A question for people who are pro-abortion

I want to preface this thread with a little background on my own opinions, as to avoid people making a broad assumption on my motives and/or agenda:

I am morally against abortion. I think if a woman is raped, involved in incest, or is in severe medical danger, she should absolutely be able to have an abortion. I find the idea that women with no self control and/or sense of responsibility think it's OK to kill a child simply because it doesn't fit into what they want. How anyone could defend that idea is beyond me. You made the choice to take the risk to get pregnant, it's your responsibility to deal with the possible outcome of that. I must also say I'm not religious, I'm not a republican, I'm not a conservative. Please set aside preconceived notions.

Now, I'm AM a realist. I realize making abortion illegal except for rape, incest, and medical issue would cause a new host of problem, such as (in no particular order):

1. Women making false rape claims in order to have an abortion.

2. Women going to "underground" abortionists, which could cause pain and suffering to the baby and/or the women, or even death to the woman

3. large numbers of unwanted, uncared for children. Not only is is bad for the children, growing up uncared for and unloved, but it's bad for society. Such children would have a higher chance of becoming adults with serious issues and cause great damage to society.

4. Increase in government intrusion into the lives of citizens.

Because of these factors, even though i find it absolutely horrible that a woman would be so irresponsible that the only solution to her problems is to abort the fetus, I feel that overall abortion SHOULD be legal, with some restrictions. That's basically where we are at right now in the US.

So now I've given you my opinion and reason for those opinions, I want to propose a few questions:

1. Many people claim that abortion is not killing a child, because the child does not exist until it is born. I take great issue with this point of view. I'm not one of those people that think 4-5 cells globbed together is a child, but if the fetus has arms, legs, toes, eyes, a nose, etc, it's a child.

Yet, a fetus with arms, legs, toes, eyes, a nose, etc can legally be aborted, even if the woman is in no medical danger, was not raped, and not a victim of incest. What is removed from the woman's body would be easily recognizable as a tiny human being.

So, for those of you that believe a child isn't a child until it's born, and that the human-shaped "item" removed from the woman's body is just a piece of trash, no different from clipping one's fingernails, cutting one's hair, scraping off a callous from one's feet, what sort of feelings would you have towards this "item"

What I mean by that, is:

Would you have any problem feeding this aborted fetus to a cat or dog?

Would you have any problem stomping this aborted fetus into tiny bits under the heel of your boot?

Would you have any problem throwing this aborted fetus into the air and shooting at it with a shotgun?

Would you have any problem with throwing this aborted fetus into a bonfire?

Would you have any problem with throwing this aborted fetus out the window of a moving car?

Do those questions sound gruesome to you? THEY SHOULD. That's the point. If you are going to say that a fetus is NOT a child, a baby, a human, and that it's merely a piece of trash to be discarded as such, then WHY would you have ANY emotional attachment to what happens to this fetus?

All of the horrible things I just mentioned should not effect you or arouse ANY emotion, right? Because it's no different than any other part of your body you remove and discard, like the previously mentioned fingernails, hair, callous/dead skin, pulled tooth, tonsils, etc.

I brought this up in another thread but it was not really responded to, and I didn't want to threadjack so that's why I started this thread. Do you understand the question? This question is NOT aimed at anyone who is against abortion, it's not aimed at anyone who only supports abortion for rape/incest/medical issue.

it's ONLY aimed at people who support the abortion of a fetus for simple convenience. Such as, "I'm not ready for a baby (but for some reason thought I was ready for sex) so I'll just throw this one away, I can make another later if I want" or "I got drunk one night and hooked up with a guy, and didn't even think to check if he was wearing a condom" or "I got lazy and forgot to take my birth control for a few days and got pregnant" So on and so fourth, any excuse women use to abort the fetus other than rape/incest/medical issue.

I would appreciate it if anyone responding could do so respectfully to other posters and avoid insults and/or attacks. I'm also not interested in pro-lifers coming in here and spouting religious dogma to back their opinions or attack pro-abortion folks. I'm genuinely interested in how a person can say that a fetus isn't a baby until it's born, yet still be emotionally attached to the fetus. Thanks for reading the thread and I'm eager to hear your opinions.

Bottom line:

It is not your, mine, or anyone else's business what other people do with their body.
It is especially not the right of the Govt. to have any say in the matter.

I didn't read your enormous wall of text, sorry. Managed to pick up on a few of the things you were saying; some of quite odd like "feeding a foetus to a cat or dog".

