Now what a story this is! ..what a doctor said infront of an abortion

First things first, to make it clear, I am pro choice. I think there are many arguments for both sides of the issue but there has been one that pops up constantly that I just don't quite understand.

The whole "it's their body argument." It just doesn't hold water with me. Yes it's their body... But what's inside of them isn't. That's someone else's body so how is it their choice to terminate it even if it is growing inside of them.

Think of it this way. Say you have a set of siamese twins named Sara and Mary conjoined at the hip. Sara wants to undergo a surgery that will seperate her and allow her to live a more normal life, but it will kill her conjoined sister Mary.

Should Sara be allowed to undergo the surgery? It's HER body.

Of course not (at least I hope that's the answer most of you think of). Now how is this different?

Again I am pro choice I just wanted get some feedback about an argument that makes no sense to me.

When there are no orphanages full of unwanted children or foster homes where children are abused and mistreated because they all have good homes then you will have a valid reason to be against abortion...

If there is an unwanted child brought into this world its going into an orphanage or a foster home and while there may be allot of great ones there are much more bad ones and most of the kids grow up with some types of issues...

On top of that when you have drug addicts or alcoholics who cant have abortions but will do drugs and alcohol during pregnancy just to have deformed kids that becomes a burden on the state and has no quality of life, why would you wish that on anyone..

Most women who have abortions its the hardest thing they have ever done and they think long and hard about it and they usually have a pretty good reason for doing it, most people aren't just like hey I think I will get an abortion today I have nothing better to do and I don't want to get fat from this kid...

But I guess rape victims, children, drug addicts, mental patients, ect should just have the children and whatever happens to them who cares right?

Why don't all of the anti-abortion people get together and start a fund that helps pay for these kids who don't get aborted then maybe some of the people will have the financial help they need to have the kid... When you do that and give these people a choice then feel free to spout the anti-abortion nonsense to them all you want..

Why don't you boycot china they kill babies there even after they are born I don't see anyone crying about that...

Originally posted by swoopaloop
an unborn fetus. It's alive, but is it conscious and aware that its alive? If I had to say so I would guess that it's consciousness is similar to that of an ant. Have you killed an ant before? Yes. You're a hypocrite.

You share the inconsistent belief of millions of Americans. Why do I say inconsistent? Because if you are driving a car at night, and you see what looks like possibly either a heap of clothes or a homeless person laying in the street, people will 100% of the time swerve to avoid it, because howbeit unlikely it very well may be a person. Now we have individuals speculating whether or not the child is conscious. Since there is no way to prove it scientifically, why do pro choicers risk killing a possible person? No scientist admits to knowing for sure that the child is not aware

Originally posted by Lorienth
First things first, to make it clear, I am pro choice. I think there are many arguments for both sides of the issue but there has been one that pops up constantly that I just don't quite understand.

The whole "it's their body argument." It just doesn't hold water with me. Yes it's their body... But what's inside of them isn't. That's someone else's body so how is it their choice to terminate it even if it is growing inside of them.

Think of it this way. Say you have a set of siamese twins named Sara and Mary conjoined at the hip. Sara wants to undergo a surgery that will seperate her and allow her to live a more normal life, but it will kill her conjoined sister Mary.

Should Sara be allowed to undergo the surgery? It's HER body.

Of course not (at least I hope that's the answer most of you think of). Now how is this different?

Again I am pro choice I just wanted get some feedback about an argument that makes no sense to me.

Your story does not work because Sara and Mary are able to make decisions based on facts, a fetus inside of a person cannot make decisions therefore it relies on the mother to make decisions for it and it that person decides its best for their life and the baby to abort then that is their decision no one else.

Originally posted by Natame
a womans body is hers and hers alone.

But when pregnant it isn't, is it?

I mean objectively, when you're pregnant your body isn't yours and yours alone. No, your body is yours and your unborn babies. And I think it's disgusting how so many women use the guise of feminism to justify their own irresponsibility and moral depravity. A baby doesn't choose to be born inside you, I'm sure if it could be developed in a pod outside of your stomach it would happily do so, but it has no choice because of your irresponsibility.

