Abortion, expanded

[Sky Dancer]

How is that being reasonable and understanding to the fetus or embryo?

The point being that there are times when a mother, in this case an 11 year old girl, did not make the choice to risk becoming pregnant. It was forced upon her without her consent.

I do not believe there should be a hard and fast rule in this case. Quite simply some 11 year old girls would not be able to handle the situation and those that cant should not be made to feel guilty for it.

You are not answering my question, since the fetus/embryo is not the one who raped her and it had no say in the matter, why is it's "right to life" no longer a valid right in your eyes?
If all fetus/embryos are living beings with a right to life, why do you discriminate against those resulting from rapes of certain 11 year old girls?
How could the rape possibly be their fault? Why should they be denied birth for a crime they did not commit?
Also why should any rape victim be made to feel guilty?

Why make a rape victim feel guilty if she chooses an abortion? Easy if you're hard liner for anti-abortion. Are you Anguille eel lady?

 

[AllieBaba]

Abortion is for people who aren't limited by an intellectual straight-jacket of random morality. It's just another human, there are 6 billion+ already and we're heading for 9 billion+ by mid-century. You folks have your heads screwed on wrong, save every last person but who cares how many other species go extinct? Time to get of the human ego trip of being such superior beings. We're a real danger to all the other species out there.

So murder is okay in your book.

What a fucking freak.

 

[AllieBaba]

The point being that there are times when a mother, in this case an 11 year old girl, did not make the choice to risk becoming pregnant. It was forced upon her without her consent.

I do not believe there should be a hard and fast rule in this case. Quite simply some 11 year old girls would not be able to handle the situation and those that cant should not be made to feel guilty for it.

You are not answering my question, since the fetus/embryo is not the one who raped her and it had no say in the matter, why is it's "right to life" no longer a valid right in your eyes?
If all fetus/embryos are living beings with a right to life, why do you discriminate against those resulting from rapes of certain 11 year old girls?
How could the rape possibly be their fault? Why should they be denied birth for a crime they did not commit?
Also why should any rape victim be made to feel guilty?

Why make a rape victim feel guilty if she chooses an abortion? Easy if you're hard liner for anti-abortion. Are you Anguille eel lady?

Rape is the reason for almost zero percent of all abortions. It's a non-issue, and disengenuous to argue that we have legalized abortion to accomodate multitudes of rape victims.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it doesn't. Your "respect for life" certainly hasn't provided you with much empathy or love for other humans. I've learned a new understanding of what "respect for life" means to some and it's rather chilling.

Untrue on several levels. One, love for others does not require you to develop a bleeding heart every time they suffer the consequences of their own actions, or to harm others in an attempt to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Two, while I'm certainly not glad that she died, I reserve my empathy and sympathy both for helpless and innocent victims, neither of which she was. Three, if you want chilling, cast your thoughts toward the millions of dead babies produced every year by the "empathy" and "love for others" shown by the pro-choice crowd. Brrr!

You are by definition, 'pro-choice' in your mercy. Shall we have prisons for pregnant women? Tie them down and shackle them and make them produce babies?

I don't have abortions. I don't advise anyone to have one. I don't condemn women who have them.

Sorry for your cute little attempt at being Ms. Clever, but for me to be "pro-choice in my mercy", I would have to be actively killing people who make stupid decisions, rather than simply shrugging and saying, "Well, that's what happens."

No, apparently what we SHOULD do is rip helpless babies limb from limb and throw them in the landfill so that their egg donors can get on with sleeping their way through the phone book.

FYI, if you were going for the "I'm so much more lofty and compassionate and wonderful than you, and you should feel guilty and ashamed for being such a mean, cruel person" argument, you probably shouldn't be making it while standing on a pile of dead babies. It kind of undercuts your moral authority, know what I'm saying? I'll feel bad for what an evil, heartless bitch I am just as soon as I'm done fighting to save the lives of millions of infants. I've got it on my to-do list, I promise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, so let's not go back there folks. Magdalene prisons for pregnant women in Ireland---not so long ago.

The Irish don't have the same attitudes about civil rights. Sending a woman to a nunnery against her will would obviously be unconstitutional here.

I'm Irish American. These are my relatives we are talking about. It wasn't that long ago that this kind of attitude prevailed. The Cecilies of the world haven't changed much.

