Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
jazzbird said:It called selfishness, not "personal responsibility."
Why shouldn't women who are sexually active be "tied down" for nine months with the child that they created? Do such women have no control over their behavior?
Question to you: Is a fetus a human being?
flicka said:Answer to you: I don't debate abortion.
I was always under the impression that doing what you thought was right was a good thing.
You said what we feel is right not what we feel will make us happiest at the given moment. Big difference. I think one should always do what one thinks is right. - That's not always what makes the given person happiest at the time, but doing what is right is important. Not just right for yourself, but right for the child, your family, your future, the child's future, and so on. There are many people by whom an expectant mother must try to do the right thing and it's all the harder when some ideas contradict others.If we all were reacting to what we 'feel' is right we'd all be in a mess. This society that we live in has been taught and is teaching that we can do what ever makes us happy at the time, and heck, don't worry about consequences cause you can just run away......
Mylinkay Asdara said:You said what we feel is right not what we feel will make us happiest at the given moment. Big difference. I think one should always do what one thinks is right. - That's not always what makes the given person happiest at the time, but doing what is right is important. Not just right for yourself, but right for the child, your family, your future, the child's future, and so on. There are many people by whom an expectant mother must try to do the right thing and it's all the harder when some ideas contradict others.
jazzbird said:Notice though, you said "feel is right" originally, and now you say "think is right." There is a difference, although I think you are using them interchangeably. What Sparkle is getting at is that we shouldn't make decisions based only on what our emotions tell us, but rather, we need to weigh the facts and go on truth. Feelings and emotions are changing. That's why it's not good to base important decisions on feelings while ignoring facts and reason.
I totally agree with you on the point about doing what is right, rather than what we think will make us most happy. It's a tough and complicated issue - especially when you have important people in your life telling you different things.
And your evidence for the above conspiracy theory is? (now where DID I put that tin-foil hat???!!)Sparkle said:Aside from my biblical reasons here are some others:
1. There is a hidden agenda behind abortion, they use aborted fetuses for scientific experimentation and to make vaccines - That does not sit well with me.
Actually they could make much more profit can be made from forcing women to give birth. . There were over 4 million live births in 2001(click on PDF file, page 2). The average cost of just having a normal delivery ranges from $6000-$10, 000 (up to $250,000+ if complications such a those associated with premature birth occur). That is not counting the money to made from adopting out the unwanted babies ($25,000 per baby) and all the profits to reaped by those providing baby-care products.2. Doctors and nurses make a profit from taking life, they are supposed to save lives.
And your evidence that they are not told is? What they aren't "told" is the following scare tactics like the ones you give next:Sparkle said:3. Women suffer immense emotional strain after having an abortion, some will never admit it, but trust me they do and it usually lasts a lifetime. That emotional strain, can be exausting and takes away from their quality of life. Also, did you know that before a woman has an abortion they will hardly ever be told that they will suffer emotionally?
And you statistical evidence for this is?Suicide amongst women that have had abortions is very high!
Another common scare tactic is to exaggerate the risk of an abortion. A pregnancy is 23 times more likely to result in death than an abortion (something they somehow fail to mention). Another is to use emotive language deliberately. For instance, RU-486 (the so-called abortion pill) is referred to as a "human pesticide" (note the emotive verbiage) and it's risk are always grossly exaggerated . The fact remains that it has been used in Europe for 20 years. The only fatality every recorded is a woman who should never have been given the pill (a smoker with high blood pressure/cardiac problems). From the above site:4. There are also enormous physical risk, some women young and old die from botched abortions.
I can see why drugs like RU-486 terrifies anti-choicers. Women will be able to bypass the jeering pickets and potential violence that make visits to abortion clinics such trying and dangerous experiences (more emotive language of "baby-butcher! wh0re! etc.) Because these drugs can be administered in the privacy of a doctor's office, that will make it extremely difficult for pickets to harass women or terrorize their doctors. It should also make abortion available in areas from which all abortion providers have now been driven. Since all these are 7th week or earlier (size 1-13 mm) it's hard to make that "baby-butcher" moniker stickSafety
One source 1 compares the safety of various alternatives in North America:
- RU-486: 1 death in 200,000 abortions.
- Vacuum aspiration abortion: 1 death in 200,000 abortions
- Childbirth 1 death in 14,300 pregnancies
- Illegal abortions 1 death in 3,000 abortions.
