Pregnant Woman Perfectly Tells Off Anti-Abortion Protestors

a reply to: windword

At what point does a fetus become a person?

a reply to: sdubya

Birth.

2nd line

a reply to: windword

What about ones that can survive externally? What about ones with brain activity? What about ones that smile, laugh, and play in the womb? That can recognize their mother's voice? Are you saying these fetuses aren't alive?

If birth is your answer, then tell me what about the birth process turns a lump of cells into a full human being?

a reply to: sdubya

Why would they be aborted?

I support the person doing the carrying above the one being carried. If a late term abortion is required, it's because the fetus isn't viable. Otherwise, there would be a premature birth.

All late term abortions or early induced labor is done so upon the recomendation and with the approval of a doctor, not because someone lost their job or is fighting with their baby daddy.

a reply to: windword

It used to be legal to terminate pregnancies up to 40 weeks. Was that practice wrong?

If, as I think you said, life being at birth, then abortion should be legal even if the fetus could survive. Am I correct in my understanding of your previous comment?

Also, I feel like everyone has dodged my questions. If birth is the start of life, what about the birth process turns a lump of cells into a full human being?

I'd also like someone on the pro-choice side to address my 1% argument.

a reply to: sdubya

It used to be legal to terminate pregnancies up to 40 weeks. Was that practice wrong?

When was that?

Under certain circumstances it is today, too, as I previously explained. The unborn doesn't take precedent over the mother, if it's between the two.

If, as I think you said, life being at birth, then abortion should be legal even if the fetus could survive. Am I correct in my understanding of your previous comment?

Yes, you have misunderstood.

Life doesn't begin at birth, but the autonomy required to be defined as a person does. There is no point that can be said, "This is where life began". Life is cyclic, and there is no beginning or end to life, that we know of.

I'm saying that abortion needs to be safe, accessible and affordable for everyone, not just women of means. Women will get abortions earlier, instead of later, if they can and aren't scared of harassment and detoured by ridiculous delays and hoops to jump through. Abortions done after 24 weeks, or normal developmental viability, are done so because of the health of fetus or the mother.

a reply to: windword

Life doesn't begin at birth, but the autonomy required to be defined as a person does. There is no point that can be said, "This is where life began". Life is cyclic, and there is no beginning or end to life, that we know of.

See, I don't really differentiate between a human that's alive and a human that's a person. I don't see how that's possible.

Abortions done after 24 weeks, or normal developmental viability, are done so because of the health of fetus or the mother.

I find it odd that we're worried about the heath of a fetus so to fix the issue we kill it.

a reply to: sdubya

See, I don't really differentiate between a human that's alive and a human that's a person. I don't see how that's possible.

Human? What's that got to do with it? Were you expecting a cat? A fertilized egg isn't a person. In this world, you become a person when you're born.

I find it odd that we're worried about the heath of a fetus so to fix the issue we kill it.

Apparently you don't think that parents have the right to say "No", when they find out their fetus will have debilitating birth defects that will create misery for all of its (possibly short) life, its siblings and family members and burden and financial stress for the parents.

a reply to: sdubya

First, thank you for sourcing your points. Too often I ask for sources to people's numbers and claims and they deflect or tell me to look them up.

Second, there is more at stake here than the fetus living. Like I mentioned to dfairlite, there are economic and social impacts to letting these children come to term. There is a cost associated with all this. If you insist that all pregnancies that weren't induced by rape and are 100% healthy, come to term, there is a HUGE economic cost to the addition of children. Back in the day, having many children was a good thing because infanticide happened all the time. But now with modern medicine, we can keep many children alive. Our society just can't take the brunt of all these new bodies. At the end of the day, let the mother choose and have her deal with the guilt. Let me wash my hands of the problem.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
What isn't natural is a mother (yes, they're a mother, even before the child is born) choosing to have the child murdered just because said child might be a burden to their life.

Would that be an opinion or a fact? How many women who have had an abortion have confided in you their reason for doing so?

Your just making assumptions and judgement's

So says the lady who is assuming no women have ever confided in me and then judging me based on that assumption.

