the same thing.
Your analogy fails as do all comparisons to pregnancy. There simply is no other circumstance where women will have their lives, bodies, emotions, diet, finances, education/career and all aspects of their being affected, sometimes permanently and harmfully. Your likening a woman's body to a mere house for a fetus is dismissive of the value of woman and flat out ignores the importance and effects of pregnancy and birth.
If you want women to be forced to gestate and give birth against their will, why is it so difficult to admit?
This is the silliest thing I've read in a while and by your own logic, it supports abortions.
Of course women know the risk when they have sex and so do men. Some even mitigate the risk by using birth control. If you were to bungee off a bridge or hang off a ladder and you fell, would you just lie there until you died or would you want to be fixed? Claiming women shouldn't be able to fix the problem that occurred when they engaged in behavior with risk sounds an awful lot like punishment, And then by that logic, anyone who fell should just die. Unwanted pregnancy is a huge problem to the woman experiencing it and it is fixable. Taking a risk does not mean that you only accept one solution if there are others. How do you think abortion came about? Women wanted a solution to the problem and figured it out.
The problem isn't their pregnancy, the problem is their points of view.
How utterly laughable for you to presume to know how someone else should solve their own problems or what their problem actually is. Condescending too. What makes you think your opinion of someone's life should affect how she lives it? It's none of your business. Would you like someone to decide for you what your problems are and how they should be fixed? Or is it none of anyone else's business?
The millions of women who have faced unwanted pregnancy most certainly had a problem and it wasn't their point of view.
So if I have a problem that can be solved by killing another person, I'm justified in doing so? Because obviously by your standards, it's the PROBLEM that matters, not the life of other human beings.
Oops, I forgot that I had to include "as it pertains to pregnant women" in every post because remembering that we're talking about abortion as it relates to women is so difficult.
How easy it was for you to completely ignore the whole woman and only focus on fetal life. The life of the woman is more important than the life of a fetus and whether a fetus can be viewed as a "person" is debatable. I care about women making decisions for themselves regarding their own lives, whether or not I approve or would make the same choice. You want to force women to gestate and bear children against their will.
If there was a "person" living inside of you an affecting your life, body, emotions, diet, finances, education/career and all other aspects sometimes permanently and harmfully, and against your will, then I would indeed say that you could kill them to make it stop.
And YOU constantly confuse LIFE and LIFESTYLE. Now, if the woman's LIFE is truly in danger, as in an ectopic pregnancy, that is the ONE EXCEPTION that I make, because then it becomes a matter of triage, where either one person dies or two die. If, on the other hand, you want to kill a human being because of LIFESTYLE, if you believe the permanent solution of violence and homicide is acceptable for a temporary "problem", you're wasting your time here.
Again, you dimiss how pregnancy and birth affect the woman's ENTIRE life. I'd say that her body, emotions, diet, finances, education/career and every other aspect of HER life are more important than your opinion. I don't care what her reasons are or whether you think they are unimportant.
Pregnancy and producing progeny is not a temporary problem. The effects of pregnancy and childbirth can be harmful and are permanent. Only the woman can decide if she wants to take that risk and she only has to live by her conscience, not yours.
Did you know that 40% of abortions in 2008 were had by women making less than $18,000 a year? How do you correct that problem?
"Violence and homicide" is emotional rhetoric with no basis in the law. Abortion is not homicide and surgery is not violent. Childbirth is a hell of a lot more traumatic and violent if you want to get emotional about something.
WAAHHHH! WAAAHHHHH! THAT is SOOOOOO horrible to want a woman to actually GIVE LIFE to her own flesh and blood, how sick of your pro-lifers!! WAAAH! WAAAAAHHH!!
PCMOM, you must be very blind. Look at an ultrasound, then look at that same "fetus" after it's aborted and tell me that what it experienced was not violent. You don't think ripping off the limbs and ripping out the guts of a living thing is violent?
You are sick.
Oh, and the definiition of homicide, right out of the dictionary, is:
[hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-] Show IPA
the killing of one human being by another.
a person who kills another; murderer.
The human fetus is a human being, or are you going to deny that simple biology fact now?
Yes, I agree that it is horrible to force a woman to give up her self determination to satisfy what YOU want.
You might want to check a dictionary along with your reading comprehension. Homicide is unlawful which is obviously to what I was referring when I said "basis in law".
Abortion is not violent for the woman. You know, the one who is an actual person with rights and who is sentient.
Oh the poor poor woman who willingly had hot intercourse and is now pregnant with a sweet baby she wants to mutilate. How horrible...
Women are not more special than men or children.
Also, just because someone is not sentient, doesn't make them less valuable or less human. When you're in a deep sleep, you're sentient. Then there are people who are blind and feel no pain, and blind people who can't hear. Would it then be ok to kill these people, because they aren't aware someone is about to kill them? Or someone in a deep sleep, as I said before? They never knew they were alive, and they certainly won't know what happened. Someone shoots you in the head at night, does it make it BETTER than if you awake and aware of someone about to kill you?
If only one entity can have paramount rights to a body, it will always be the sentient one and who also had prior claim to said body. It's not the fetus' lack of sentience at issue except when placed in direct opposition the woman who is already sentient and a member of society.
Direct opposition....mother vs. child instead of mother loving child...I think Mother Teresa was right...
What makes you think that women have to love children or that women want to be mothers?
It's not the fact that some women don't like kids, it's when they start killing them is what we have a problem with.
Actually MURDER is the illegal killing of someone. Ash is correct, homicide is the killing of one human by another, hence the "homo" and "cide". ie. the death penalty, self defence, euthanasia (depending what country you're in), these are acts of homicide, but not acts of murder.
It is you who needs to check the dictionary.
And abortion is violent, because really, we're talking abotu ripping the arms and legs off of a child, tearing her guts out, snapping her spine and crushing her head, that's not exactly an action that speaks of love, compassion and warm fluffy kitty cats.
In the old U.S. of A., abortion is neither murder nor homicide.
And we're really not talking about ripping anything off of or out of a "child" and you know it as well as I. The woman (remember her?) is the patient and a 7 minute surgery is not violent. Perhaps you'd feel more happy kittenish if they just induced labor? How violent is labor for a fetus?
And of course there's nonviolent, nonsurgical abortion.
Yes, because there's a non-violent way to PURPOSELY END someone's life... Hey, the cyanide pill is "non-violent" but it still ENDS LIFE. Would it be violent to force a person to take the pill, knowing it is a quick death for them? Do you consider ending someone's life like that "violent"? You're still killing them without their consent.