Anti-choicers don't hesitate to try to frighten women into compliance by lying to them. A good example is this " but you'll get breast cancer!" bunk.The risk of breast cancer is tripled after a woman has an abortion, because of the un natural release of horomes.
In a Q and A session with Dr. Daly:FROM: Cancer Risks Become Clearer
NUNS
As long ago as the 19th century it was noted that nuns were more likely to develop breast cancer than women who had several children.
Scientists believe this is because pregnancy accelerates the maturation of the breast cells, enabling them to produce milk.
They believe that matured cells are much less likely to become cancerous because they are less likely to start dividing in an uncontrolled way.
Pregnancy confers a decreased risk overall for breast cancer. However, this protection does not continue to increase with each pregnancy (diminishing returns after 2 pregnancies because the risk from uterine and cervical cancer increases).Actually there are some careers that have been linked to breast cancer risk but it has more to do with the women who choose these careers than the actual work. The first interesting observation was that the one occupation with the highest rate of breast cancer is Catholic nuns, which is actually how the link with estrogen and pregnancy was identified so the risk that nuns share is not being pregnant. So you could imagine other occupations in which women postpone child bearing or choose not to have children which would put them at an increased risk
If the woman has no children, she will have a greater risk of developing breast cancer than the woman who became pregnant and had an abortion. Going through a pregnancy AND breast-feeding will decrease the breast cancer risk, but having an abortion is not going to "give you cancer". I guess this tack would be better if all else failed and the punish-with-parenthood-if-having-sex-crowd wanted to use the "but you'll die of breast cancer" scare tactic to frighten women out of the notion of chosing to be child-free (*gasp!* to think that some women might actually think that they have other important things to contribute to the world than more children that the planet can't support!)Dr. Daly: Actually there are some careers that have been linked to breast cancer risk but it has more to do with the women who choose these careers than the actual work. The first interesting observation was that the one occupation with the highest rate of breast cancer is Catholic nuns, which is actually how the link with estrogen and pregnancy was identified so the risk that nuns share is not being pregnant. So you could imagine other occupations in which women postpone child bearing or choose not to have children which would put them at an increased risk.
On whether or not abortion "causes cancer":
Dr. Daly: Women who have not had any childrenfor whatever reasonhave an increased risk for breast cancer. It isn't thought that the abortion itself is the cause but more the fact of never having had a full term pregnancy.
And your statistical evidence supporting the above would be?Sometimes, because the uterus gets scarred these women will never have another pregnancy.
Well if you mean the litany of non-factual scare stories like you have just enunciated, then NO, I hope not. A medical professional would be most UNPROFESSIONAL to repeat the lies and half-truths that you have just given us as "facts".Sparkle said:These women [again] are hardly ever told they will face these risks.....Women have a right to know these things, we need to speak out, so the truth will be heard.
WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEASparkle said:5. There are many couples who for various reasons cannot have babies on their own, who will gladly adopt a baby.
Let's kick this up a notch, shall we...Mylinkay Asdara said:No abortion is not 'wrong' to me in the sense I think you're using the word. It's perhaps unkind, but not unjustified. Potentially selfish or potentially self-less depending on the mother's situation and the future potential of the child. It's a difficult thing to judge and so I will not abritrarily call it 'wrong' nor will I fully endorse it and call it 'right'. Sometimes the gray in the middle is all there is.
Yes, I believe that murder happens, if that's what you're asking - however, I don't believe that all murders are equal, no. If I murder you for kicks - that's pretty depraved and awful. If I murder you because you raped my child - that's not as unjustified. Again, I live in a gray area.
gladiatrix said:And your evidence for the above conspiracy theory is? (now where DID I put that tin-foil hat???!!)
All the above is just another example of what is called the "blood libel"==>One of the most scandalous lies that one group has told about another is that the other group kills, and sometimes eats, children..... Usually the motive for this lie has to do with race or nationality, but currently it is directed primarily at the female gender." Read how this is applied to the pro-choice:
Blood Libel---The Roots of Racism and Fear of Sex in the Pro-Life Movement
Well at least you didn't accuse of wanting fetuses as some sort of culinary delicacy as does this staunch hero of anti-choice, Fr. Trosch.
