Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[TemplarKormac]

It's also a means of supporting the point I was trying to make regarding my moral compass and how science effects it. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes I do, because its still a non sequitur.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have other things I must be doing. I'm out.

Later.

 

[Coyote]

See, even with you - human life is not valuable

When in the process of life, someone kills out of malice and not out of choice, they have forfeited their right to live. That person placed no value on the lives of his victims, and thusly, the same attitude is take with the punishment.

But what has the baby done?

But right there - you are placing different values on human life.

And what of the innocent man that is executed?

You decide that civilian casualties in war are acceptable "collateral damage".

No I don't. Don't even go there.

If it is the enemy you are trying to kill, kill the enemy, not the civilians. But then again, there are enemies who themselves devalue human life to the point where they intentionally place them on the field of battle, in the direct line of fire, just in order to paint their enemies as cruel and willing to kill innocent people.

And again - you are placing different values on human life and attempting to justify it.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

A blastocyst - yes, a clump of cells - can feel nothing. There are no brain waves yet. There are no thoughts.

See? Even you don't think the blastocyst has any value. But yet you decry the destruction of human embryos. The embryo and the baby have equal value. That's something you don't seem to grasp, Coyote. You can't assign value to one or the other. One is the seed of life, the other IS life. If you don't have one, you can't have the other. Without the seed, there cannot be a flower.

You are still mangling what I have said.

A blastocyst has no value to me unless it's a pregnancy I wanted. I am not decrying the destruction of human embryos - I am bringing that up as an example of the hypocrisy of many pro-life people who condemn a woman for choosing abortion but ignore what goes on in fertility clinics.

Why does human life in an of itself - have any value?

 

[Coyote]

It's also a means of supporting the point I was trying to make regarding my moral compass and how science effects it. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes I do, because its still a non sequitur.

So I'm not allowed to use examples to make my point?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So I'm not allowed to use examples to make my point?

You are, and you are allowed also to make argumentative fallacies.

Later.

 

[TemplarKormac]

you are placing different values on human life and attempting to justify it.

Thing is, in one instance you don't consider it to BE human life. Nice try.

 

[Coyote]

Yet you do not find the idea of forcing a woman to carry through a pregnancy she does not want "abominable"?

Okay, the moment a woman willingly has sexual intercourse with a man, she immediately takes the risk of becoming pregnant. She chose that course. Thusly I find the taking of life to be abominable. See where this is going, Coyote?

Why exactly would I have "remorse" for another woman's choice? It's none of my business.

Then why are you defending the right for her to have an abortion? To me, you seem to be taking a big stake in her choice, since you have set about in this thread trying to define what is or isn't life, or what isn't human or vise versa. You are trying to justify that choice, and when women make that choice using YOUR logic, you should feel remorse for instilling that kind of thinking among other women making such a choice.

Arguing with you seems to be turning into an endurance contest involving banging my head against a brick wall. You constantly seem to distort what I am saying.

I am defending a woman's right to make her own choices regarding her body because it is HER business - NOT MINE. I am fine with her choice if she chooses to carry the child through to birth and I am fine if she chooses to have an abortion. It's her life and all the costs and risks are on her - not me. What does "remorse" have to do with any of this? You don't don't make any sense at all.

You are not making any logical sense here other than dragging in stem cell research to try and muddy the waters - I'm not seeing the point in your article.

You were droning on about the ethics of destroying embryos, citing my lack of outrage at such a practice as an act of hypocrisy. I responded specifically to that claim. Scientists have been trying to develop ways not to destroy the embryo during their research, as that article proves. What it disproves is the notion that "science has no moral compass."

No it does not disprove it. Scientists can have a moral compass. Science itself doesn't.

Surplus human embryos are destroyed, yet there is very little "pro-life" outrage, especially compared to abortion.

Somehow, I only see hypocrisy when a pro choicer judges pro lifers by pro life values. But hey, that's none of my business.

How else would you judge them?

Both sides have their own hypocrites: pro-choicers often oppose the death penalty, pro-lifers often support it.

 

[Coyote]

So I'm not allowed to use examples to make my point?

You are, and you are allowed also to make argumentative fallacies.

Later.

You know what? I'm going to use whatever examples I want to make my point

 

[Dragonlady]

you are placing different values on human life and attempting to justify it.

Thing is, in one instance you don't consider it to BE human life. Nice try.

That's because it isn't human life, it is the potential for human life. There is no proof or guarantee that the fetus will ever be a human life because 1/3 of all fetuses are not even viable and spontaneously abort.

That's why women don't generally tell people they are pregnant until after the first trimester has passed.

