One Simple Question Makes Pro Choice Activists visibly uncomfortable

I'm currently 5 months pregnant. Pregnancy itself is long, arduous and uncomfortable as hell. But I'm doing it for the sake at the baby at the end of the journey. This pregnancy was planned. And right now the fetus and the pregnancy appear healthy.

That being said: Living in Texas, lets say I get bitten by a mosquito and contract the Zika virus. Let's say this causes the fetus to deteriorate to the point of the severe microcephaly we've all been seeing in the news (not sure if that's how the process works, so this is totally hypothetical). I would 100% without a doubt abort.

I am a single mom with 2 other kids. I'm on a limited income. Right now we're all fine and we'd continue to be fine with a HEALTHY addition. There is no way physically, financially or emotionally I could handle a severely deformed child. "Just give it up for adoption" you say? Sorry, but there's not exactly a long line of nice people just waiting to adopt a deformed child that's going to require a lifetime of round the clock care. And I'm not going to be responsible for bringing a child into this world just to give it away and have it be neglected or abused by someone else. Personally, I think the most humane thing- to the potential child, and to my family- would be to end it before it begins and try again.

That's MY prerogative. If you disagree, you're welcome to have as many healthy or deformed children as you like. But in the meantime don't try to tell me what decision I should make for myself when I'm the one that has to live with the consequences.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

To answer your question about the time frame: Legal, safe abortions should be available up until the time of birth.

No woman in her right mind would casually have an abortion after 20 weeks. The only reason I could even think of a woman seeking the abortion of a HEALTHY fetus after that point would be if 1. she just found out she's pregnant (yes, it's possible) 2. she's run into obstacles such as distance or payment for the procedure and is finally able to get it 3. some circumstances in her life just cropped up (abuse, poverty) that leads her to think keeping the baby wouldn't be feasible.

Otherwise, probably 99% of pregnancies terminated after 20 weeks are due to illness/deformities. It's a hard, heart wrenching decision for the women AND MEN involved. Don't be a jerk and add to their pain with your judgement.

a reply to: windword

Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying.

I know that accidents are not illegal...and I don't think abortion should be illegal either.

Do I think the government should stick its nose in the regulation of human reproduction? No, honestly I don't.
Do I think the government should stick its nose into the regulation of something as mundane as driving a vehicle? No, I don't think so....but do they? Yes, they absolutely do.

Regulation is something that happens everyday regardless of whether you want it to or not....like mentioned, they regulate what you can buy, what you can sell, how you can sell it, where you can sell it....they regulate what you can do in public....etc etc...the list is damn near endless.

If anybody could do anything with their body...then I could legally masturbate in public...it's MY body right? Wrong. That's simply not how the world works.

A2D

This is an interesting question, and I really couldn't specify a number of weeks when it becomes unacceptable to abort. However I have come across another interesting thought experiment that was much easier to answer:

If a building was collapsing, and you could only rescue either a newborn baby or an incubator full of developing human embryos, which would you rescue? It's a no-brainer for me. I would definitely rescue the baby.

I'm not saying it's okay to kill embryos, but an embryo is not the same as a baby in my mind.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

the fact that they just want to ignore the very valid health problems that aren't really not that rare is obvious when they try to convince people that oh if only we could get women to act responsibly sexually, there wouldn't be a need for abortions...
there's probably just as many men paying for abortions as there are women, for every child conceived, there's a man involved in the process, but you will never, ever hear about how if maybe the men would take on a little more responsibility, well, that might help also.
na, there's still plenty of men trying to avoid child support, plenty of husbands demanding sex from their wives...
well, the fact is that there are plenty of women who are heartbroken when they find out that they have to abort because of real health threats... and the constant attack on abortion, with all it's ugly stereotypes, without a mention of this fact, acting like they don't exist is a great diservice to these women!

a reply to: dawnstar

I have my own thoughts, but it should all be the woman's choice. However, after 24 wks, severe deformation of the baby or death to the mother should be the only reasons.

However, I know someone who was told her child had severe brain damage if born and she had the baby anyway and the child was perfectly fine.

I wouldn't do it, I would die for my child, however, I am pro-choice. I do not want to push my ethics on others, it is their decision and they will have to live with whatever they choose (whether it be a child or guilt) for the rest of their lives.

It is very hard to legislate that, yes.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Do I think the government should stick its nose into the regulation of something as mundane as driving a vehicle? No, I don't think so....but do they? Yes, they absolutely do.

Well, I do, and I'm glad they do.

If anybody could do anything with their body...then I could legally masturbate in public...it's MY body right? Wrong. That's simply not how the world works.

Right, that's not how it works, and it's not how it works with abortion either. Abortion, here in the US, is regulated under Roe v Wade, allowing states to regulate abortion to protect women's health, and after viability, to protect the life of the fetus.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Choice?? to kill a life that you helped create due to self interest? Unless for medical reasons I just cant condone it, call a spade a spade - its called murder not a lifestyle choice (self interest), try and obfuscate the real words up to feel better about it all shall we.

I've thought about this a long time.

If you find someone laying on the ground, how do you check to see if they are alive?

You check to see if they have a heartbeat.

It's illegal to intentionally stop someone's heart from beating. It's called murder.

Why would/should the rules change for someone who had a drunk night in a back seat someplace?