Maybe don't have unprotected sex if you don't want a child - There's an idea! Of course, it works both ways, but ultimately the greater responsibility is on YOU. You cannot keep hiding behind this womans body feminist clap trap.

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater

Originally posted by Lorienth
First things first, to make it clear, I am pro choice. I think there are many arguments for both sides of the issue but there has been one that pops up constantly that I just don't quite understand.

The whole "it's their body argument." It just doesn't hold water with me. Yes it's their body... But what's inside of them isn't. That's someone else's body so how is it their choice to terminate it even if it is growing inside of them.

Think of it this way. Say you have a set of siamese twins named Sara and Mary conjoined at the hip. Sara wants to undergo a surgery that will seperate her and allow her to live a more normal life, but it will kill her conjoined sister Mary.

Should Sara be allowed to undergo the surgery? It's HER body.

Of course not (at least I hope that's the answer most of you think of). Now how is this different?

Again I am pro choice I just wanted get some feedback about an argument that makes no sense to me.

Your story does not work because Sara and Mary are able to make decisions based on facts, a fetus inside of a person cannot make decisions therefore it relies on the mother to make decisions for it and it that person decides its best for their life and the baby to abort then that is their decision no one else.

Ok I can understand that. So let's change the scenerio slightly. Let's say Mary is also mentally handicapped to the extent that she can't decide what is best for her. Should she be killed then?

Originally posted by Lorienth

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater

Originally posted by Lorienth
First things first, to make it clear, I am pro choice. I think there are many arguments for both sides of the issue but there has been one that pops up constantly that I just don't quite understand.

The whole "it's their body argument." It just doesn't hold water with me. Yes it's their body... But what's inside of them isn't. That's someone else's body so how is it their choice to terminate it even if it is growing inside of them.

Think of it this way. Say you have a set of siamese twins named Sara and Mary conjoined at the hip. Sara wants to undergo a surgery that will seperate her and allow her to live a more normal life, but it will kill her conjoined sister Mary.

Should Sara be allowed to undergo the surgery? It's HER body.

Of course not (at least I hope that's the answer most of you think of). Now how is this different?

Again I am pro choice I just wanted get some feedback about an argument that makes no sense to me.

Your story does not work because Sara and Mary are able to make decisions based on facts, a fetus inside of a person cannot make decisions therefore it relies on the mother to make decisions for it and it that person decides its best for their life and the baby to abort then that is their decision no one else.

Ok I can understand that. So let's change the scenerio slightly. Let's say Mary is also mentally handicapped to the extent that she can't decide what is best for her. Should she be killed then?

If one of the 2 is mentally handicapped and cannot make decisions for herself then it would be up to the sister/doctor/parents on what is best for them since obviously she cannot decide for herself... The non mental girl would be taking the same risk of death... So again since she also cannot make decisions for herself like a fetus cannot then it is up to the people around her to make the best decision for her...

Originally posted by Super64PR
Does this mean, that when people practice safe sex for example... I kill millions of 'half' babies?

Until the 'baby' is more than organised cells, I don't believe it constitutes as a full human lifeform. When you wash your face, you're killing millions of germs. Those too are only organised cells. But you don't worry about that I'm sure.

When you get a cold and your body fights off the germs, your body is killing millions of germ cells and yet I'm sure you feel good once you've gotten over a cold.

You'll probably say, that the germs cannot grow into a sentient lifeform though. That's okay though, let use this example.

Are you vegetarian? If not, then you don't mind having sentient, self-aware animals being killed so you can eat. If you are vegetarian, then you probably don't think like this when you kill a wasp or a other insects.

Ultimately, regardless of your beliefs... we're all hypocrites at some point along the line, so we just have to deal with it.

edit on 9-11-2011 by Super64PR because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2011 by Super64PR because: (no reason given)

With this argument you just laid out is moot!!!!! Heck if its ok to kill kids then why isn't it ok just to kill adult people?

Simply put. I understand the mindset of "pro-choice", and partly where they come from. I also will give some ground to pro-choice in that I don't see too much of a factual/moral issue with early abortions. But late-term abortions...are absolutely disgusting and yes the fetus is a developed, viable, lower-boundary sentient human being. I don't care if it's your body; if you believe in sovereignty and the sanctity of life you should have a real moral issue with killing a developed fetus. Blurring the line with terminology like "fetus" not "human, or calling it nothing more than a lump of cells comparable to a tumor, is an intellectual and logical disgrace, not to mention morally abominable.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
Eggs and Sperm are not fertilized. When they meet, the egg is fertilized and life (growth, expansion, evolution) begins. Thats why abortions are considered killing.