 

[Dragonlady]

Okay, the moment a woman willingly has sexual intercourse with a man, she immediately takes the risk of becoming pregnant. She chose that course. Thusly I find the taking of life to be abominable. See where this is going, Coyote?

This is what it always comes down to. Conservatives don't believe that women should have sex unless she's prepared to have a baby.

You do know that more than half the women who have abortions are married or in a committed relationship. Are you seriously suggesting married couples shouldn't have sex unless they are prepared to have more children? You do know that refusing to have sex with your husband is grounds for divorce in some states, don't you?

I know that idiots like you believe that the women who have abortions are single women who are partying with a different guy every night, and not careful about using birth control, but this picture is a false image. Most of the women are poor, married and already have one or more children. Half were using birth control when they became pregnant. They cannot afford to take time off work to have another baby, and since there are no protections for women who are pregnant, and no maternity leave, they fear being fired from their jobs if they become pregnant.

They are not prepared to put their living children at risk to have another child, and don't have the resources - money medical care, and delivery, nor the savings put aside to take time off work. These are the women you vilify for their choices.

Like the "Welfare Queen" stereotype, the conservative idea of the women seeking abortions, are teenagers, or young party girls who view a child as an inconvenient results of wanton sex is false and misleading. It makes it easy to paint these women as unfeeling wantons casually murdering the innocent victims of their promiscuity,

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know what? I'm going to use whatever examples I want to make my point

You know what? I don't give a damn what examples you use. But it still makes your argument irrelevant.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

This is what it always comes down to. Conservatives don't believe that women should have sex unless she's prepared to have a baby.

People should not be performing the act of sexual reproduction without controls against the reproduction part unless they're at least open to the possibility of it being successful. It has nothing to do with trying to keep you from getting your jillies off. It has nothing to do with trying to enslave you or implant parasites into you (as I've already said men should not be having sex with women who think that way anyway). It has to do with the fact that the act, once you strip out anthropocentrism and look at it from a purely objective biological point of view, is literally about creating a baby. The very least you can do is take steps to prevent yourself from conceiving someone you're just going to toss in the trash.

You do know that more than half the women who have abortions are married or in a committed relationship. Are you seriously suggesting married couples shouldn't have sex unless they are prepared to have more children? You do know that refusing to have sex with your husband is grounds for divorce in some states, don't you?

I'm saying that married couples should mutually decide how many children they would like to have, use copious amounts of protection and some basic planning when they don't want them, and get him a vasectomy when they're done. Additionally, we need to get rid of every absurd law that punishes people for choosing to withhold consent from anyone, including their spouse.

I know that idiots like you believe that the women who have abortions are single women who are partying with a different guy every night, and not careful about using birth control, but this picture is a false image. Most of the women are poor, married and already have one or more children. Half were using birth control when they became pregnant. They cannot afford to take time off work to have another baby, and since there are no protections for women who are pregnant, and no maternity leave, they fear being fired from their jobs if they become pregnant.

Cool, so we agree that defending welfare, offering cheap actual healthcare that doesn't involve killing people you don't want to take care of, and pushing for the exact same mandatory maternity leave the rest of the "civilized" world offers is important too.

They are not prepared to put their living children at risk to have another child, and don't have the resources - money medical care, and delivery, nor the savings put aside to take time off work. These are the women you vilify for their choices.

I can't help but wonder if your attitude changes once their children are born. She doesn't have the money to take care of this baby. Is it still fine to cut him up and dump him into a plastic bag?

Like the "Welfare Queen" stereotype, the conservative idea of the women seeking abortions, are teenagers, or young party girls who view a child as an inconvenient results of wanton sex is false and misleading. It makes it easy to paint these women as unfeeling wantons casually murdering the innocent victims of their promiscuity,

I've already addressed this. You want us to pay for you as an alternative to you killling your children. Fine. We will. I continue to personally offer to send the money for your birth control. Are you going remain consistent and take me up on this?

 

[ninja007]

A brain dead person can be kept artificially alive by a machine that keeps the heart pumping. Is it "alive"?

Really? Nice. Not even the best kicker in the NFL can kick a football through those goalposts.

It's not as big a stretch as you think.

What the end of life? What defines the beginning of life?

*sigh* It would be nice if leftists had felt compelled to attend JUST ONE high-school biology class, instead of yoinking off behind the boys' gym.

The Definition of Life

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.

By the way, for the record, all living organisms interact with their environment, not just animals.

A fetus fails to meet the standard you set for yourself. They fail all of the standards you set except #4. Absent the nurturing environment of the womb, they cannot live. The are life in development, but they don't obtain nutrition from their environment, they obtain it from their host.