I'm not pro or anti abortion. I'm pro freedom. People should have the choice. Now, on to the question of whether or not an unborn child is a person or not.....

The vast majority (approx 88%) of abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy. At this stage the baby can't survive, develop or exist without the mother. It's attached to the mother and can't be independent of her so at this stage I say it's the mother's choice.

You speak as if everyone who gets an abortion is reckless with contraception, but only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control.

What about all the fertilized eggs at IVF centres that are routinely thrown away?

It's an excellent topic for discussion, but at the end of the day I don't believe Government should be allowed to say yes/no to this.

Originally posted by watchitburn
Bottom line:

It is not your, mine, or anyone else's business what other people do with their body.
It is especially not the right of the Govt. to have any say in the matter.

No, that's not the bottom line. That's not what's being discussed in this thread at all. I suspect you didn't even read the majority of my OP, because if you did, you'd realize your post isn't relevant.

The issue this thread is addressing, is when does a fetus become a child, a baby, it's own being.

I would never tell a woman what to do with HER body. The body of a baby is not HER body, it's the child's body. That child's body happens to be inside of the woman's body. That's like saying a woman should be able to beat a newborn baby because it's HER body. Why does she own the baby as her own body when it's inside her, but the second it leaves it becomes it's own being?

If it isn't its own being when still in the womb, why is there ANY emotional attachment to (what THEY consider) a useless, non-entity, worthless lump of flesh.

Which is why I am trying to figure out why there is emotional attachment to an aborted fetus, when (like you just said) it's HER body, meaning it's not a being, it's not a child, a baby, a human, it's just an unwanted hunk of flesh to be carelessly discarded like fingernails or clipped hair.

If you choose to post again I'd appreciate something relevant to the subject I'm discussing.

reply to post by James1982


Not everyone forms an emotional attachment to an unborn fetus. Do you think the people who's contraception failed would form this attachment?

60% of people who have abortions have already had at least one child prior. They just weigh up whether or not it's a good idea to have a/another baby and do what's best.

I will play devil's advocate a bit.

If it is a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, why is she forced to have a medical procedure to kill a full term fetus, when she could just have the baby and abandon it in a trash bin?

Why go through the joke of delivering the full term fetus backwards in order to snip it's spine with scissors, when a normal head-first delivery is safer for the woman?

It's magically transformed from fetus to baby when the head pops out.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
I didn't read your enormous wall of text, sorry. Managed to pick up on a few of the things you were saying; some of quite odd like "feeding a foetus to a cat or dog".

I'm not pro or anti abortion. I'm pro freedom. People should have the choice. Now, on to the question of whether or not an unborn child is a person or not.....

The vast majority (approx 88%) of abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy. At this stage the baby can't survive, develop or exist without the mother. It's attached to the mother and can't be independent of her so at this stage I say it's the mother's choice.

You speak as if everyone who gets an abortion is reckless with contraception, but only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control.

What about all the fertilized eggs at IVF centres that are routinely thrown away?

It's an excellent topic for discussion, but at the end of the day I don't believe Government should be allowed to say yes/no to this.

edit on 4-4-2013 by Thundersmurf because: (no reason given)

Why is it odd to talk about feeding an aborted fetus to a dog? It's not a being, it's not a child, it's not a human, it's nothing but unwanted and discarded cells from the woman's body, right? There should be nothing odd about it, if that's how you feel. And that's how you would have to feel in order to say it's the woman's body.

That's why I brought that up. I'm trying to figure out why and when people consider a fetus a being, its own entity. Once it becomes its own entity, the woman is NOT just controlling her own body, she is controlling the baby's body. She is in effect telling someone else what to do with THEIR body, the same exact thing pro-abortionists claim pro-lifers are doing. Do you see the hypocrisy?

As far as the fetus being a non-entity because it cannot survive without the mother, that is true of newborn babies. If you left a newborn baby with no care it would never survive on its own. It requires it's mothers nutrients and protection for quite some time after being born. If its reliance upon its mother is the definition of being its own entity or not, then very young babies are still considered part of the mother's body.

I did not mean to imply that all women that get abortions are irresponsible. Using condoms and or birth control make one more responsible, but you still know that there is a chance a pregnancy can result. If you are not ready to deal with the possible outcomes of your choices, that's being irresponsible.