It's funny how the same people, who consider abortions as killing, are perfectly fine killing deer and other wildlife...

guess what? That deer was made with eggs and sperm as well.

As Dostoevsky said, "If childbirth is a miracle, then flies being born are a miracle as well."

Deer and other wild life are considered foodstuff, human babies are not. Do you run to the supermarket and buy a baby to throw onto the barbecue or to boil in a pot of beans? No you do not, the comparison is not the same by any means. Do you see any culture in the world eating babies? No you do not and there is a reason for that.

We were created by God as the pinnacle of his creation, we were made to be over the animals and beasts of the earth and to govern over them. Originally we had not been made to eat meat but that is an entirely new thread.

Yes even a fly is a miracle. All of life is a miracle. Why is all of life a miracle? Can you create life on your own using substances completely made by you that did not already exist? No you can't.

Originally posted by Raelsatu
Simply put. I understand the mindset of "pro-choice", and partly where they come from. I also will give some ground to pro-choice in that I don't see too much of a factual/moral issue with early abortions. But late-term abortions...

It's because we don't want the government to decide what we can and can't do...
It's funny how most of the Tea Partiers are pro-life....yet their main message is that the government should stay out of our business.
Hypocrites...the truth is they just want to use the government for their own agenda. It's not about the size of government at all.


There are very few supporters of late term abortions.

reply to post by Lionhearte


Could a fetus survive without being attached to the mother as it grows? No. So therefore this "growth" lives off the woman until it can live on it's own (even if it can't fend for itself when it's born). Really I would therefore consider a fetus more like an advanced form of parasite. I don't really think (I can't prove it I'm sure someone else could prove) that a fetus is really self aware or capable of any complex thought or learning. All seeds are capable of life just as the flower analogy was used earlier but that doesn't mean that when I use a condom I feel bad. A fetus is not a baby. It is a potential baby. Stifling potential may leave a bad taste in your mouth but hey....Hitler was once a fetus too. History and in general life is defined by opportunities. Both the opportunities we miss and the ones we take advantage of. Pro-lifers say poor fetus, but really I don't think it's anyone's business but the parents until that child is born and even then it's like a 60/40 split between a couple because well obviously the fetus never grows in the man so the woman has more say in this circumstance.

I once saw a news story about a Russian guy with fir tree growing in his lung...in fact here is a link: Fir Tree

Now this man had a life form growing inside him. Granted it wasn't human. It could not have lived without using him as a host or some other substrate. Either way it was removed because the man would obviously be better off without a tree growing in his lung. My point is, if no life form is more important then another, then this man selfishly murdered a Fir tree so that his life would be better. This might be comparing apples to oranges in many ways but in many other ways it's very similar. My point being I don't consider a potential mother a bad person because she wants her life to be better or different from how it would be if she allowed her fetus to persist any more then I consider this guy a bad person for killing this tree. Granted the tree threatened the mans life in way that a mother's life is not necessarily threatened; the principal is the same. The host dictates the fate of the parasite even if the parasite is a yet to be a born human. That's my view on it. I'm pro-choice...

Although to be fair I'm also sort of pro-abortion. That's a completely different topic in some ways but because I know I'll get flak for this statement I'm going to go ahead and explain it. There are around 7 billion people on the planet. Many of whom I don't believe should reproduce anyway...but even if they should reproduce for the betterment of mankind or because their genes are superior their are so many people on the earth I honestly believe we can not maintain our environment or standard of living. We simply can't produce the resources necessary for an ever increasing population. So...in my view...I don't care who gets an abortion as long as it's within a certain time frame before the fetus is born. I like so many people in this thread however am also a hypocrite in that I wish to one day have children of my own even though I'm probably not a great deal more spectacular then anyone else. I like nearly all humans wish to pass on my genes just as much as the next human. Perhaps more so. Of course if I have children it only contributes to the problem but I suppose that the selfish part of me that wishes to leave something on the world even if it's just my genes and family lineage dictates what I will do even if my brain knows that its hypocritical and in some ways even wrong. I'll leave this thread to implode as all topics of this caliber inevitably do. Even though I rambled a bit. I think I said nearly everything I wanted to say. Best of luck thread.

