The Abortion Debate

[Natas Ferret]

DiGital Lucifer

I don't know what UBVOVA is, but I don't see how personhood isn't granted through criminalization on the murder level; especially when specifically refered to as such.

If personhoood was granted, pregnancy could be viewed as a violation of the 14th amendment.

DiGital Lucifer

Also.. It's not an issue of consent; it's an issue of violence against a mother that causes the death of the fetus.
Consent or not.

It is, otherwise abortion would fall into the UBVOVA. It doesn't.

[paper_phoenix]

divineseraph

i leave now. contemplate.... life, or convenience.

And once more, with feeling: The woman's life. The fetus comes second to her life and her choices.

[Mistress DragonFlame]

divineseraph

i leave now. contemplate.... life, or convenience.

Your emotional ploy tried to attach to my heart, but it couldn't get through the ice.

[Munkers]

divineseraph

1-transitive property of congruence?
2-because, it's not going to kill her.

An individual wants sex, sex causes pregnancy, therefore the individual must want to be pregnant. Nuh uh... doesn't work. That's like saying that an individual wants to have a glass of wine with dinner. Wine, as an alcoholic drink, causes drunkeness. Therefore, the individual must want to get drunk. That doesn't work either.

A=B, B=C, and therefore A=C does not apply here.

[Munkers]

divineseraph

if she is willing to die in order to spite life, let her.

With that being said, how can you label yourself as prolife?

[Mistress DragonFlame]

Munkers

divineseraph

if she is willing to die in order to spite life, let her.

With that being said, how can you label yourself as prolife?

No, he is pro-life.

He just forgot to put 'fetus' in there after 'pro'.

[Munkers]

Mistress DragonFlame

No, he is pro-life.

He just forgot to put 'fetus' in there after 'pro'.

I still just don't understand how an individual can be so vehement against abortion, but just not give a damn about war, poverty, or limited access to medical care. I also don't understand why someone would be willing to condemn a woman to death just because she tried to remove a cluster of cells the size of a strawberry from her uterus.

[Mistress DragonFlame]

Munkers

Mistress DragonFlame

No, he is pro-life.

He just forgot to put 'fetus' in there after 'pro'.

I still just don't understand how an individual can be so vehement against abortion, but just not give a damn about war, poverty, or limited access to medical care. I also don't understand why someone would be willing to condemn a woman to death just because she tried to remove a cluster of cells the size of a strawberry from her uterus.

Hm, I think it's because they're not really fighting for life. Their fighting for potential. We pro-choicers threaten that potential, of anything. They are afraid of what would have happened if their own potential had been cut off.

[ThePeerOrlando]

divineseraph

Munkers

The bulk of this debate has been over personhood, the right to a choice, moral implications of said choice and some related topics. But what I keep wondering is this:

We know that abortion is going to happen no matter what we do. Abortion was illegal in the United States until the 70's, but women still found ways to obtain them. And we know how those turned out. Women did awful, horrible things to themselves because they had no other choice. They couldn't carry on with the pregnancy and they didn't have a safe alternative.

And that brings me to my question:

Since we know that we can't stop abortion, then shouldn't we try to make it as safe as possible? Shouldn't we keep the trained doctors and sterile enviroment? Because honestly, if you're willing to turn a woman away knowing full well that she'll resort to bodily harm in an attempt to force a miscarriage, how can you call yourself pro-life when you haven't done everything in your power to keep her safe?

if she is willing to die in order to spite life, let her.

A perfect example of your desire to turn children into a punishment and a device to harm than to let them be what they should be: little bundles of joy that should be loved and wanted. Your degradation of children and women sickens me to no end.

[Erbors]

I think that the mother should put the baby up for addoption if
they dont think they can support the baby

[Talon-chan]

Erbors

I think that the mother should put the baby up for addoption if
they dont think they can support the baby

How will Adoption help a woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be pregnant?

Adoption is an alternative to parenting. You have to be pregnant and give birth FIRST before being able to put the child up for adoption.

Adoption is NOT an alternative to being pregnant. You cannot put a 6 week old fetus up for adoption.

Most women who have an unwanted pregnancy and seek abortion do so because they don't want to be pregnant, not because they are opposed to being parents. If one is merely opposed to parenthood and has no problem with pregnancy then sure... adoption is an option. It's the whole being pregnant when you don't want to that's a problem.

[Moniquill]

[JANUX 99]

Natas Ferret

DiGital Lucifer

I don't know what UBVOVA is, but I don't see how personhood isn't granted through criminalization on the murder level; especially when specifically refered to as such.

If personhoood was granted, pregnancy could be viewed as a violation of the 14th amendment.

rolleyes
If you insist.
I don't even know what to say to something so frivilous.

Natas Ferret

DiGital Lucifer

Also.. It's not an issue of consent; it's an issue of violence against a mother that causes the death of the fetus.
Consent or not.

It is, otherwise abortion would fall into the UBVOVA. It doesn't.

I wouldn't call an abortion at a clinic violent. Especially against the mother.

[Munkers]

Mistress DragonFlame

Hm, I think it's because they're not really fighting for life. Their fighting for potential. We pro-choicers threaten that potential, of anything. They are afraid of what would have happened if their own potential had been cut off.

And we've already covered what would happen had they never been born. They just wouldn't exist. And no one would miss them. If their parents had chosen to delay sex by a day or two or had it a day or two earlier, odds are, that person still wouldn't be here.


And I still want to know why we don't have a moral obligation to provide safe abortions for women that are going to get one one way or another. A lot of people find piercing and tattoos reprehensible, but we don't try to enact laws preventing trained professionals from performing such acts. People don't try to send away a person to go mutilate themselves just because they wanted a navel ring.

[Oo+Nerd.Next.Door+oO]

*bows to Moniquill* Thank you for that amazing post.

I looked at the extended profiles of about 30 of those couples. Most wanted a child, newborn to 1 year, Caucasian or Caucasian mix, with no disabilities. It's ridiculous.

I think I posted this in another Abortion thread, but here it is again. My props go to whoever in the Pro-Choice Guild made this banner.



That's actually the banner that turned me Pro-Choice. I had other reasons as well, but reading this made it definate.