Actually they could make much more profit can be made from forcing women to give birth. . There were over 4 million live births in 2001(click on PDF file, page 2). The average cost of just having a normal delivery ranges from $6000-$10, 000 (up to $250,000+ if complications such a those associated with premature birth occur). That is not counting the money to made from adopting out the unwanted babies ($25,000 per baby) and all the profits to reaped by those providing baby-care products.
/sarcasm on/ I can see why any anti-choicer involved in the birthing/adopting/baby-care industries would have a tremendous financial interest in forcing as many women as possible to give birth /sarcasm off/.
If you can accuse pro-choicers of being motivated by greed, do remember that I can make a much better case for that (greed) if I were inclined to use the same kind of ad hominem tactic on your side of the argument.
And your evidence that they are not told is? What they aren't "told" is the following scare tactics like the ones you give next:
Scare Tactic #1:
And you statistical evidence for this is?
Scare Tactic #2:
Another common scare tactic is to exaggerate the risk of an abortion. A pregnancy is 23 times more likely to result in death than an abortion (something they somehow fail to mention). Another is to use emotive language deliberately. For instance, RU-486 (the so-called abortion pill) is referred to as a "human pesticide" (note the emotive verbiage) and it's risk are always grossly exaggerated . The fact remains that it has been used in Europe for 20 years. The only fatality every recorded is a woman who should never have been given the pill (a smoker with high blood pressure/cardiac problems). From the above site:
I can see why drugs like RU-486 terrifies anti-choicers. Women will be able to bypass the jeering pickets and potential violence that make visits to abortion clinics such trying and dangerous experiences (more emotive language of "baby-butcher! wh0re! etc.) Because these drugs can be administered in the privacy of a doctor's office, that will make it extremely difficult for pickets to harass women or terrorize their doctors. It should also make abortion available in areas from which all abortion providers have now been driven. Since all these are 7th week or earlier (size 1-13 mm) it's hard to make that "baby-butcher" moniker stick
Scare Tactic #3:
Anti-choicers don't hesitate to try to frighten women into compliance by lying to them. A good example is this " but you'll get breast cancer!" bunk.
Guess who is at most risk for developing breast cancer?==> Catholic nuns!!This has been known for a very long time and was first noticed by Bernadino Ramazzini (1633-1714) in his work De morbis artificium. Of course, in his day and time, he didn't have a clue as to why. Here is why:
In a Q and A session with Dr. Daly:
Pregnancy confers a decreased risk overall for breast cancer. However, this protection does not continue to increase with each pregnancy (diminishing returns after 2 pregnancies because the risk from uterine and cervical cancer increases).
It has been known since the 19th century that nuns were more more at risk for developing breast cancer than women with several children, especially if they breast-feed them. In short, there is no credible evidence that abortion will increase this risk ABOVE what one would expect if a woman simply had no children during her lifetime. Or as stated more simply:
From Ask-the-Expert
If the woman has no children, she will have a greater risk of developing breast cancer than the woman who became pregnant and had an abortion. Going through a pregnancy AND breast-feeding will decrease the breast cancer risk, but having an abortion is not going to "give you cancer". I guess this tack would be better if all else failed and the punish-with-parenthood-if-having-sex-crowd wanted to use the "but you'll die of breast cancer" scare tactic to frighten women out of the notion of chosing to be child-free (*gasp!* to think that some women might actually think that they have other important things to contribute to the world than more children that the planet can't support!)
Scare Tactic #4:
And your statistical evidence supporting the above would be?
Well if you mean the litany of non-factual scare stories like you have just enunciated, then NO, I hope not. A medical professional would be most UNPROFESSIONAL to repeat the lies and half-truths that you have just given us as "facts".
WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA
As of this St. Patrick's Day, this year, ~2,300,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.
Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.
Let's do the math. In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)
WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN
Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! BUT ONLY at the EXPENSE of the WOMAN. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks).
The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood (however limited that capacity might prove to be, i.,e., severely handicapped infants). In other words, let's assume a soul exists, it needs a physical vessel in order to function in this world, no matter how limited that functioning may prove to be. One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus). This is an argument over the personhood of the fetus not those already here. The same holds true for comparing a fetus to a slave. Slaves are fully developed beings and their social postion had nothing to do with their physical development and even at the beginning of the nation were still accorded them the status of persons, only "three-fifths" of a person, but still accorded personhood status in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise")
Oh and for those wondering where I'm coming from on this issue, please see this post:
Post #127-The Personhood Argument
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?