A question for those against abortion

[Jaishirri]

The Great Heat Miser

Jaishirri

Vixianna

Jaishirri

Yes my point is that anyone shouldn't take place with anything that could be potentially life-threatening or what said person perceives are being life-threatening against there will. Healthy women can and do have sick children. And regardless of women health, birth is life-threatening. Things can go wrong at any moment - healthy or not.

You to realize that being afraid of giving birth is a clinical phobia? That's how irrational it is. Especially for where we live.

What's it matter if the baby is sick? We are talking about the women dying, or suffering severe damage. Sick babies have s**t to do with that, especially since they aren't the same person.

And unless the pregnancy is high risk, chances are she isn't going to die from it. Anything can kill you if you take this as a measure of "life-threatening" everything from eating to bathing can kill you.(slip and fail in the tub and choking respectively) but that doesn't make it a "life-threatening" activity. Unless you can substantiate that more often than not this activity will kill you (with or without medical intervention) you can't honestly call it "life-threatening". Doing so is playing a ridiculous semantics game that makes everyday occurrences death sentences.

"very dangerous or serious with the possibility of death as an outcome" Source

You notice the dangerous and serious part? Pregnancy and birth are neither in this country.

I will repeat myself. If a women perceives this as being too dangerous, she should not be forced to give birth. Yes it's a clinic phobia, yes she should probably get help for that. But she still shouldn't be forced to give birth.

Why not?

Because people, in general, should not be forced to do things they do not want to do, for whatever reason. More specifically to this case, a women should not be forced to give birth because she percieves the danger of death to great.

[deadguy]

Jaishirri

The Great Heat Miser

Jaishirri

Vixianna

Jaishirri

Yes my point is that anyone shouldn't take place with anything that could be potentially life-threatening or what said person perceives are being life-threatening against there will. Healthy women can and do have sick children. And regardless of women health, birth is life-threatening. Things can go wrong at any moment - healthy or not.

You to realize that being afraid of giving birth is a clinical phobia? That's how irrational it is. Especially for where we live.

What's it matter if the baby is sick? We are talking about the women dying, or suffering severe damage. Sick babies have s**t to do with that, especially since they aren't the same person.

And unless the pregnancy is high risk, chances are she isn't going to die from it. Anything can kill you if you take this as a measure of "life-threatening" everything from eating to bathing can kill you.(slip and fail in the tub and choking respectively) but that doesn't make it a "life-threatening" activity. Unless you can substantiate that more often than not this activity will kill you (with or without medical intervention) you can't honestly call it "life-threatening". Doing so is playing a ridiculous semantics game that makes everyday occurrences death sentences.

"very dangerous or serious with the possibility of death as an outcome" Source

You notice the dangerous and serious part? Pregnancy and birth are neither in this country.

I will repeat myself. If a women perceives this as being too dangerous, she should not be forced to give birth. Yes it's a clinic phobia, yes she should probably get help for that. But she still shouldn't be forced to give birth.

Why not?

Because people, in general, should not be forced to do things they do not want to do, for whatever reason. More specifically to this case, a women should not be forced to give birth because she percieves the danger of death to great.

Then she shouldn't have sex. One is a direct consequence of the other; it's not too hard to avoid. She made her bed, now she has to lie in it. An innocent child shouldn't have to die because you're too selfish to give birth to it. If she (wrongly) percieves the danger to be so great, I'd suggest not creating it in the first place.

[Jaishirri]

deadguy

Jaishirri

The Great Heat Miser

Jaishirri

Vixianna

Jaishirri

Yes my point is that anyone shouldn't take place with anything that could be potentially life-threatening or what said person perceives are being life-threatening against there will. Healthy women can and do have sick children. And regardless of women health, birth is life-threatening. Things can go wrong at any moment - healthy or not.

You to realize that being afraid of giving birth is a clinical phobia? That's how irrational it is. Especially for where we live.

What's it matter if the baby is sick? We are talking about the women dying, or suffering severe damage. Sick babies have s**t to do with that, especially since they aren't the same person.

And unless the pregnancy is high risk, chances are she isn't going to die from it. Anything can kill you if you take this as a measure of "life-threatening" everything from eating to bathing can kill you.(slip and fail in the tub and choking respectively) but that doesn't make it a "life-threatening" activity. Unless you can substantiate that more often than not this activity will kill you (with or without medical intervention) you can't honestly call it "life-threatening". Doing so is playing a ridiculous semantics game that makes everyday occurrences death sentences.

"very dangerous or serious with the possibility of death as an outcome" Source

You notice the dangerous and serious part? Pregnancy and birth are neither in this country.