how can some of you compare a human being to an ant or to bacteria on your face. the fact is you're denying a person the right to be born.

nobody can deny that. a woman may have a right to her body, but not a right to deny someone life.

which is what abortion is. killing a human being in it's most vulnerable stage.

people are to narrow minded to see the whole picture of a human life.

you where created the day you were conceived. and once you were conceived you begin to grow. it you weren't alive at that stage then you wouldn't grow inside your mothers womb.

that is the day you were born. the day the spark of life was ignited. an independent action that a woman has no control of once the spark is lit.

she can't do anything to stop it. that is how strong the power and will to live is and to be born.

the only way to end life is to kill it. death is the absence of life.

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Natame
a womans body is hers and hers alone.

A baby doesn't choose to be born inside you, I'm sure if it could be developed in a pod outside of your stomach it would happily do so, but it has no choice because of your irresponsibility.

No...a FETUS doesn't CHOOSE anything because it's incapable of choice.

reply to post by Super64PR


lol. that is so true

reply to post by heineken


This isn't a story. This is a poorly fabricated denial of reality by a person who has nothing better to do than try to prove their point out to others, and fail horribly in doing so.

reply to post by Ghost375


Not sure exactly what you're trying to say. I also agree that the government should not interfere with the personal choices of any individual. The difference is a fetus is debatabley a human being and ending that life, especially after a certain point, raises many moral issues outside the 'personal liberty' spectrum. For many libertarians there's a double standard in that you want to protect the utmost sovereignty of every life, but fetuses don't count because they haven't been born yet? For example the law states that if you [in]voluntarily harm or kill a fetus at any point while it's in the mothers womb, you can be prosecute for homicide. But if the mother wants to? It's perfectly moral now?

The law should be left to the local/state level and let the people decide how they want to handle it. E.g. early abortions are relatively acceptable, but post-viability/developed fetus abortions are banned in the exceptions that the mothers' life is in danger.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Deer and other wild life are considered foodstuff, human babies are not. Do you run to the supermarket and buy a baby to throw onto the barbecue or to boil in a pot of beans? No you do not, the comparison is not the same by any means. Do you see any culture in the world eating babies? No you do not and there is a reason for that. We were created by God as the pinnacle of his creation, we were made to be over the animals and beasts of the earth and to govern over them. Originally we had not been made to eat meat but that is an entirely new thread. Yes even a fly is a miracle. All of life is a miracle. Why is all of life a miracle? Can you create life on your own using substances completely made by you that did not already exist? No you can't.

Oh, so it's okay to kill life when you have a reason...
I guess "I need to kill this fetus, because I can't feed it and it's going to have a bad life," isn't a good enough reason?

Funny, the same people who are pro-life, are also anti-welfare....
How do they expect that to work out?

And don't say you have to eat meat...because you don't have to eat meat.

Leave God out of the argument. It's weak.

Originally posted by Natame
Ok im sorry but i guess i have issues with this... a womans body is hers and hers alone. I have had three wonderful children and i know i would never have aborted them. But i also believe a woman has the right to choose her fate. I do understand the fact that a baby once conceived is alive. But knowing that there is alot of different reasons that a woman could or would want to terminate that said pregnancy is her CHOICE. I would never dictate to anyone that wanted to have a tattoo or plastic surgery, to have a cancer removed or life threatening surgery..Your body belongs to you... only you have that choice to do what you will with it.

If a woman has the right to choose her fate, as you say and I agree, then it is also reasonable to expect that the woman take responsibility as well and PREVENT the pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL!

Why do people think something bad will happen if abortion is banned? It's not like we're crowded on Earth or can't come up with ways to easily remove diapers if it gets crazy. But anyways, having an abortion is simply killing. Like seriously, finally made it and is now on its way to becoming a full-grown human but wait too bad, the mother doesn't want that for you. You get to die just like that mainly because you don't have the ability to speak yet.