Establishing what fits the definition of a person when it comes to the abortion issue is a lot more tricky than most people realise. I would argue that the detection of a vital organ (such as a heart or brain) would be one of the determining factors against having an abortion. However, ultimately the decision should be up to the potential parents. If the mother is unable to provide financial support herself, she needs to consult the fathers desires in regard to the pregnancy.

Many people have a very simplistic view of the issue, thinking "well the mother has to carry the baby for 9 months so it's her decision, case closed" while forgetting about the financial/emotional support needed by the minor for about 18 years AFTER the birth.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

although I agree that any women who considers abortion should consult with the father as long as it's possible and safe to do so, in the end, the final decision should remain with the mother. it's her body that is being used (and quite frankly damaged) while she carries it to term. and in some cases, the final result can be death, no other person can force a person to sacrifice themself for another. nor should anyone be allowed to force a women to betray her own moral integrity. so no, the father should in no way force either onto the mother of a child he helped conceive. that's as if there is anyway to force either onto a women, which really, there isn't. and when men do start griping about this aspect of it, basically what they are saying is that since the women can choose to abort, then well, that should alleviate any and all responsibility the father should have to the child.
which might in be more just in some instances, but it would be abused in some also, and all the while would be placing a pretty heavy burden onto the taxpayers who are already providing a great deal of support to the children in this country.

My response would be, "I believe in a woman's right to choose, and that there are a variety of conceivable circumstances, situations, points during pregnancy, and reasons at which or for which that decision might be made. And that is none of my business, and I'm not the one the question should be addressed to."

Peace.

a reply to: KingKelson

Personally I'm both pro-choice and pro-life i.e. I believe in other's freedom to choose, but I also believe abortion is immoral and premeditated murder plain and simple. If I were the leader of a nation I'd outlaw abortion. I recall a "controversial" t-shirt last year worn by Kelsey Grammer that says it all imho i.e. "Would you feel different if they used a gun?" implying would pro-abortionists feel different if a gun was used to abort an unborn child?

a reply to: cameraobscura

I recall a "controversial" t-shirt last year worn by Kelsey Grammer that says it all imho i.e. "Would you feel different if they used a gun?" implying would pro-abortionists feel different if a gun was used to abort an unborn child?

I don't get it.

Most abortions happen around 12-15 weeks. What good would a gun be on such a tiny thing? Or, is Kesley Grammer insinuating the killing both the mother and the embryo/fetus with a gun, instead of abortion?

a reply to: windword


If it's okay that they regulate what women do with their body...what's next? How far can they push this "regulation" until it becomes "infringement" upon reproductive rights? If a state says "okay well, any abortion after 3 months is now illegal"...is that infringement or just regulation?

The state of Kansas, as far as I'm aware it hasn't been amended, passed anti-abortion legislature(HB 2253) in 2015 that not only says life begins at fertilization, but forbids abortion based on gender as well as bans PP from providing sex ed in schools. They have also banned the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure. They allow for late term abortion ONLY in cases that endanger the life of the mother.

A first conviction for violation results in a class A misdemeanor, a second violation results in a level 10 felony....

Are you glad the state regulates abortion in such a manner? Where do you draw the line between "infringement of rights" and "regulation"?


A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

If it's okay that they regulate what women do with their body...what's next?

Nobody regulates "what women do to their bodies", so to speak, any more than society regulates what is being deemed acceptable, i.e. public masturbation. What is regulated, by a SCOTUS ruling, is the health care system that offers medical abortions, and allowances to the states to protect, at their discretion, the unborn fetus once it hits viability.

If a state says "okay well, any abortion after 3 months is now illegal"....

The SCOTUS ruling, Roe v Wade, totally allows for medical advancement, and it's incorporated in its ruling that "abortion on demand" is at each state's discretion once the fetus realizes "viability". If medical science makes a break through that secures fetal viability at 6 weeks, so be it.

The state of Kansas, as far as I'm aware it hasn't been amended, passed anti-abortion legislature(HB 2253) in 2015 that not only says life begins at fertilization, but forbids abortion based on gender as well as bans PP from providing sex ed in schools.

It's only a matter of time until that law is ruled unconstitutional and repealed.

a reply to: windword

"Regulated freedom" is now the customary thing....see the exceptions for "free speech" to see what I mean...freedom of speech isn't exactly free, it's regulated. But, you never answered my main question...

Where do you draw the line between "regulation" and "infringement of rights"?

A2D

Pro choice means you choose and the reason is moot. Seems so many pro choice want to spin reasons as to why their decision is good but the reason means nothing in the end even if you choose to not have the baby 1 second before it is born.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Establishing what fits the definition of a person when it comes to the abortion issue is a lot more tricky than most people realise. I would argue that the detection of a vital organ (such as a heart or brain) would be one of the determining factors against having an abortion. However, ultimately the decision should be up to the potential parents. If the mother is unable to provide financial support herself, she needs to consult the fathers desires in regard to the pregnancy.

^^^^^ the underlined ^^^^^

I'd be interested in the statistics of how many are still around by the child's

first birthday

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: KingKelson
no chose, no pay
I believe the choice should be that of the woman.

So the fater has no say in the issue?

In that case child support needs to be outlawed also.

Can't have it both ways.