The myth that pro-life views oppress 'women'

How can it be word play when the definition is there for all to see, unlike pro-lifers who have to make an assumption for murder to fit, I do not need to do that.

and that is the crux of the issue what different people think is morally acceptable or not, yet it is the pro-lifers who are the ones promoting that their moral judgement should be the one to rule over all others to the extent of attempting to use the legal system to do so .. that is what I stand against. I have no issue with a person having a moral problem with abortion .. however, that moral problem is theirs alone, it does not and should not be used as an excuse to force others to do as pro-lifers desire.

no one is trying to force pro-lifers to have an abortion, yet they are trying to force others not to have one. There is a reason we are called pro-choice and it has nothing to do with prompting abortion, it is about promoting the individual persons right to decide who, what, where and when their body is used by another.

 

It's not about forcing pro-lifers to get an abortion, it's about the disregard of the life of the child being killed. I understand the pro-choice sentiment, but only on certain grounds. Most of us agree that a murderer is not granted legitimacy because his idea of liberty and happiness is the slaying of other people. He may have strong moral justifications or thorough reasoning, but we do not allow him to do it. I don't think there is much difference when concerning the child- whatever stage of life it is in. I suppose my wording was poor since I said the pro-choicers force their opinions on the opposite side, but rather, they seem to sacrifice the life of the child for the sake of the mother. As I said before, I find no choice in this matter a good one except under certain circumstances.

 

What circumstances? Under what circumstances would you condone """ killing a child""?

 

The choicers in this forum can think of plenty of circumstances, and plenty of reasons, if indeed it is a child, though of course they insist it's not. That's basically their backup plan in case – God forbid – Lifers do manage to convince someone it is indeed a baby.

I could go on and on listing all the crazy theories choicers have concocted trying to prove it would be okay to kill a baby taking up space and sucking up valuable nutrients inside a woman's body.

So a question: If pro-choicers are so sure it's not a baby and nobody in their right mind would believe it's a baby, why are they trying so hard to prove it would still be okay to abort, if there did happen to be a baby in there?

 

That's not true. Fugazi claims it would be self-defense. MegadethFan believes abortion is absolutely needed as a form of population control, and questions why killing a human being is wrong in all cases. We've even had some heartless Conservatives come in and say they don't want any of their hard-earned taxpayer money going to raise babies nobody wants, even though they flat out admit there's a baby in there. These are just a FEW examples.

Pasithea has flat out stated that a woman has the right to abort at any time during the pregnancy, even at 24 weeks, if hypothetically a woman waited that long for some reason.

 

That is an assumption without fact, you have no idea as to the reasoning behind every abortion.

The reasoning used is no different to the reasoning that supports any self-defence killing, there is nothing special added to it just for the sake of abortion. It is exactly the same right, you or any other person has.

- - - Updated - - -

you had the chance to debate this and ran away, so why should anyone take a blind bit of notice of anything you say?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't just claim it I have proven it.

 

NONE of them said "baby" because there is no "baby" involved in an abortion, it's a fetus.

 

I ask again.........What circumstances?

 

If the mother was raped, I could understand if she wanted an abortion. Circumstances like these, I could see the reasoning behind and abortion.

 

So you condone "killing a child" because of what someone else did ?

 

I don't make an argument for every situation. There are situations where I would understand someone getting an abortion. My criticism comes from abortions that are used as a casual eraser for mistakes, like too much to drink last night, or something. I disapprove in that context, but I still would not force the woman to bear the child.

There are situations where I feel the emotional, mental, and/or emotional health of the woman is endangered by going through with a pregnancy an under such conditions I give my complete understanding. However, self-defense does not cover every reason for abortion.

 

Not so simple as that. Imagine having to bear the child of your rapist. For you, it may simply be a sacrosanct life, but for the woman, it may be a living reminder of her rape and her rapist. It may even be more complicated than that. I'm looking at it from the outside-in. The conviction of some mothers is so strong that they would kill such a child after it had been born. It is a monstrous act, in and of itself, and at the same time it is completely understandable to me. I'd only object if I was willing to take care of the child, myself.

 

IF the fetus is declared a "person" then yes, self defense would cover every reason for abortion.


And who are you to judge the emotional, mental, or physical health of someone else?

 

The life of the fetus is not "sacrosanct"" to me (????)


No, if you call abortion "murdering a child" then you believe that abortion due to rape is "murdering a child" which you then condone.

