Welcome to Gaia! ::

It makes me wonder (even more) how a woman who's miscarried feels going past an abortion clinic.

It IS wasteful, in the sense that any death is wasteful. It's wasteful to shoot your wife instead of divorcing her, even if divorce is a long, tedious process and you never know what she's doing in the world after it's done. It's wasteful to scoop up puppies and place them in a bag, then throw them in the river. It's wasteful to shoot someone. (Ever hear the term getting wasted? Sorry, bad joke I know.)

It's wasteful of LIFE. It is taking a life and instead of doing what's best for everyone involved, wasting that life to make your life easier.

of course. it is a defense mechanism. imagine being told that something you had done killed someone... you would feel horrible. they try to pretend they don't care and snap at everyone to avoid a confrontation that will prove to them that they were wrong. they KNOW what they do is wrong, they just like to place a faccade of anger in front of their sadness

It is a stupid response and a horrible reason to not give birth. If you believe that a fetus is a person and you believe that it has a right to your womb, but your motivation for not giving birth is to prevent it from being adopted because you dont like the idea of adopting your child out, you are a horrible person bottom line. And to clarify I do not mean that you are afraid adoption is racist or the other misconceptions and exagerations surrounding the issue of adoption, I mean that you do not like the concept of creating something and then giving up the control of it to someone else.

Im taking a little break from ED today simply because too much is going on at the moment, but I am finding out some very funny things about the choicers in there.

They are now saying that birth implies consent to parenting, and also that not taking the action to give your child up also implies consent to parenting. Last time I checked, their argument about consent was that consent is consent and that taking a particular action only consents to that action and not the unintended consequences. I guess when it doesnt fit their idea anymore they reverse it.

I also found out that the invisible contract that we sign by keeping our children is also very specific and not just a vague consent. I dont just consent to not neglecting my child, I consent to the specific use of certain rights to not neglect them, but not others. Odd, when my wife gave birth to my son I never signed anything or gave so much as a verbal contract on the issue either.

Personally I believe its only a matter of time before the logic is worked out enough to prove that BD in the case of pregnancy does not give you the right to neglect your fetus, should the fetus be proved to be a person, anymore than autonomy and privacy would give you the right to neglect your child.

However, the issue which I always gave precedence to in my debates before, that will be the complex nut to unscrew, is the question of fetal personhood. This is where the argument should be confined, this is the only true question. The argument over Bodily Domain is just a technicality, and is taking an obvious issue and warping it. Its hard to prove the same way it is hard to prove you exist or that murder is wrong. You just know it, but there are dissentors out there that will make it a complicated argument if they so choose.

Anyways thats my two cents. Also LOL at the choicers who only attack the hit and run posters and ignore anyone with a serious argument or maintain ridiculous grudges to the point of ludicrusy rolleyes

That's the ED in general. As much as they like to call themselves 'intellegent' and 'elitist' I see more BS there than in the chatterbox.

Probably one of the most outrageous arguments is that abortion is a matter of philosophy. I'm sorry, as much as I appreciate philosophy, it shouldn't interfere in something that's a matter of life and death.

FACTS (biological and otherwise) should be taken into account. You can wave around that philosophical garbage as much as you want, but it won't change the facts, all it does is warp people's understanding of them.

As a medical procedure, it's just plain awful. It also promotes irresponsibility. At the very least 1.3 million abortions happen in this country that aren't rape related. Isn't that just a bit outrageous?

And for those women who are scared to give birth, most of the second and third trimester abortions require them to go into labor.

I don't get how Pro-choicers can really give themselves that title. After all, the mother gets to decide if she's inconvenienced for at most, nine months. However, the baby doesn't get to decide if it lives or dies. Talk about violation of human rights. Doesn't the core foundation of human rights promote the right to life? It doesn't say the right to life only for the anglo-saxon males who own property, but everyone.

If they don't like it, they'll just call it "propaganda".

Personally, I consider biased opinions to be more blatant propaganda than actual facts.

I find it disturbing when they say we can't use biased pro-life sources, and yet they can pul out PP link when ever they want. Much of the info PP spreads is either blatant lies, or speculation that has been disproven and is now being spread as a lie