A fetus is a possibility of life. What kind of life they will have, if any, is dependent on their host and it is her decision and hers alone whether they will have life at all.

thank you for admitting abortion is murder.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is what it always comes down to. Conservatives don't believe that women should have sex unless she's prepared to have a baby.

So, assume no responsibility for your actions then? She can have sex all she wants, she can choose all she wants. But like I said before, miss, is that nobody has taken her choice away. The moment she got on the saddle, she chose.

I don't believe in killing innocent children. Because that's what they are, zygote to birth. You recognize their potential, you recognize what they will become, yet, you still don't recognize them as human beings.

You do know that more than half the women who have abortions are married or in a committed relationship.

You might want to check that again, toots.

Abortion in the United States Quick Stats

Are you seriously suggesting married couples shouldn't have sex unless they are prepared to have more children?

If "family planning" is what I think it is, then yes. Don't have unprotected sex. Don't commit unless you're ready to commit. Wear a condom. Take contraceptives, whatever. Unbeknownst to you, a lot more things in life require forethought than just "having sex."

You do know that refusing to have sex with your husband is grounds for divorce in some states, don't you?

No? Why should I care? There are other ways to have sex. Surely you should know that.

I know that idiots like you believe that the women who have abortions are single women who are partying with a different guy every night, and not careful about using birth control, but this picture is a false image.

Well you'll forgive me if I assume such. The motto goes "abortion on demand and without apology." So, as I see it, some women cover their mistakes with abortions. Some women get them for purely legitimate reasons. But idiots like you are concerned with imprinting a false image on conservatives like me.

Most of the women are poor, married and already have one or more children. Half were using birth control when they became pregnant.

That's all the more reason to restrain yourself. If contraception doesn't work, you'd best be careful. In that link I posted: as of 2008, 56% of women who had an abortion were unmarried, 69% were poor and disadvantaged, and 61% of them had one or more children, which I gather are being raised by a single mother.

They cannot afford to take time off work to have another baby, and since there are no protections for women who are pregnant, and no maternity leave, they fear being fired from their jobs if they become pregnant.

Do me a favor, look up the Supreme Court case Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. 575 US ___ (2015)

They are not prepared to put their living children at risk to have another child, and don't have the resources - money medical care, and delivery, nor the savings put aside to take time off work. These are the women you vilify for their choices.

I vilify people who can't call a human being a human being. You worry about denying a woman a choice, but think nothing of denying an unborn child the right to exist.

Tell me something: in theory, how fair would it be for me to arbitrarily decide your existence in this world? What if it were my choice to smite you from this earth because your existence was inconvenient to me? What if you got no opinion on the subject? How would that make you feel?

Like the "Welfare Queen" stereotype, the conservative idea of the women seeking abortions, are teenagers, or young party girls who view a child as an inconvenient results of wanton sex is false and misleading.

You know, saying all conservatives think this way is a stereotype in and of itself. In that Guttmacher study, a lot of these women were in their 20's. Now, what are the odds that some, say, 20 percent, of those women who reported their reasons for having an abortion for sake of finances were lying? Surely not all of the 8.3 million abortions between 2000-2008 were for financial reasons?

It makes it easy to paint these women as unfeeling wantons casually murdering the innocent victims of their promiscuity,

It makes it easy for you to paint me as uncaring for the woman, simply by trying to appeal everyone's emotions. I'm sorry, that's not going to happen. The woman has been blessed with her existence, but the child she aborts will get no such blessing.

 

[Dragonlady]

This is what it always comes down to. Conservatives don't believe that women should have sex unless she's prepared to have a baby.

People should not be performing the act of sexual reproduction without controls against the reproduction part unless they're at least open to the possibility of it being successful. It has nothing to do with trying to keep you from getting your jillies off. It has nothing to do with trying to enslave you or implant parasites into you (as I've already said men should not be having sex with women who think that way anyway). It has to do with the fact that the act, once you strip out anthropocentrism and look at it from a purely objective biological point of view, is literally about creating a baby. The very least you can do is take steps to prevent yourself from conceiving someone you're just going to toss in the trash.

You do know that more than half the women who have abortions are married or in a committed relationship. Are you seriously suggesting married couples shouldn't have sex unless they are prepared to have more children? You do know that refusing to have sex with your husband is grounds for divorce in some states, don't you?

I'm saying that married couples should mutually decide how many children they would like to have, use copious amounts of protection and some basic planning when they don't want them, and get him a vasectomy when they're done. Additionally, we need to get rid of every absurd law that punishes people for choosing to withhold consent from anyone, including their spouse.