So murder is OK by you if you think it's OK........does every woman in the world who wants an abortion have to trot her reasons past you????


Here's your confusion: The fetus is NOT a child. No child is killed in abortion.

An abortion due to rape is exactly the same as an abortion for any other reason.

Pregnancy for some women can be traumatic whether it was from rape or not.

No woman needs approval or permission to do what she wants with her body...The End.

 

Who are you to claim self-defense is a valid reason in any situation concerning abortion?

These are my opinions. I don't judge anyone because I don't hold anyone to account. I disapprove of some cases of abortion, but I also disapprove of forcing the woman to birth the baby. My opinion on the matter is generally that neither side of the argument comes out clean. As you said...the baby is a person. Maybe not fully formed...but a person in it's earliest stages.

 

Repeat after me....FOX DID NOT SAY THE BABY IS A PERSON.

Now, if you repeated that you'd be telling the TRUTH.

I said IF IF IF the fetus is declared a "person" which would take a LAW to do then it would have all the restrictions of personhood and would not have the right to harm another(the woman it's in) without their consent. The woman would have the right to self defense and be able to kill the fetus in ANY abortion..


Right now the fetus is NOT a "person". Got it?


And you are trying to get away from answering why YOU think abortion is murdering a baby but it's OK sometimes..... it's either NOT "murdering a baby" or it is and can't be condoned at any time....

 

Generally, yes, I have my opinions on when killing someone is excusable or not. On the case of abortion, I do not hold anyone to my opinions. I consider either path a violation of either the mother or the child. But life has hard decisions...

This technicality is not enough. The mother is fully aware that what is growing inside her is a child. Not a thing...a child. And she wishes to kill it in order to avoid it for whatever reason. You can call it a bean, a seed, protoplasm, or whatever. It is unlikely that you will be able to find the woman who can say by getting an abortion she is not avoiding giving birth to a child.

I find it disturbing that people are being taught to view the child as not-a-child. You know very well it's a developing child. When you kill it, you are killing life at it's earliest stages. I still do not believe the woman should be forced, but neither should her actions be diminished or the child dehumanized.

Society tends to moderate personal behavior when it is harmful or lethal to another person. Society is also understanding of situations where a person harms or kills another out of self-defense when the action is absolutely necessary. However, all abortions are not self-defense in the sense that a person is avoiding serious bodily harm. Yes, some pregnancies can put the female at risk of serious health issues. This is another reason that is perfectly understandable to me. What I disapprove of is something akin to the woman who gets an abortion to snuff out the baby she got from the one-nighter. I would disapprove, but I wouldn't force her to have the baby either.

 

and still you do not know the reasoning behind the abortion, the assumption being made is that a woman who has casual sex while drunk is getting an abortion as a "casual eraser" for the mistake . .you cannot possibly know her reasons.

It most certainly does, unless you would like to explain in detail where it does not apply?

 

Bolding above, mine.
So it's HOW the woman got pregnant that concerns you....not surprised, with ALL Anti-Choicers it usually comes down to punishing the woman for having sex you don't approve of.


YES, ALL pregnancies involve bodily harm to women . If you can disprove the following, do so. And if someone did all those things to you you would have every right to kill them in self defense ....why do you think a woman loses her right to self defense because she's pregnant... and try to remember that self defense would only be used IF a fetus is declared BY LAW to be a person.:


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.








AND being called a fetus isn't just a technicality, it's what it is, it is NOT a child or a baby....

 

Are you reading what I write? I did not say all abortions were the result of women having casual sex, though sex from which you can have a baby does not really strike me as "casual". It's a pretty serious life decision. However, I said I disapprove. I'm sure you have your own disapprovals...

When the baby does not threaten considerable bodily harm and/or death. Yes, there is considerable pain and some damage to the body when a baby is born, but this- I'm sure most women who had children might agree- isn't necessarily life-threatening in itself and the damage is just a part of life. In some people, this damage may be life threatening, and it's in instances like that which I say I fully understand- regardless of whether the baby resulted from a one night fling or whatever.