Funny how morality never HAS to change much. It's only evil that has to keep inventing new excuses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm Irish American. These are my relatives we are talking about. It wasn't that long ago that this kind of attitude prevailed. The Cecilies of the world haven't changed much.

Which is why we have each other on ignore.

Cecilie has you on ignore? Funny way to have a discussion or debate isn't it? Put the opposition on ignore and stick your head in the sand.

Maybe I misunderstand you about the relative thing. I only underscored my ethnicity to explain my passion for the topic.

Actually, ignoring people who have nothing to say worth hearing is an excellent way of having a discussion. It allows you to hear what's actually worthwhile (or in your case, just barely interesting). By contrast, acknowledging the babble spewing from Centrism is akin to debating astrophysics with a toddler having a tantrum.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nancy Ward
Google

Nice try, but no. Note the part of my post that said, "because she couldn't get one from a licensed physician". Nowhere is it indicated that this woman had absolutely no choice but to go to an ear, nose, and throat doctor for an obstetrical procedure. I have zero sympathy for anyone who kills herself through her own dumbassery.

Just for starters, off the top of my head, she got her ass on a plane and flew to Kansas City to see this butcher. She could just as easily have flown to any of the states that had extremely liberal abortion laws at that time. Instead, she chose to fly to Kansas, which had very restrictive laws, to see someone unqualified. For that matter, Kansas had more abortions per 1,000 live births in 1971 than three of the five states that had legal abortion, so you can't tell me she couldn't have found a qualified physician to perform the abortion if she'd really wanted to.

The article I read said her father chose the doctor and the location.. not like she had the internet to hop on and pick a doctor from either. He probably just got the name via word of mouth through a co-worker or family member. -Shrugs- The choices were limited and to be honest, she may not have felt she had a choice other than to listen to her father. The father of the unborn was with her on the trip. Remember.. those were different times..

You're breakin' my heart. Poor little dear just COULDN'T do any better than an ENT in Kansas City . . . never mind the fact that the hundreds of other women who had abortions in her state and in Kansas DID manage to find a qualified doctor who didn't kill them.

If she's old enough to be screwing around and getting knocked up, she's old enough to take responsibility for herself instead of muddling around, "feeling she has no choice but to listen" to whomever.

All I'm hearing are excuses here. Sorry, but the contempt for the "Back alley abortions! Ahhhh!" scare mongering stands. I thought this was all about liberating and empowering women, and what you're telling me now is that we need legalized abortion to protect women from their own weakness and helplessness.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think the issue is pretty straightforward. You can be personally opposed to abortion but open to respecting other women's LEGAL and ETHICAL choices.

What I want to know is how you can be a so-called 'pro-lifer' and for the death penalty?

Ahh that one is easy. If you are a pro-lifer you are thinking about the innocent child where as a Teddy Bundy needs to be put down for the good of society.

Got it in one. The death penalty should be reserved for punishing those who have done something wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Some people want to go back in time to when a woman had childbirth to death--one pregnancy after another with NO family planning choices.

I don't think anyone wants to truly go back to that time. The difference is the number of birth control methods available today versus back then. With all the different ways you can keep yourself from getting pregnant in the first place there shouldn't be much of a reason for abortions.

Again, for the record I am pro-choice lol. I could never have an abortion myself, but I don't believe in inhibiting the rights of anyone else to have one.

Back to what time? Might as well talk about "going back to the time when ***** Vader stalked the land". It's about as realistic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Remember also that back then, a woman couldn't legally abandon a newborn at a hospital or fire station, either.

No.. they would have to admit to their "indescresions" and give the child up for adoption, thereby dirtying their name a little.. and we just can't have that can we?

What are you saying? You're opposed to ppl who have abortions and you're opposed to ppl who abandon their children for adoption?


What other choices are there in an unwanted pregnancy?

Uh, aside from actually raising the kid? Well, there's actually putting the child up for adoption, rather than dumping him at a fire station the way you would dump a bagful of old clothes at the Goodwill.

 

[Anguille]

And as a side note: a person may even be deprived of the right to life, but no constitutional right trumps the right to life especially the right to life of an innocent being.

Immie

What is an innocent being and why is the right to life innocent beings especially entitled to protection?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Some people want to go back in time to when a woman had childbirth to death--one pregnancy after another with NO family planning choices.