I've used a condom nearly 100% of the time I've be involved with a woman, and even then I was still totally aware that there's a slight chance I could impregnate her. If that were to happen, I wouldn't run out on her, I wouldn't abandon my child. When I make the choice to have sex with a woman I also am making the choice to be responsible, and be present and supportive for both my child and my child's mother if she were to get pregnant and have the child.

I don't see why that same standard isn't applied to women, that if they have sex they are not only making the choice to be involved with that man, but that they are making the choice to support a child IF a child happens to result from that encounter.

Men are considered deadbeat dads if they abandon their children, yet women who abandon their child by having it aborted aren't stigmatized (well, aren't stigmatized by pro-abortion people)

This still isn't even the topic of the thread, it's specifically about when a group of cells becomes an entity, its own being, it's own person.

You ask about fertilized eggs, in my OP I stated that I do not believe a few cells grouped together is a person, so a fertilized egg would not be a person. I drew the line when a fetus has legs, arms, a nose, eyes, ears, etc. I realize it's a rather arbitrary line to draw, but that's what I want people to explain, what is that line where it becomes an entity and not just a few parasitical cells inside the woman.

Deciding when a fetus becomes it's own being is the most important aspect of the abortion debate IMHO and often very neglected. Because once you decide the fetus is it's own being, it then has rights, the right to not be killed and discarded. That is the point of this thread.

I do appreciate you putting more effort into your post, even if you didn't read the entire OP. I'm not a fan of the twitter mentality, when I want a discussion, I have a discussion, not little sound bytes and fly-by comments. Which means my posts will be long, if you aren't interested enough to read the whole post, then it isn't worth your (or my time) to respond in the first place. Just my opinion. I break my posts up into paragraphs, so it shouldn't be difficult to read, it just requires your interest enough to put the effort forward.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I will play devil's advocate a bit.

If it is a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, why is she forced to have a medical procedure to kill a full term fetus, when she could just have the baby and abandon it in a trash bin?

Why go through the joke of delivering the full term fetus backwards in order to snip it's spine with scissors, when a normal head-first delivery is safer for the woman?

It's magically transformed from fetus to baby when the head pops out.

Women are 14 times more likely to die during/after child birth. It's far safer to have an abortion.

Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born. That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.

Source

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by James1982

 

Not everyone forms an emotional attachment to an unborn fetus. Do you think the people who's contraception failed would form this attachment?

60% of people who have abortions have already had at least one child prior. They just weigh up whether or not it's a good idea to have a/another baby and do what's best.

Precisely why I asked those gruesome questions in my OP. If there is zero emotional attachment, all the things mentioned should invoke zero emotional response. There should be nothing disgusting, offensive, or bad about any of the acts I mentioned, as you don't consider an aborted fetus anything other than a a lump of unwanted cells, no different than fingernails or clipped hair.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
The vast majority (approx 88%) of abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy. At this stage the baby can't survive, develop or exist without the mother. It's attached to the mother and can't be independent of her so at this stage I say it's the mother's choice.

I like your approach here but you need to back up your statistics; which will be subjective, but at least something to anchor your numbers you are using.

You speak as if everyone who gets an abortion is reckless with contraception, but only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control.

Same as above.

What about all the fertilized eggs at IVF centres that are routinely thrown away?

If address to the OP, they already said that the initial formations of cellular matter is not of concern. They pretty much expressly stated their case if you bothered to read it; which you made apparent to not in your opening arguments (to long, didn't read is a piss-poor excuse in my opinion especially if you are going to reply to a thread...just my opinion though).

Originally posted by butcherguy
I will play devil's advocate a bit.

If it is a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, why is she forced to have a medical procedure to kill a full term fetus, when she could just have the baby and abandon it in a trash bin?

Why go through the joke of delivering the full term fetus backwards in order to snip it's spine with scissors, when a normal head-first delivery is safer for the woman?

It's magically transformed from fetus to baby when the head pops out.

I totally agree with your observation here... it's the exact double standard I'm trying to figure out. Since you say you're playing devil's advocate I assume you disagree with the sentiment, but I appreciate you contributing nonetheless!

reply to post by James1982


Yeah you raise some interesting points.

I didn't mean that the fetus only becomes a child once it can be self sufficient - if that were the case it wouldn't be a child for years. What I meant was that the fetus can't be seen as an independent entity as it's connected to the mother, getting absolutely everything to grow and develop, form her. Until that cord is cut, the women should have the right to say no.

It's cool that you would stick by your women and bring a child in to the world. But what if you had no money? No prospects? No future? Is it fair to bring a child in to that knowing that you couldn't support it?