To be clear, I also do not put the faults of abortion on the woman alone. A considerable number of abortion requests come from mutual understandings arrived at by the couple or ...relations...so it is as much a male decision as it is a female. At times, it is even forced on the woman by the male, or vice-versa. I say this because it feels you might be confusing this with an attack on women's rights. While no one is perfect, I do not think abstaining from sex that could result in a pregnancy that one casually decides to abort is damaging to the women. Sounds like a show of personal strength and integrity. You restrain yourself, deny the male lover his own recklessness, and preserve the value and integrity we place on life. Women shouldn't fall down the same pit of depravity men do when seeking casual sex with indifference to the consequences, especailly now when you don't have to be forced.

You make pregnancy sound evil and massively destructive, but holistically, while the pain and burden is considerable, in most cases, the damage is not life threatening or very severe at all. And besides, not all women go through the full spectrum of problems you listed above. For some people, preganancy is relatively easy. For some, it is more difficult. In no case have I made a judgement as to whose pregnancy was life-threatening or not and I have explained that in pregnancies that do result in complications, abortion is understandable.

My opinion is that some abortions are arrived at recklessly. I find it immoral, and a sign of a lack of character. This also includes the male who is also responsible for the baby as well. I understand the concept of freedom, but like your children, if you have any, total freedom can often result in harm to others, harm to oneself, and a severe lack of personal integrity. Which is why we ideally would teach discipline...

 

NO, I do not make pregnancy sound evil and massively destructive, I posted the FACTS of what pregnancy does entail and may entail.

YOU read into it "evil ". And it can be "massively destructive if the woman dies.....I call that massively destructive.

No, ALL women do not go through the full spectrum of problems as you SHOULD have been able to see from the headings:


""Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy""

"" Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy""


"""Occasional complications and side effects""

""Less common (but serious) complications""



And YOU have no crystal ball to be able to tell a woman just what her pregnancy holds in store for her but ALL pregnancies cause some permanent harm and you can't prove otherwise. ALL pregnancies have the potential to be life threatening but to say women can only get an abortion if their life is threatened, ignoring the multitude of other problems, is just plain CRUEL.


In your opinion "abortions are arrived at recklessly" ? EXPLAIN how you can read every woman's mind and can tell how she arrived at the decision to have an abortion??


You: " I find it immoral, and a sign of a lack of character"

So WHAT!!!

YOU don't rule the world..... fine, sit and mumble to yourself about all those immoral , reckless, women who have no character ( 1 in 4 women) but leave their rights alone...



YOU post: """ total freedom can often result in harm to others, harm to oneself, and a severe lack of personal integrity. Which is why we ideally would teach discipline... """

Women don't want total freedom, they want the rights everyone else has.

And YOU teach discipline? Why you? Is your life perfectly "disciplined"? Yes, if ALL humans had been perfectly disciplined since they came into existence wouldn't we have a lovely world....you seem to concentrate on just one group of humans having to have discipline....


I outed you already...no matter how Anti-choicers start it always boils down in the end to "Those undisciplined , immoral, evil women must be punished for having sex"

ALWAYS.....

 

I am not stating you are saying all, I am responding to what you wrote - My criticism comes from abortions that are used as a casual eraser for mistakes, like too much to drink last night, - whether the woman had too much to drink or not is irrelevant to what could be her reasons to have an abortion ergo you simply do not know or cannot know the reasons.

Pregnancy is already seen as a serious injury in some cases and at least two states list it as so in their laws.

A typical pregnancy causes the following;

1. A 400% increase in hormonal levels
2. A 15% increase in blood pressure
3. A new organ being grown
4. Suppression of local immunity
5. Re-routing of the circulatory system

If any of the above were to happen to you due to another person you would be within your rights to respond with deadly-force which can be used in other situations apart from imminent threat to life ie serious injury and loss of liberty.

no woman should be forced to have an abortion or forced to give birth, by making abortion illegal the state would be forcing her to give birth against her consent .. that is removing rights, and while the ideology of abstinence may look like the answer the reality is that people will simply not abstain, they never have throughout history.

 

People need to stop sticking their noses into everyone else's business. It's contrivances like "pro-life" that take rights away, like my right to die with dignity - since the state says I can't do that.

Once people realize there is value in liberty, they will stop pushing this nonsense.

 

Are you really trying to compare killing yourself to killing your unborn child?? The two are NOT the same.

I believe you should have the right to do whatever you want to YOURSELF. this does not include your unborn child, however, since that would be infringing on the liberties of another.

It's another irony that the state makes it illegal to kill yourself, but it's perfectly fine if a woman wants to get rid of her unborn child. Maybe it's because the terminally ill haven't gotten together and formed a politically active special interest group.