Both my sister and a close neighbor have confided in me about having an abortion (my sister in her late teens, my neighbor in her early 20s), and both have expressed extreme regret. My sister went into an absolute downward spiral in the years following her decision--to the point that there were months where my dad could not locate here, and finally did, sleeping in a guy's truck parked on the street while he slept soundly inside his mother's house. She ended up having an eating disorder and had to go to treatment because of it, and now she still carries the emotional baggage of her decision (she still has yet to forgive herself--her words, not mine) and has an eating disorder in the other direction (probably now weighs close to 275lbs at 5'2"). She became a food hoarder because she is worried that she will be unable to care for her two children at some point, and this is also a residual effect from her guilt (again, acknowledged by her).

She is a fabulous mom to my niece and nephew, and if she could only get past the guilt that she fully acknowledges still remains from her decision 20 years ago, she could be a fabulous person to herself.

I don't know about my neighbor--I didn't meet her until about 10 years after her abortion, so I can't tell you at all how she was before or if there were any lasting effects due to her guilt, but she is a foster parent now, surrounded by 3 foster kids, two others she just adopted this year, and her biological son as well. I can't say that's related or not, but it's a pretty big coincidence if it isn't.

Other than these two lovely women, no one has confided in me about their decisions and feelings about an elective abortion, and quite honestly, I don't want to hear the tale and I don't seek this information out from people, although I have heard positive and negative discussions about it from women who have had abortions, but I think those are mostly for political posturing, so I don't pay them much attention.

So, yes, abortions have directly affected very close people in my life, and even though it's just two women, the rate is 100% in favor of elective abortion being a mistake--one that drastically affected my sister in a hugely negative way. Is that enough of an answer to your question?

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Might I ask...do you have children?

What has that to do with anything?

I have children, grand children, and great grand children soooo does that make my opinions any more or less valid?

It has a lot to do with it, because I hold the opinion of my wife in very high regard, and when she says that can not understand how women--especially mothers (or grandmothers or great-grandmothers)--can hold the opinion that elective abortions are okay, I just like to see with whom I'm dealing...and I give a higher regard to women's opinions if they have actually had a child.

Obviously I'm responding late into the game, and you don't need to feel an obligation to respond, but I felt a need to answer your question about women who have confided in me, because I think you formed an assumption that I'm just some random guy speaking with no direct experience. Hopefully I'm wrong, but if not, hopefully I changed your mind.

Best Regards.

a reply to: windword

There is a problem with labeling all women who have abortions as whore, and it happens often on these boards.

I don't disagree.

All kinds of women, of all walks of life, ages and religions CHOOSE to have abortions daily.

I know, and it is really sad that this is the case. But, that's my opinion--I consider it to be murder, but again, that's my opinion, and I know that.

See, you think that just because a woman is pregnant that immediately means that she's gonna drop everything and start knitting baby booties and looking through baby name books. A LOT of women never want to have kids, have no intention of having kids and WILL have an abortion should they accidentally become pregnant.

First, don't make ignorant assumptions about me--I don't think anything that you claim I do.

As for the latter part of this quote from you, see my comment above.

Abortion is as old as people. It's very natural and sometimes extremely desired.

I think quoting the latter portion of that is worth doing again:

It's very natural...

That is the most idiotic thing that I have read on this thread. Elective, medically performed procedures--especially the one that kills an unborn human baby that is well on its way to making it to full term (although we'll never know)--is not "very natural." It actually goes against everything that nature dictates--if it were natural, it'd be an unprovoked miscarriage. And abortion is absoultely not "very natural."

And, yes, many women do indeed make bad mothers, but that doesn't mean that the life they created and raised will be bad people or bad mothers themselves--my niece is a perfect example of that, and it's not as uncommon as one would be led to believe.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: rukia
The problem is that you're equating abortion with whoredom, when the two have nothing in common.

All kinds of women get pregnant accidentally and CHOOSE to have an abortion. That CHOICE doesn't make anyone a whore.

It does make them a killer, though.

And that's worse.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

In your eyes, but according to the law, currently, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Let their own guilt eat them. It isn't your problem to worry about.

a reply to: rukia

No problem--I didn't test at a 12-grade reading-comprehension level in 4th grade for nothing

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey
In your eyes, but according to the law, currently, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Let their own guilt eat them. It isn't your problem to worry about.

