Pro-Lifers make me laugh: Another abortion topic

[sleepshine]

Before you shame and bash people for abortions, take the following into consideration:

Why don’t you imagine being poverty stricken for one moment. Barely surviving. You find yourself pregnant. You don’t want to bring a child into the world that you cannot shelter, feed, or provide education for. You refuse to bring a child into the world when you can’t support them.

Why don’t you imagine you are sitting in your doctor’s office, awaiting news of your pregnancy and he states something along the lines of you are at a high risk of dying if you carry full term. An emergency abortion is necessary to save your life.

Why don’t you just imagine for one second looking at your child every single day of your life for 18+ years and reliving your rape each and every one of those days. Imagine all that emotional stress and the possible, if not, assured depression that comes with that.

Imagine you are a teen. Becoming pregnant at this stage in life can be complicated. Babies born to teen/pre-teen mothers are nearly always high risk. What about pre-natal care? If it's important for a woman, It's even more so for a young girl! Complications during delivery are also things to consider. Being so young, giving birth vaginally is next to impossible, seeing as how it places tremendous stress on the spine, hips, heart, ect. Completing your education is also something to consider. Do you want to raise a baby when you are still a child yourself or finish your education to be able to pursue a well-paying job that you can sustain a family with when you are older?

Poverty
Medical reasons
Rape
Being far too young

Pro-life? No. Pro-fetus. As George Carlin once said, “Once you’re out of the womb, they don’t give two shits about you. They don’t want to know you or hear from you.”

[HyperActiveEmo205]

T o k i V o n B e n i k o

to save your life.

Can we just all appreciate this? If you're so pro-life, then explain why the pro-life movement rejects women getting abortions to SAVE THEIR LIVES?

Thank you T o k i V o n B e n i k o for your awesome phrasing.

[sleepshine]

HyperActiveEmo205

T o k i V o n B e n i k o

to save your life.

That's pro-lifers for you, you get an abortion, they want you dead or aborted. lol

Thank YOU for appreciating it. heart

[Holy Nun]

Perfectly said

[foxxykitty27]

While I am pro-choice myself, my experience with pro-lifers is that in extenuating circumstances like rape and the mother's health they are more open to doing what is in the best interest of the mother. However, the argument that a chance at life vs. none at all is a pretty valid argument. Rape is a pretty small majority and something like poverty brings in the argument I just brought up (the rape case actually does too). Teen pregnancy isn't too dangerous with the medical technology we have now. There's only a social stigma. You're argument against the whole adoption front is probably something along the lines of "we already have enough children suffering in the world." While this may be true, again, chance of life vs. no chance at all.

Don't act high and mighty because you have a differing opinion. I believe that pro-lifers offer good points, but the mothers choice trumps all.

[sleepshine]

The Unholy Nightmare

Perfectly said

heart

[Corrupting Clay]

I've seen this webpage, it contains a solid summary of the points of your argument and adds a couple extra.

[HyperActiveEmo205]

foxxykitty27

While I am pro-choice myself, my experience with pro-lifers is that in extenuating circumstances like rape and the mother's health they are more open to doing what is in the best interest of the mother. However, the argument that a chance at life vs. none at all is a pretty valid argument. Rape is a pretty small majority and something like poverty brings in the argument I just brought up (the rape case actually does too). Teen pregnancy isn't too dangerous with the medical technology we have now. There's only a social stigma. You're argument against the whole adoption front is probably something along the lines of "we already have enough children suffering in the world." While this may be true, again, chance of life vs. no chance at all.

Don't act high and mighty because you have a differing opinion. I believe that pro-lifers offer good points, but the mothers choice trumps all.

I agree that there are certain points that pro-lifers have, such as late-term abortions being 'morally' wrong and that adoptions would be a good option and such. The problem that I have with their argument is how far back they reach for what constitutes as life. I've actually had discussions with people who don't consider someone being human or having life until they hit the age of adulthood in their nation since that's when they are free from the wills of those older than them with power. In that case, abortions late in the third trimester would be perfectly moral, since the child is still just something that the parent/s own. Those particular people were pro-choice, btws. (I was a bit confusing there. Apologize.)

I side with the pro-choice crowd because of the establish autonomy of specifically the mother at hand, rather than the perchance existence of another human being. Quality of life over quantity? Also, that argument. Where it's better to have a chance of life than none at all. There are many directions that argument can take depending on the belief of the individual and society. Like destine to be aborted/destined to do something great. I mean, I think at the base of it, what happens happens. I'd rather someone who can continue living life than harming their life and bringing in a life that might do something great.

I mean, I respect friends and strangers who are pro-life, but the people who picket and cause violence to families who are pro-choice is where I lose that respect.

Edit: I mean, same for pro-choice people who commit acts of violence or violations towards pro-lifers also lose my respects.

[sleepshine]

foxxykitty27

I'm not acting all high and mighty. I'm simply stating my points with facts to back them up.