I will repeat myself. If a women perceives this as being too dangerous, she should not be forced to give birth. Yes it's a clinic phobia, yes she should probably get help for that. But she still shouldn't be forced to give birth.

Why not?

Because people, in general, should not be forced to do things they do not want to do, for whatever reason. More specifically to this case, a women should not be forced to give birth because she percieves the danger of death to great.

Then she shouldn't have sex. One is a direct consequence of the other; it's not too hard to avoid. She made her bed, now she has to lie in it. An innocent child shouldn't have to die because you're too selfish to give birth to it. If she (wrongly) percieves the danger to be so great, I'd suggest not creating it in the first place.

Except, it's not a child, it's a clump of cells. Yes, pregnancy is a consequence of having sex. She mae her bed and is lying in it. There are other ways of dealing with those consequences, than to avoid the act alltogether.

It's irrelevant if the danger is wrongly perceived or not. It's how she perceives it.

I'm terrified of spiders. When people tell me my fear is irrational, it doesn't matter, I'm still terrified. Informing me of the wrongly percieved danger of said spider, is not going to cure me of my fear.

[Llandygai]

I'll start by stating that, due to time constraints, I haven't bothered to read past the first post; I'm sorry, but 26 pages of posting is more material than I have time to read at the moment. If I say anything that's already been said (and I'm sure I will), feel free to just ignore it if you've previously responded to similar sentiments.


I think the fundamental problem, here, is the implied assumption that unwanted pregnancy is never a matter of choice. In instances of rape, perhaps, that might be the case. As in the case of the cousin who refused to give bone marrow, pregnant women do, at some point, have freedom to choose what is done with their bodies (within reason, of course) regardless of whether abortion is legal.

I do believe that there are valid reasons to allow abortions. I just also feel that the circumstances that would make abortion an expedient choice are far fewer and more limited than many people think.

Take, for instance, the original post's statements of the hardships of pregnancy:

Quote:

When a woman is forced to bear a child it's 9 months of physical pain, social problems (loss of a job, getting kicked out of school, unable to complete education or work) as well as the painful procedure of childbirth and all the trauma that often follows even if the child is immediately given up for adoption. This is a long, hard, and very costly process. Going to the doctor for exams, ultrasounds, taking special prenatal vitamins, as well as the cost to simply have a baby, is very extreme.

None of that is in dispute, certainly, but the underlying message is, "This is difficult and inconvenient, therefore it ought not be." It's predominantly self-serving. It's also a terribly one-sided statement that ignores any joys and benefits of pregnancy and child rearing.

My opposition to abortion is not an opposition to choice: it's an opposition to so many deaths in the name of selfishness, and to an abdication of responsibility which, if left unchecked, will continue to erode the foundations of our society.

I take exception to the label "anti-choice," because I consider myself a real proponent for choice. Likewise, I consider myself a real proponent for life. I don't think that life and "choice" (such as it gets called) need to be at odds with one another.

The label "anti-choice" is merely a clever ruse designed to paint those who don't support a pro-abortion agenda as "oppressive," "tyrannical," and "closed-minded". I think its' unfortunate that so many people seem to get stuck at the label without ever examining the person that label has been slapped on.

I do support choice. But with choice, I strongly support responsibility for those choices. Unless a woman is physically forced to have sex, she always has a choice of whether to risk pregnancy. The potential consequences of sex are no secret.

Little Maus

--- If abortion were illegal, then would the donation of things like bone marrow or organs we can spare without dying ourselves to save the lives of others have to be enforced? If not then why is a life less precious after it's been born?

Life is no less precious after birth than before, and the differences between not forcing a man to donate his marrow and not legally allowing a woman to step around the consequences of her sexual activity ought to be fairly clear.

Women have their choice, and even when they do have sex, most contraceptives have reasonable levels of dependability if properly used.

I think the best choice is to stop spinning our wheels with damage control for problems that we have created, and take the safer path by reinstating marriage as the safest and only proper place for sexual activities. If sex were to be universally kept between husband and wife, the issue of abortion, I suspect, may disappear entirely.

[The Great Heat Miser]

Jaishirri

The Great Heat Miser

Jaishirri

Vixianna

Jaishirri

Yes my point is that anyone shouldn't take place with anything that could be potentially life-threatening or what said person perceives are being life-threatening against there will. Healthy women can and do have sick children. And regardless of women health, birth is life-threatening. Things can go wrong at any moment - healthy or not.

You to realize that being afraid of giving birth is a clinical phobia? That's how irrational it is. Especially for where we live.

What's it matter if the baby is sick? We are talking about the women dying, or suffering severe damage. Sick babies have s**t to do with that, especially since they aren't the same person.

