To all the pro-choicers... Why are you in support of abortion? Why should anyone have the right to decide to kill another human being that isn't threatening their life? Lets get a good discussion going...
There are many discussions going. You will find many answers by doing a search of this forum. ... a little advance research will help you discuss it beyond the basic level. For instance, no one I have ever known is "Pro-Abortion"....or supports abortion. There are Pro-Choicers who support and defend women's right to have an abortion if they CHOOSE. A fetus is not a person. It is human, it is NOT A human. A fetus does threaten a woman's life, every pregnancy carries the risk of death. From the moment a woman conceives her immune system is compromised , her blood pressure rises and her body starts to change. I'll show you a list of the effects of pregnancy and if all you get from it is "stretch marks" then you have no interest in discussing abortion. Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy: •exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) •altered appetite and senses of taste and smell •nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) •heartburn and indigestion •constipation •weight gain •dizziness and light-headedness •bloating, swelling, fluid retention •hemmorhoids •abdominal cramps •yeast infections •congested, bloody nose •acne and mild skin disorders •skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) •mild to severe backache and strain •increased headaches •difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping •increased urination and incontinence •bleeding gums •pica •breast pain and discharge •swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain •difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy •inability to take regular medications •shortness of breath •higher blood pressure •hair loss or increased facial/body hair •tendency to anemia •curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities •infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) •extreme pain on delivery •hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression •continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover) Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy: •stretch marks (worse in younger women) •loose skin •permanent weight gain or redistribution •abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness •pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) •changes to breasts •increased foot size •varicose veins •scarring from episiotomy or c-section •other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) •increased proclivity for hemmorhoids •loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) •higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's •newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Occasional complications and side effects: •complications of episiotomy •spousal/partner abuse •hyperemesis gravidarum •temporary and permanent injury to back •severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) •dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) •pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) •eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) •gestational diabetes •placenta previa •anemia (which can be life-threatening) •thrombocytopenic purpura •severe cramping •embolism (blood clots) •medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) •diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles •mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) •serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) •hormonal imbalance •ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) •broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") •hemorrhage and •numerous other complications of delivery •refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease •aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) •severe post-partum depression and psychosis •research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors •research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy •research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Less common (but serious) complications: •peripartum cardiomyopathy •cardiopulmonary arrest •magnesium toxicity •severe hypoxemia/acidosis •massive embolism •increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction •molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) •malignant arrhythmia •circulatory collapse •placental abruption •obstetric fistula More permanent side effects: •future infertility •permanent disability •death.
The real reason, if we get right down to it, is they believe people should be allowed to have all the fun and recreational sex they want without any consequences. They don't want to be tied down with responsibilities. The existence of a baby is just an inconvenient afterthought. And it's not because they don't believe it's a baby. Even if they knew for sure it was a baby, they would still support abortion.
So here's another of those "You pro-choicers are evil people who love killing babies....let's have a serious, rational, non-inflammatory dicussion of the issue and you can explain your position." OPs
Stupid question. I support the right of a woman to choose. To choose to give birth, to choose not to give birth. Why do you support men enslaving women? Do you just like slavery in general? Is it just women or do you also want to enslave other people? What are your grounds for feeling a group needs to be enslaved?
Except Joakim doesn't care about the MEN ....just the women. And how they "are only interested in satisfying their evil lusts....without accepting their rightful justice of becoming pregnant and staying that way to pay for their sins." You see, a lot of the misogynist male "pro-lifers"...when you dig?....you find that they consider pregnancy to be a PUNISHMENT for women....that women must endure. Which of course runs completely counter to their suppose "love and admiration and considering sacred" pregnancy.
That's just not true. Men should be held responsible for a pregnancy too, to the extent to which they can be accountable (obviously men are not the ones who gestate the fetus).
Because a fetus until birth is not an individual. It is a part of it's mother's body. The mother, who is an individual, should have control over her body including her reproductive system. That control ends at birth when the fetus(s) are born and themselves become individuals. Bodily sovereignty is at the core of any concept of freedom and liberty, and if that is usurped, things like mandatory health care laws or NSA spying are completely trivial matters that are above any criticisms about their infringement on a person's rights. Remember, both of those things are also done under the guise of "saving lives"(and can easily said to save more lives of individuals than anti-abortion laws ever have or will). If we live in a society where those things can be questioned, but a person's right over their own body can be taken by popular opinion, we live in a dysfunctional ultimately doomed society. And I'd prefer that not to be the case.
The fetus still has to come out, one way or another. Even if she gets an abortion her cervix is still going to have to pried open. It's not like abortion is a green meadow and rainbows escape from all the agonies of childbirth. Plus, like I've pointed out so many times before, if the woman has a right to have her fetus aborted, what right has she to choose not to have it aborted? The fetus is not the woman's body, after all. Maybe the State will have some prerogative to come in and order an abortion, after all the fetus's life is expendable. Is women's choice not to want to endure a pregnancy all that more compelling than a society's desire to control population growth? It becomes much harder to defend the choice of a woman not to have an abortion when the intrinsic value of the fetus's life is taken out of the equation. I thought we've been over this before. The fetus is not part of the woman's body. It is not her property. This basic posit is blatantly obvious with a little bit of logical analysis.
Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, otherwise, we'd join with the anti-choicers and help kill providing education and resources that have been PROVEN to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the need for abortion. Instead, we have to fight tooth-and-nail to get such resources made widely available everyone, so we all don't end up like a 3rd world state in the South that thinks it can just pray the sex away.