On teen pregnancies, no matter how you look at it, technology plays little role here. We're talking about a teen body that is still developing. Teens, as well as pre-teens, have a high, if not absolute, risk of delivering early. Early delivery = the child being compromised. Pre-maturely born babies will be at an extreme risk for many birth defects. And there is still the case of education, which will affect the child in the long run.

Poverty is still a very real circumstance when it comes to any situation, let alone abortions. Many homes get abortions because they know, that in the long run, they will not be able to afford the child's primary needs.

Now, onto rape. I'm glad your experience was that they were more open. However, the fact still remains that there are terrible, terrible people out there that want a mother to bear a sick man's child, regardless of her emotional state.

And I agree with you that when it comes down to it, it's the mother's choice that reigns.

[sleepshine]

Corrupting Clay

I've seen this webpage, it contains a solid summary of the points of your argument and adds a couple extra.

I'm cracking up at the "Blowing up more clinics" part.

[foxxykitty27]

HyperActiveEmo205

foxxykitty27

While I am pro-choice myself, my experience with pro-lifers is that in extenuating circumstances like rape and the mother's health they are more open to doing what is in the best interest of the mother. However, the argument that a chance at life vs. none at all is a pretty valid argument. Rape is a pretty small majority and something like poverty brings in the argument I just brought up (the rape case actually does too). Teen pregnancy isn't too dangerous with the medical technology we have now. There's only a social stigma. You're argument against the whole adoption front is probably something along the lines of "we already have enough children suffering in the world." While this may be true, again, chance of life vs. no chance at all.

Don't act high and mighty because you have a differing opinion. I believe that pro-lifers offer good points, but the mothers choice trumps all.

I agree that there are certain points that pro-lifers have, such as late-term abortions being 'morally' wrong and that adoptions would be a good option and such. The problem that I have with their argument is how far back they reach for what constitutes as life. I've actually had discussions with people who don't consider someone being human or having life until they hit the age of adulthood in their nation since that's when they are free from the wills of those older than them with power. In that case, abortions late in the third trimester would be perfectly moral, since the child is still just something that the parent/s own. Those particular people were pro-choice, btws. (I was a bit confusing there. Apologize.)

I side with the pro-choice crowd because of the establish autonomy of specifically the mother at hand, rather than the perchance existence of another human being. Quality of life over quantity? Also, that argument. Where it's better to have a chance of life than none at all. There are many directions that argument can take depending on the belief of the individual and society. Like destine to be aborted/destined to do something great. I mean, I think at the base of it, what happens happens. I'd rather someone who can continue living life than harming their life and bringing in a life that might do something great.

I mean, I respect friends and strangers who are pro-life, but the people who picket and cause violence to families who are pro-choice is where I lose that respect.

Edit: I mean, same for pro-choice people who commit acts of violence or violations towards pro-lifers also lose my respects.

Yeah I basically agree with you. Personally I believe a woman has the choice to abort whether she's rich, poor, young, old, or whatever. Well at least up until the point where the fetus is viable (23 weeks?). I don't really think I would call it quality over quantity though. Even if someone is super poor she still has the ability to take care of the child. I promise, people have dealt with far worse and made it through with a baby. But still, woman's call.

[foxxykitty27]

T o k i V o n B e n i k o

foxxykitty27

I'm not acting all high and mighty. I'm simply stating my points with facts to back them up.

On teen pregnancies, no matter how you look at it, technology plays little role here. We're talking about a teen body that is still developing. Teens, as well as pre-teens, have a high, if not absolute, risk of delivering early. Early delivery = the child being compromised. Pre-maturely born babies will be at an extreme risk for many birth defects. And there is still the case of education, which will affect the child in the long run.

Poverty is still a very real circumstance when it comes to any situation, let alone abortions. Many homes get abortions because they know, that in the long run, they will not be able to afford the child's primary needs.

Now, onto rape. I'm glad your experience was that they were more open. However, the fact still remains that there are terrible, terrible people out there that want a mother to bear a sick man's child, regardless of her emotional state.

And I agree with you that when it comes down to it, it's the mother's choice that reigns.

Laughing at another's argument sounds like arrogance to me. Teen pregnancy affects the baby's/mother's health about as much as an older woman's pregnancy.

I agree that poverty is an issue and financial problems are a huge concern when considering a child.

Extremists exist in every issue, but you shouldn't use them to represent the group. Not all Muslims are terrorists.

[HyperActiveEmo205]

foxxykitty27

HyperActiveEmo205

foxxykitty27

While I am pro-choice myself, my experience with pro-lifers is that in extenuating circumstances like rape and the mother's health they are more open to doing what is in the best interest of the mother. However, the argument that a chance at life vs. none at all is a pretty valid argument. Rape is a pretty small majority and something like poverty brings in the argument I just brought up (the rape case actually does too). Teen pregnancy isn't too dangerous with the medical technology we have now. There's only a social stigma. You're argument against the whole adoption front is probably something along the lines of "we already have enough children suffering in the world." While this may be true, again, chance of life vs. no chance at all.