I don't think anyone wants to truly go back to that time. The difference is the number of birth control methods available today versus back then. With all the different ways you can keep yourself from getting pregnant in the first place there shouldn't be much of a reason for abortions.

Again, for the record I am pro-choice lol. I could never have an abortion myself, but I don't believe in inhibiting the rights of anyone else to have one.

Actually, there are ppl who want to return to the past. They want to make all abortion illegal and they want us to go back in time. Some even are opposed to all forms of birth control except for abstinence.

There are also ignorant, dishonest fear mongers who like to pretend that abortion was once totally banned, and all women lived in terror as helpless chattel, and that everyone who opposes their "compassionate" plan for infanticide thinks and believes exactly the same things.

 

[Anguille]

Untrue. Abortion is not legal because "society" decided anything at all. When it was left up to society, abortion was closely regulated and restricted. Abortion is legal because a handful of lawyers in robes thought it was justifiable, and it's unfair to lay the blame for their decision off onto the society that had it forced on them against their will.

Oh, by the way, in case you didn't notice, I've taken you off of ignore. We'll see how it goes.

Please provide something factual to back up your statement in bold.

I never knew you had me on ignore. I'm so flattered.

Um, before Roe v. Wade, a decision made by a handful of lawyers in black robes (aka Justices) rather than passed as legislation by either the people or their elected representatives, the prevailing laws in all states (which WERE passed as legislation by the people/their elected representatives) was that abortion was regulated and/or restricted. Ergo, when society actually had a hand in the law, society chose to regulate/restrict abortion.

Can't imagine how you didn't know. I make a practice of telling people when I put them on ignore, so that they don't have to bother talking to me anymore. And you should be flattered. You're the first person I've ever unignored.

Society has always had a hand in the law.

Your assertion here, "When it was left up to society, abortion was closely regulated and restricted." is entirely incorrect. Even though the methods used were less medically advanced, women in the past had more freedom concerning choice of abortion.The cut off date was beyond the first trimester, . Abortion was barely regulated nor restricted. Read the stuff CareForAll has posted if you don't believe me. She has done a lot of reasearch on this subject.

I don't recall you ever telling me I was on ignore. If you did so in a post, I probably never read it because I usually skip over your posts.

 

[AllieBaba]

If by "more choice" you mean they couldn't kill perfectly healthy babies for whatever reason, you're right.

In the past, the only women who got abortions were those who had medical issues which required abortion and occasionally women who were unmarried who had sympathetic doctors. Of course, in those days, it was a stigma to be pregnant while unmarried.

Since it isn't anymore, it's not necessary.

You get pregnant, you go through nine months of pregnancy, you give your baby up for adoption. Oh my god, how HORRIBLE!

 

[Anguille]

I am also a woman. This automatically qualifies a natural predisposition.

So am I. What is my natural predisposition And how is it automatically qualified, whatever that means?

It should have remained an issue exclusive to extreme cases of rape or incest, whereby the quality of the life of the child would otherwise be instantly compromised due to the nature of its conception.

How would the quality of life of a child be instantly compromised due to it's being the result of rape? Particularly if the child never knew it was the outcome of a rape?
What are extreme cases of rape and incest?
Are there other types of embryos or fetuses who quality of life is somehow compromised and thus not deserving of a right to life?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please provide something factual to back up your statement in bold.

I never knew you had me on ignore. I'm so flattered.

Um, before Roe v. Wade, a decision made by a handful of lawyers in black robes (aka Justices) rather than passed as legislation by either the people or their elected representatives, the prevailing laws in all states (which WERE passed as legislation by the people/their elected representatives) was that abortion was regulated and/or restricted. Ergo, when society actually had a hand in the law, society chose to regulate/restrict abortion.

Can't imagine how you didn't know. I make a practice of telling people when I put them on ignore, so that they don't have to bother talking to me anymore. And you should be flattered. You're the first person I've ever unignored.

Society has always had a hand in the law.

My, what an America-centric viewpoint. You might want to take a look at some countries with permanent dictatorships, Chuckles, rather than the intermittent dictatorship our Supreme Court provides us. Meanwhile, society doesn't have any hand in laws that are simply imposed on it by fiat, take my word for it.

Your assertion here, "When it was left up to society, abortion was closely regulated and restricted." is entirely incorrect. Even though the methods used were less medically advanced, women in the past had more freedom concerning choice of abortion.The cut off date was beyond the first trimester, . Abortion was barely regulated nor restricted. Read the stuff CareForAll has posted if you don't believe me. She has done a lot of reasearch on this subject.