My girlfriend fell pregnant once. We both talked and agreed that abortion was the best thing to do. Neither of us wanted a baby or were in any position to give it a good standard of life.

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by butcherguy
I will play devil's advocate a bit.

If it is a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, why is she forced to have a medical procedure to kill a full term fetus, when she could just have the baby and abandon it in a trash bin?

Why go through the joke of delivering the full term fetus backwards in order to snip it's spine with scissors, when a normal head-first delivery is safer for the woman?

It's magically transformed from fetus to baby when the head pops out.

I totally agree with your observation here... it's the exact double standard I'm trying to figure out. Since you say you're playing devil's advocate I assume you disagree with the sentiment, but I appreciate you contributing nonetheless!

Except that the observation is wrong and it's far safer to have an abortion than to actually give birth.

reply to post by James1982


You do not use as an example a baby to be born with severe birth defects. A situation I sadly have had to deal with recently.
1 through 4. Not going to happen under the current laws?
Second group
1 If the fetus (look it up) cannot survive by itself, is that life?

Third set:
Who talks of feeding this to pets?
Who talks of stomping fetuses?
Who talks of using aborted fetuses for target practice?
Or fuel for bonfire?
Or as garbage to toss from a car window.

You are trying to appeal to emotion without realising that these decisions do weigh heavy on the people involved.

The plain and simple is you give improbable situations, in which we all will shout NO, but do not allow the reality of this decision into your thoughts.
People do not elect to abort lightly (sure there might be a few who do), but this is a decision made between a woman and her Doc.

From what I've seen and learned. It is a benefit to mankind and society to have the option available.
Although I'm open to proof to the contrary.

double post. . . .

People like sex we are driven by it it's fun. Accidents happen and not everybody that gets pregnant is prepared to raise a child. I believe it's up to a women weather or not she want to bring a kid into this world. What people do in their own life is their business no one else's. If you believe it's against god then let that person deal with the consequensce after all didn't he give us free will? We are only responsible for our own actions in this world. Mind your own business.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by James1982

 

From what I've seen and learned. It is a benefit to mankind and society to have the option available.
Although I'm open to proof to the contrary.

Yeah and the fact that making it illegal would only force women to get illegal abortions, resulting in a big increase in the number of deaths during abortion.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Took me 2 seconds to google some stats. Everyone is free to do so, and not posting sources doesn't make something untrue.

The only reason I stopped reading the OP was because it was getting ridiculous ... "feeding fetus' to dogs"?. There's no place for extreme, loaded examples like that in a discussion.

Abortion like pretty much everything else is a coin with two sides. Legalisation might do a lot of good, although many people will start using in their favour. Same can be said about guns, surveillance, any law, which requires more control.

The world is too corrupted with money and personal gains, so that whatever law is taken, there will always be an idiot who would try to use it for the own sake.

Too many people would do anything for money - lieing, using others is becoming a trend, too many people see nothing wrong in lieing about something in order to gain extra profit or some other personal gain. Too many people would fu*k up somebody else´s life just to get a promotion. I have personally seen situations where one person tries to use everybody else, lies and steals the work of others, simply to gain promotion. Luckily, he was caught and got fired and would you imagine, the idiot tried to sue the company... as he thought he had done nothing wrong. His excuse, when I had a chat with him, was: "The world is like that, accept it"... Such people should be intolerated by the society, although instead often they are seen as examples of success...

I have nothing against equal rights, although in Sweden the system has reached a point, where women often simply lie about rape in order to earn... That is sad and pathetic. Some of my friends have told me, they are afraid of one-night-stands as they might be sued later on... Look at the Assange case. Happy night both sides, yet couple of days later the guy ends up at jail for raping...

I see that abortion should be legal in some cases, although people are so corrupt that they can not be trusted, so overally it would be better to not legalise it.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Took me 2 seconds to google some stats. Everyone is free to do so, and not posting sources doesn't make something untrue.

Laziness in my estimation. With that, I refute your "8%" statistics as recent ones using a "2 second" Google search show that number to be as high as 46% during the month of conceiving. That is why I say it would be a good idea to back up your statistics. Rather than people believing random nonsense, you help point them in the direction to back up your claims; in this case, are completely off.

46% percent of women who have abortion had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

Far cry from an 8%...

ETA: I agree to your second sentiment but also understand the usage of it. I think the questions and discussion could have gone without it or been better presented.