And unless the pregnancy is high risk, chances are she isn't going to die from it. Anything can kill you if you take this as a measure of "life-threatening" everything from eating to bathing can kill you.(slip and fail in the tub and choking respectively) but that doesn't make it a "life-threatening" activity. Unless you can substantiate that more often than not this activity will kill you (with or without medical intervention) you can't honestly call it "life-threatening". Doing so is playing a ridiculous semantics game that makes everyday occurrences death sentences.

"very dangerous or serious with the possibility of death as an outcome" Source

You notice the dangerous and serious part? Pregnancy and birth are neither in this country.

I will repeat myself. If a women perceives this as being too dangerous, she should not be forced to give birth. Yes it's a clinic phobia, yes she should probably get help for that. But she still shouldn't be forced to give birth.

Why not?

Because people, in general, should not be forced to do things they do not want to do, for whatever reason. More specifically to this case, a women should not be forced to give birth because she percieves the danger of death to great.

Why not?

[mustangssgt]

Cutie-pie Sleepyhead

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

If women didn't have access to clean and safe abortions, they'd find somewhere else that did it illegally. Think Dirty Dancing.

I don't understand why there's an issue. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Don't take away a woman's right to a medically safe abortion.

They should just make DIY abortion kits. Solves both problems.

eh, it's fairly simple. Nearly toxic levels of ascorbic acid is all that's required early on. Cheaper then plan B.

[mustangssgt]

Math145 Kane

Phantomboy411

Math145 Kane

Phantomboy411

Math145 Kane

Phantomboy411

don't 100% of people deserve the chance to try?

No.
No one deserves anything.
Unless you can give me a reason that people do.

so then, neither of us deserve to be on this site arguing about other people's rights, then?

I don't know, maybe.
I don't know what you've done in your life, you might have done something giving you some worth.
And the same applies to me from your point of view as well.
But an unborn fetes we can say has done nothing to deserve anything.

it has potential. besides, it's mother more-or-less brought it into this world, so so the women owes them that chance.

Oh?
And what of women who didn't choose to get pregnant?

since the death penalty isn't offered for rape, it's not really a relevant argument. If abortion is murder then it's murder regardless of the unfortunate circumstances landing him in some unprepared woman's uterus.

[Demyan The Devil]

I love abortions. I think there should be more of them.

[mustangssgt]

Foetus Smasher

I love abortions. I think there should be more of them.

I want to borrow my friends bratty children and bring them to pro life rallies.

[Azahara Suncrest]

OP, I think I love you.

[deadguy]

Jaishirri

deadguy

Jaishirri

The Great Heat Miser

Jaishirri

I will repeat myself. If a women perceives this as being too dangerous, she should not be forced to give birth. Yes it's a clinic phobia, yes she should probably get help for that. But she still shouldn't be forced to give birth.

Why not?

Because people, in general, should not be forced to do things they do not want to do, for whatever reason. More specifically to this case, a women should not be forced to give birth because she percieves the danger of death to great.

Then she shouldn't have sex. One is a direct consequence of the other; it's not too hard to avoid. She made her bed, now she has to lie in it. An innocent child shouldn't have to die because you're too selfish to give birth to it. If she (wrongly) percieves the danger to be so great, I'd suggest not creating it in the first place.

Except, it's not a child, it's a clump of cells. Yes, pregnancy is a consequence of having sex. She mae her bed and is lying in it. There are other ways of dealing with those consequences, than to avoid the act alltogether.

It's irrelevant if the danger is wrongly perceived or not. It's how she perceives it.

I'm terrified of spiders. When people tell me my fear is irrational, it doesn't matter, I'm still terrified. Informing me of the wrongly percieved danger of said spider, is not going to cure me of my fear.

"I'm afraid of the consequences" shouldn't be some sort of end all excuse that gets you out of all of them. Especially not if it's "I'm afraid of the consequences, even though they're not really all that bad, because it's some sort of phobia of mine". If I offer to look after a man's dog in exchange for him fixing my house, I can't suddenly back out of it by saying "I'm sorry, I'm afraid of dogs". I shouldn't be able to avoid jail because I'm afraid of being a** raped. If she is afraid of giving birth, I would suggest to her not to have sex. It's not that hard to avoid. People, in general, are forced to do things they don't want to all the time, from paying taxes to not killing people. They have to do these things because if we were allowed to do or not do what ever we wanted, society would fall apart.

[Potato Tree]

This situation is totally different, as the man had no choice in whether he would have to have the transplant or not.

If you're not up for children, then don't have sex until you are, simple as that >>
you don't just /get/ pregnant.