I wouldn't waste my time reading Care if you were paying me to. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit here and laugh at your selective logic. I don't know if I should start with the idea that no abortion after the first trimester could possibly qualify as unrestricted, let alone "more freedom than now", or with the fact that you believe every state in the Union allowed unrestricted abortion in the first trimester.

I don't recall you ever telling me I was on ignore. If you did so in a post, I probably never read it because I usually skip over your posts.

Apparently excepting those you obsessively answer without ever realizing that you never get a response.

 

[AllieBaba]

And as a side note: a person may even be deprived of the right to life, but no constitutional right trumps the right to life especially the right to life of an innocent being.

Immie

What is an innocent being and why is the right to life innocent beings especially entitled to protection?

An innocent being is a being who has done no wrong. They are entitled to protection because it is the job of the strong to protect them so they aren't killed or exploited.

As babies are killed and exploited by the abortionists. And as children are killed and exploited, spurred on by the notion that it's "okay" to kill babies. Also as the old and infirm will now be exploited and killed by the Obama groupies who believe people are a pestilence and deserve to die if they can't speak up for themselves.

 

[Anguille]

Not if the woman chose to have sex. With that choice, it becomes voluntary.

Sex is voluntary. Pregnancy is involuntary. Women cannot tell their eggs to stay away from sperm. All they can do is take preventative measures to try and insure that they never meet up. Sometimes those measures fail or are not taken. Having sex is not a agreement to carry a pregnancy to term.

Okay, now I have to believe that you must be a young individual to make such an ignorant statement. Having sex carries a risk of pregnancy no matter what agreement you might not make, no matter what outcome you might have intended and no matter what type of birth control you might actually utilize.

Good grief, wake up, darlin.

Anne Marie

Because a person takes a risk and has sex does not mean they must make an agreement to carry a pregnancy to term. No matter how much you would like to believe having sex obligates a woman to refrain from aborting whatever she wants from her body, it doesn't make it so.

 

[Anguille]

You are not answering my question, since the fetus/embryo is not the one who raped her and it had no say in the matter, why is it's "right to life" no longer a valid right in your eyes?
If all fetus/embryos are living beings with a right to life, why do you discriminate against those resulting from rapes of certain 11 year old girls?
How could the rape possibly be their fault? Why should they be denied birth for a crime they did not commit?
Also why should any rape victim be made to feel guilty?

Why make a rape victim feel guilty if she chooses an abortion? Easy if you're hard liner for anti-abortion. Are you Anguille eel lady?

Rape is the reason for almost zero percent of all abortions. It's a non-issue, and disengenuous to argue that we have legalized abortion to accomodate multitudes of rape victims.

Tell a rape victim their pregnancy is a non issue.

 

[Anguille]

Untrue on several levels. One, love for others does not require you to develop a bleeding heart every time they suffer the consequences of their own actions, or to harm others in an attempt to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Two, while I'm certainly not glad that she died, I reserve my empathy and sympathy both for helpless and innocent victims, neither of which she was. Three, if you want chilling, cast your thoughts toward the millions of dead babies produced every year by the "empathy" and "love for others" shown by the pro-choice crowd. Brrr!

You are by definition, 'pro-choice' in your mercy. Shall we have prisons for pregnant women? Tie them down and shackle them and make them produce babies?

I don't have abortions. I don't advise anyone to have one. I don't condemn women who have them.

Sorry for your cute little attempt at being Ms. Clever, but for me to be "pro-choice in my mercy", I would have to be actively killing people who make stupid decisions, rather than simply shrugging and saying, "Well, that's what happens."

No, apparently what we SHOULD do is rip helpless babies limb from limb and throw them in the landfill so that their egg donors can get on with sleeping their way through the phone book.

FYI, if you were going for the "I'm so much more lofty and compassionate and wonderful than you, and you should feel guilty and ashamed for being such a mean, cruel person" argument, you probably shouldn't be making it while standing on a pile of dead babies. It kind of undercuts your moral authority, know what I'm saying? I'll feel bad for what an evil, heartless bitch I am just as soon as I'm done fighting to save the lives of millions of infants. I've got it on my to-do list, I promise.

LOL! Cecilie makes an attempt to present herself as a caring individual.