I know that idiots like you believe that the women who have abortions are single women who are partying with a different guy every night, and not careful about using birth control, but this picture is a false image. Most of the women are poor, married and already have one or more children. Half were using birth control when they became pregnant. They cannot afford to take time off work to have another baby, and since there are no protections for women who are pregnant, and no maternity leave, they fear being fired from their jobs if they become pregnant.

Cool, so we agree that defending welfare, offering cheap actual healthcare that doesn't involve killing people you don't want to take care of, and pushing for the exact same mandatory maternity leave the rest of the "civilized" world offers is important too.

They are not prepared to put their living children at risk to have another child, and don't have the resources - money medical care, and delivery, nor the savings put aside to take time off work. These are the women you vilify for their choices.

I can't help but wonder if your attitude changes once their children are born. She doesn't have the money to take care of this baby. Is it still fine to cut him up and dump him into a plastic bag?

Like the "Welfare Queen" stereotype, the conservative idea of the women seeking abortions, are teenagers, or young party girls who view a child as an inconvenient results of wanton sex is false and misleading. It makes it easy to paint these women as unfeeling wantons casually murdering the innocent victims of their promiscuity,

I've already addressed this. You want us to pay for you as an alternative to you killling your children. Fine. We will. I continue to personally offer to send the money for your birth control. Are you going remain consistent and take me up on this?

I am past the age of needing birth control. And when I did become pregnant by surprise, my choice was to have the baby. That's what pro-choice really means - being free to follow your own conscience and their own beliefs.

I also live in a country with government funded health care, paid maternity leave, subsidized day care for those needing subsidies, and other supports for working families. Our abortion rate is almost half of that in the U.S. And abortions are paid for by our health care benefits.

American conservatives talk about wanting to reduce abortions, but are unwilling to provide maternity leave, and other supports for families to make it possible to enlarge their families.

All too often, poor women have to choose between the children they have and the child they might have.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's what pro-choice really means - being free to follow your own conscience and their own beliefs.

Funny how someone like Hobby Lobby had to sue the US Government for that right. But then again, we're talking choice here, are we not?

but [Conservatives]are unwilling to provide maternity leave, and other supports for families to make it possible to enlarge their families.

How can you enlarge a family or have paid maternity leave if you're planning to have an abortion?

 

[JoeB131]

Interestingly enough, pro-choicers complain about right wingers using the government to control their choices, yet blatantly demand that government protect their choices.

Dude, that's the stupidiest thing you've said yet.

Clearly, without government,t here is nothing you anti-abortionists religious fanatics could do to stop ANY woman from having an abortion. But man, as much as you want to talk about being free and libertarian and small government, you shitheads totally want government up a woman's hoo-ha because you can't get in there yourself.

Actually, what we've seen is that even in countries where abortion is illegal, women still have them.

This is the reality you guys don't want to deal with. If a woman doesn't WANT to be pregnant, she will find a way to NOT be pregnant. This is why we've had abortion going back to the Ancient World.

Now, if you guys were really and truly serious about wanting there to be less abortions, there are ways to do that.

1) Universal Health Care.
2) Universal Sex Education without any moralistic or religious bullshit thrown in.
3) Paid Family and Medical Leave
4) Every working adult gets a living wage.

Will that stop the woman who thinks of abortion as another form of birth control? No.

Will it stop unwanted pregnancies and pregnancies ended by economic circumstances? Yes.

We've seen that in all those gun-grabbing, socialist European countries you liberals hate so much, which have an abortion rate half the rate we have in the US.

 

[JoeB131]

Funny how someone like Hobby Lobby had to sue the US Government for that right. But then again, we're talking choice here, are we not?

You mean Hobby Lobby was going to have a baby and someone was going to force it to have an abortion?

Oh. Wait. Hobby Lobby doesn't have a uterus. Hobby Lobby isn't even a person. Hobby Lobby just wanted to deny their $9.00 an hour cashiers the right to use the birth control of their choice because they hate abortion so much.

Of course, Hobby Lobby doesn't hate abortion so much to the point where they stop doing business with China, which forces women to have abortions if they've exceeded their one-child limit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Susan Smith went to prison for life for killing her two children. Why wouldn't a woman go to prison for life for killing her fertilized egg,

if there's no difference between the former and the latter?

 

[kaz]

you are placing different values on human life and attempting to justify it.

Thing is, in one instance you don't consider it to BE human life. Nice try.

That's because it isn't human life, it is the potential for human life. There is no proof or guarantee that the fetus will ever be a human life because 1/3 of all fetuses are not even viable and spontaneously abort.

That's why women don't generally tell people they are pregnant until after the first trimester has passed.

So Mrs. Mao, if someone punches a pregnant woman intentionally and kills the fetus, is it murder?