Don't act high and mighty because you have a differing opinion. I believe that pro-lifers offer good points, but the mothers choice trumps all.

I agree that there are certain points that pro-lifers have, such as late-term abortions being 'morally' wrong and that adoptions would be a good option and such. The problem that I have with their argument is how far back they reach for what constitutes as life. I've actually had discussions with people who don't consider someone being human or having life until they hit the age of adulthood in their nation since that's when they are free from the wills of those older than them with power. In that case, abortions late in the third trimester would be perfectly moral, since the child is still just something that the parent/s own. Those particular people were pro-choice, btws. (I was a bit confusing there. Apologize.)

I side with the pro-choice crowd because of the establish autonomy of specifically the mother at hand, rather than the perchance existence of another human being. Quality of life over quantity? Also, that argument. Where it's better to have a chance of life than none at all. There are many directions that argument can take depending on the belief of the individual and society. Like destine to be aborted/destined to do something great. I mean, I think at the base of it, what happens happens. I'd rather someone who can continue living life than harming their life and bringing in a life that might do something great.

I mean, I respect friends and strangers who are pro-life, but the people who picket and cause violence to families who are pro-choice is where I lose that respect.

Edit: I mean, same for pro-choice people who commit acts of violence or violations towards pro-lifers also lose my respects.

Yeah I basically agree with you. Personally I believe a woman has the choice to abort whether she's rich, poor, young, old, or whatever. Well at least up until the point where the fetus is viable (23 weeks?). I don't really think I would call it quality over quantity though. Even if someone is super poor she still has the ability to take care of the child. I promise, people have dealt with far worse and made it through with a baby. But still, woman's call.

Oh yeah, definitely, they have been able to get through worse, but that mostly depends on the mother and how she can handle situations and such. But like Quality of mothers life over the quantity of human beings, (like the whole "cure for cancer" child being one of the possible kids being born), but I got what you're saying too. A mother can provide for a child if she has the will-power and strength to do it.

[foxxykitty27]

HyperActiveEmo205

foxxykitty27

HyperActiveEmo205

foxxykitty27

While I am pro-choice myself, my experience with pro-lifers is that in extenuating circumstances like rape and the mother's health they are more open to doing what is in the best interest of the mother. However, the argument that a chance at life vs. none at all is a pretty valid argument. Rape is a pretty small majority and something like poverty brings in the argument I just brought up (the rape case actually does too). Teen pregnancy isn't too dangerous with the medical technology we have now. There's only a social stigma. You're argument against the whole adoption front is probably something along the lines of "we already have enough children suffering in the world." While this may be true, again, chance of life vs. no chance at all.

Don't act high and mighty because you have a differing opinion. I believe that pro-lifers offer good points, but the mothers choice trumps all.

I agree that there are certain points that pro-lifers have, such as late-term abortions being 'morally' wrong and that adoptions would be a good option and such. The problem that I have with their argument is how far back they reach for what constitutes as life. I've actually had discussions with people who don't consider someone being human or having life until they hit the age of adulthood in their nation since that's when they are free from the wills of those older than them with power. In that case, abortions late in the third trimester would be perfectly moral, since the child is still just something that the parent/s own. Those particular people were pro-choice, btws. (I was a bit confusing there. Apologize.)

I side with the pro-choice crowd because of the establish autonomy of specifically the mother at hand, rather than the perchance existence of another human being. Quality of life over quantity? Also, that argument. Where it's better to have a chance of life than none at all. There are many directions that argument can take depending on the belief of the individual and society. Like destine to be aborted/destined to do something great. I mean, I think at the base of it, what happens happens. I'd rather someone who can continue living life than harming their life and bringing in a life that might do something great.

I mean, I respect friends and strangers who are pro-life, but the people who picket and cause violence to families who are pro-choice is where I lose that respect.

Edit: I mean, same for pro-choice people who commit acts of violence or violations towards pro-lifers also lose my respects.

Yeah I basically agree with you. Personally I believe a woman has the choice to abort whether she's rich, poor, young, old, or whatever. Well at least up until the point where the fetus is viable (23 weeks?). I don't really think I would call it quality over quantity though. Even if someone is super poor she still has the ability to take care of the child. I promise, people have dealt with far worse and made it through with a baby. But still, woman's call.

Oh yeah, definitely, they have been able to get through worse, but that mostly depends on the mother and how she can handle situations and such. But like Quality of mothers life over the quantity of human beings, (like the whole "cure for cancer" child being one of the possible kids being born), but I got what you're saying too. A mother can provide for a child if she has the will-power and strength to do it.

Ok, I got you. Yeah, there is no way for us to know if an aborted child would've cured cancer or done whatever and to say that he or she might be the one is pretty far reaching.

[inkbled]

As I stated in another thread:

To "pro-life" people, a fertilized egg is a chicken since to them- a fetus is a living, breathing human being. SOMETHING AINT RIGHT HERE~ emotion_awesome

Besides they tend to stop giving a s**t about it when it's born and b***h about how people are on welfare after.