Abortion Debate

[Happy Monkey]

I think there should be a cutoff point after which medical justification should be required for abortion, but I couldn't go so far as to suggest when that should be.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I think there should be a cutoff point after which medical justification should be required for abortion,

Why? Do you think there are so many women who would just enjoy a late term abortion, sans good reason, that we need to pass laws against it?

[Happy Monkey]

I haven't the slightest idea if it's frequent enough to merit legislation. If not, great.

[jane_says]

I'm sure there aren't many of them, but my other message board pointed me in the direction of a Yahoo group that was "pro-abortion" in the sense that they like it and get off on it. They post really disgusting stories and pictures of aborted fetuses, etc. and have tons of fiction/fantasy tales they have written themselves. I'm not posting a link.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by jane_says

I'm not posting a link.

Thank you, Thank you!

[Happy Monkey]

I'd guess that some of those people get off more from pissing off anti-abortion people than they do from the stories. Sort of like the "Hermione from Harry Potter countdown to 18" page - set up as a joke, but attracts a few wierdos.

[garnet]

Very interesting quote from Ayn Rand on this subject....

"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.' "
— Ayn Rand

[Radar]

Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?

Sentience. (total self-awareness...something no other animal besides humans have and is measured in alpha brain waves which are present even in those who are in a coma and are not brain dead)

Although there really is no need to define it. That decision is only up to one person, the host (pregnant woman) of the parasite (fetus).

Note: I'm not using the word parasite in a derrogatory manner. It is merely an accurate biological description of the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the pregnant woman. A fetus is a non-human because it does not have sentience.

Some things are often confused with human life so let me make a short list of things that are not human life.

• a beating heart
• reflexive actions (sucking thumb, response to stimuli, kicking, etc)
• the shape of a human being
• fingers, toes, arms, legs or other body parts
• human dna

None of these alone or even combined constitute a human life but even if the fetus did have human life (defined only by sentience/alpha waves) it would not give it any claim to the body of the host/pregnant woman. Nobody on earth has any claim on our bodies but ourselves, not even something that may be living inside us, even if it is a human.

I don't have any moral compunction what so ever about abortion. In my eyes it's akin to having a wart, a tumor, or a tapeworm removed or having a limb amputated. It's no more or less important.

I've thought about becoming an abortion doctor just so one of the services I offered would be free abortions to those under 18 without any notification of parents, guardians, husbands, boyfriends, etc. I'd even offer a free ride to and from the clinic if they lived nearby.

And I'd sleep well at night knowing I did the right thing in helping salvage real existing human life, not merely the potential for one. I put the lives of the living above those who might live later.

[Undertoad]

How would you feel about it in the 7th month then, once the fetus has at least the capacity for sentience, and perhaps has it in some way we don't fathom?

[Kitsune]

How would you feel about it in the 7th month

7th month? Man, if only I had some audio for you guys...



( straight to hell!)

[jane_says]

I thought the Yahoo group was trying to yank some chains, too, and then I noticed they'd been at it since 2001, with a lot of the same members. I thought that was quite a while to be at the same crusade. I read some of the stories too, and they were quite explicit sexually. They post real videos of abortions and claim to get off on it. The one thing that made me believe it was real was that they weren't actively promoting it. It was a private group, or whatever you call the ones you have to get persmission/password from the person who runs it before you can see it. (I quit the group after I'd read all I could take).

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

How would you feel about it in the 7th month

7th month? Man, if only I had some audio for you guys...



( straight to hell!)

*CRINGING!!!*

OH god no...

[Lady Sidhe]

I am pro-choice in only two cases: if the mother's life is in danger, or if the child will be born with a birth defect that will shortly kill it or will make it so that there is no quality of life at all for the child.

When it comes to the "oops, I fucked up/I don't have time or money for a child" type of abortions--uh-uh. There are way too many people out there who are willing to pay all doctor bills in order to adopt for that to be an excuse. When it comes to rape or incest, all I can say is that I personally would not have an abortion, for the above-mentioned reason. It's not the baby's fault who the father is. There is no reason to make the child pay for the sins of the father.

I think that abortions should be allowed until brain waves start. It is at this point that the fetus is conscious and can feel pain. I also think that menstrual extraction is an acceptable method of abortion. Invented by a female OB-GYN, it keeps a woman from having to go through her period each month by extracting the menstrual debris via vacuum. This means that if an egg has been implanted, the egg gets sucked out as well.

I've talked to several pro-choicers about this on abortion debate forums, and I still don't understand their reasoning. It's all about them. Considering that most places have free clinics in which one can procure free birth control, there's no excuse. Granted, birth control can fail, but at least one is attempting to prevent a pregnancy and is taking responsibility for that. I'm all about responsibility and having to deal with the consequences of one's actions, as everyone well knows.

The main reason I'm pro-choice is just as Wolf said--back-alley abortions kill too many people. It should be made safe. BUT, I also think that if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, that she should be required to take birth control. It should be mandatory.

I also think that the men should have a say in the abortion issue. After all, it takes two, and fathers just don't have any rights nowadays when it comes to children--at least they have no rights if they aren't currrently married to the mother of the child. I think that if the father wants the child and says he will take care of it, then she should have to have the baby. It shouldn't die because she'll be inconvenienced by its presence.


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by garnet

Very interesting quote from Ayn Rand on this subject....

"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.' "
— Ayn Rand

I don't know how much I agree with that, but I can agree that people today, especially women, are becoming so much harder, so much more "me, me, me." I personally don't understand how someone can justify killing an innocent child--and it is murder, IMO.

Here's something I don't get: why is it that if someone causes a woman to lose her child involuntarily, that's considered fetuscide--murder--and they can be charged, tried, and sent to jail for it; but if a woman willfully kills her own child, that isn't considered fetuscide? Murder is murder, in my book. Either the child has rights and protection under the law, and is therefore considered a person, or it DOESN'T. It shouldn't be both ways.

It's like someone killing a pet. If your next-door neighbor kills your dog, that's animal cruelty, and they can go to jail for it. Likewise, if you abuse and/or kill your dog, the same laws apply to you, although you own the dog. The animal has protections under the law, and it applies equally across the board, no matter WHO violates that law.

So why isn't it the same for babies?


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Incidentally, LadySyc, I love your AmishRakeFight link. Meant to tell you that about a hundred years ago when I first saw it, but forgot. I've sent it to so many people, mostly because I knew they'd appreciate it just as much as I did, and send it on.



Sidhe