Well, scientifically, they removed the life force from a living thing that contains its own unique DNA code, so I'm pretty sure that constitutes "killing." The only reason I didn't use "murder" is because it takes a court of law to pass a conviction of "murder" for that to be true, and since elective abortion is still legal (even though an argument could be made that abortion meets all of the required elements to charge someone with murder), I used the appropriate term.

If you meant that whoring is worse that killing--well, that's your own issue to deal with, and I won't change your mind.

As for you claiming that abortion isn't my problem to worry about, that's just ignorant. That's like saying someone down the street who murders another human shouldn't concern me. It's not that it puts fear into me--it's that there's a "moral dilema" happening that should be the concern of all in the society.

But that's just my opinion--if you choose not to worry about it, that's up to you, but apathy is a disease in this country, and I have a goal not to catch it.

Just an fyi for those who say people don't have multiple abortions (ie use as contraception)

link

NHS figures disclose 33 women have had at least nine abortions
Dozens of women have had at least nine abortions - with more than one in three terminations now carried out on those who have previously had the procedure, new figures disclose.

This proves that many do surely?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hey no problem.

I guess for me I do understand that there are significant economic factors as well as quality of life factors that shouldn't just be swept under the rug.

I just can't get past that I believe that there's a strong possibility life begins at conception. That's why I can't accept abortion except in situations where there has to be the choice of one life over another.

a reply to: johnb

When I was looking into it, I think the CDC numbers said that 6.6% were on their third.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey
In your eyes, but according to the law, currently, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Let their own guilt eat them. It isn't your problem to worry about.

Well, scientifically, they removed the life force from a living thing that contains its own unique DNA code, so I'm pretty sure that constitutes "killing." The only reason I didn't use "murder" is because it takes a court of law to pass a conviction of "murder" for that to be true, and since elective abortion is still legal (even though an argument could be made that abortion meets all of the required elements to charge someone with murder), I used the appropriate term.

If that is what you mean by killing, what is your definition of being alive? What separate distinction can we make about organic material about whether it is alive or dead? Amino acids are organic material. Are they alive? Can we kill them?

If you meant that whoring is worse that killing--well, that's your own issue to deal with, and I won't change your mind.

I didn't even use the word "whoring" once, so I don't know where you are coming from here. But, in any case to answer your question, I don't limit morality to something being more or less moral definitively. The way I see morality, is it is a sliding scale. There are times where killing isn't as immoral as we usually think about it and there are times where it is the most heinous thing we can imagine. History is littered with times where killing others is justified. Heck the bible has tons of times where that is the case. So to simply label "killing" as immoral and be done with it, is a simplistic way of looking at things.

As for you claiming that abortion isn't my problem to worry about, that's just ignorant. That's like saying someone down the street who murders another human shouldn't concern me. It's not that it puts fear into me--it's that there's a "moral dilema" happening that should be the concern of all in the society.

Again, morality is a sliding scale. Society determines its own morals, and anything can be justified at times or be considered awful at times. If a destitute father steals a loaf of bread to feed his family for the night from a bakery ready to throw that loaf out, would you consider the theft wrong?

But that's just my opinion--if you choose not to worry about it, that's up to you, but apathy is a disease in this country, and I have a goal not to catch it.

Apathy for abortion is a BIG difference than apathy for politics or apathy for war. Abortion is a social issue. It makes up our morality. It is just a politicized issue being used by manipulative politicians to distract us from real issues. This WHOLE debate fuels the apathy in America. It is a waste of time and attention and could be better spent in other, more pressing issues.

But in any case, I'm going to ask you a question I've asked others in this thread. If abortion were made illegal and those mothers were forced to come to term, would you be willing to take the hit on your taxes as those mothers now have to access more public assistance than ever to feed these children? I hope you aren't pro-life and anti-social programs at the same time, because you are just advocating a slow, tortuous childhood (or death by starvation if you got your way for both issues).

a reply to: windword

Yeah. I don't believe that we can make the choice as to whether someone's like will be worth living for them. If the parents don't want their disabled child they can give it up to the state.