I'm for keeping federal meddling in the issue to a minimum, with legislation explicitly making exceptions for rape, incest, and imminent danger, in addition to a cap of some sort on the time frame for other cases (perhaps in the neighborhood of 12 weeks). From there, allow additional fine-tuning at either the state or municipal level. Let Kentucky ban it outright if they so desire, and let other states completely legalize it within the boundaries set by federal legislation. Those living in places where it's illegal can travel to a place where it isn't, then return home afterward. I'd be willing to wager that numerous charities and activist organizations would spring up to fund such trips for those who can't afford it. My personal view is that I'd be unable to give my blessing on anything done past the first signs of brain activity, and probably unable to do so under any non-extreme circumstances involving having a child myself, but it's not my business to control the choices of others when they don't affect me.
They could still be prosecuted if they were a resident of a locality where it was illegal, though granted it would be harder to gather evidence that the crime took place. This would take place under the legal theory that the fetus is still under the jurisdiction of the territory in which it was conceived or developed. Try to define brain activity, the fetus begins wiggling around as early as 6-7 weeks.
Yes, you were straightened out on this before but didn't learn the facts , or want to acknowledge them. IF the fetus isn't part of the woman then she should be able to have it removed.....why should anyone have to have a foreign object in their body? And , if it's not part of her it should be able to be removed from her body and survive...so women can have it removed with no harm to it, right????????? And, of course , you never answered my question ever, if it isn't her's then who does own it ? YOU? The government? WHO? Why can't you answer that?
I'm sorry, this is nonsensical. If a woman has the right to make a choice then she can make any available choice. That is, up until, the government intervenes and forces a decision upon her. Once the government uses its power, at your direction, she loses any ability to make a choice one way or the other. When you give to government the authority to make abortion illegal you also give to government the authority to make abortion REQUIRED. Now, your "medical" view of the fetus is, ridiculous to say the least. OK, the fetus is not part of the woman's body. Let me, for the sake of discussion, grant that. What then is the fetus. It uses the woman's body as a home, it attaches itself to the woman and absorbs nutrition while passing waste into the woman's body. Its presence has severe health effects on the woman up to and including death. The fetus is, in fact, a parasite. "Parasitism: an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures" So, if the fetus is not part of the woman's body it is then a parasite. Your words, not mine.
I've heard 8 but again, if it were in my hands, I'd be hard pressed to go through with at any stage. Which allows for a diversity of different strokes for different folks throughout the nation, as opposed to heavy federal meddling, which does not. If we can make it a purely municipal choice, even better. IMO until it begins to exhibit brain activity or respond to external stimuli, it isn't any different. I list the exceptions because even in a system allowing for regional choice, I believe the ability to abort in such situations should be protected. I plugged 12 weeks because it's my understanding that that's around the time that a fetus will begin reacting to stimuli. I'm not deadset on that being my barometer or cutoff, but I'm not buying viability as a reasonable measure either. There are conjoined twins who can go their entire lives without being independently viable. That doesn't mean that they aren't human beings. w00tw00t Greater regional autonomy. Ditto.
Do you think that states should be allowed to ban guns and voting totally too? What happens when you force women to travel to a place where it's not illegal? You place undue strain on the woman, increase cost, and end up terminating an older fetus, and the woman still may end up being arrested after all of that. That's not far off of most people's, even pro-choice folks, views on the matter. However, history has made us wary that once you let the anti-choicers get a "foot in the door," they won't stop there. We know they won't stop there. There are few topics that people don't support sensible limits to.
Fine, explain in your "pro-life America"....how laws against abortion... would be enforced AGAINST THE MEN WHO FERTILIZED THE EGG???
I'm for minimal federal regulation, but in situations such as those where there are federal constraints such as the second amendment, no. I am for states having the right to legislate on any issue that doesn't violate the framework of a minimalist federal government, and by extension, municipalities to have that right on issues which the state or fed remain neutral. It'd be pretty simple to add in a provision to the federal guidelines that such arrests and prosecutions would be forbidden. To the rest of it, my answer is ultimately "oh well".
Sure I do, but I'm guessing we hold different views on what those rights are. Care to expand? Deem it what you will. Personally, I'm all for women having the choice on whether or not to abort regardless of the cause, but you're losing me if you're telling me that three months isn't ample time to make an informed decision. Good point. Probably shouldn't allow women to abort fully developed geraniums, either. So by extension, should the fact that one conjoined twin is mortally dependent on another well into its adulthood be taken to mean that the 'dominant' twin should be allowed to have the other removed?
Agreed in principal, but in a situation where the nation is highly divided on the issue based on ethical concerns, I'm for letting a variety of different approaches spring up, and letting people flock to whichever approach appeals to them. Because even in those areas with more hardline approaches, I think things like that are reasonable exemptions. In cases where a rape victim was imprisoned or otherwise forcibly made unable to act in time, I'm not sure where I'd stand. I have little sympathy for a consensually sexually active woman who fails to take reasonable steps to determine whether or not she's gotten pregnant for months on end. In cases where the subordinate twin poses no actual threat, you believe the dominant twin should be able to effectively murder a sentient, intellectually autonomous human being? If so I'll give you due credit for at least being consistent, but it means we have a fundamental disagreement here. It only has anything to do with abortion if you are using an organism's ability to survive independently of another organism as your barometer for a worthwhile life.
Why say no to state bans on firearms and voting but yes on something that violates rights declared, by the Supreme Court as protected by the Constitution? Sorry, but the "leave it up to the states" shouldn't be considered because there is very little protection against situations like this. It would be simpler to just keep it legal as it is. [/quote] By extension of that logic, then states should be able to ban firearms. After all, the people living there can just go to another state where they are legal if they want to fire their weapons. Right?
