Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[Expat]

Thanks for clarifying your sexual orientation for the record. I'll make sure to refer to you by the correct gender in the future. My apologies, ma'am.

Meh, apology unnecessary seeing as I gave zero indication of my gender. I'm just not used to needing to. I guess I don't usually talk online to strangers.

Then uh, why did you register in the first place?

I came across a post on google where some American declared lower class English hated Thatcher. But that's another topic.

 

[Expat]

Is pointing out that I'm a newcomer supposed to have special meaning? Cause it doesn't bother me.

What about married women that have abortions and already have kids? I've known 'em. They already have responsibilities and aren't worried about "being seen weighed down by the chains of responsibility". They gave priority to supporting their children by terminating a pregnancy. 61% of women who terminate a pregnancy already have one or more children. Most of them aren't teenage girls worried about getting caught with their pants down. They're doing what they think is best for their child/ren. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

Your point? If I wasn't born, I wouldn't be mourning the loss of not being born. I just wouldn't exist. You're going to get all existential on this?

There's nothing wrong with my logic. You're the one getting philosophical about fetuses that were never even born. If we start counting human beings from pregnancy, where the hell would you even start? Conception? What do we do? Give women pregnancy tests every month just to make sure they don't murder or hurt a human being? It's unreasonable. There's an easy, straight forward line in the sand. Birth. Either you were born and took your first breath or you didn't. It's worked for a really really long time. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

Nobody who is dead "mourns" their own death. That's a piss poor justification for murder.

So what? What do you propose? You want to give equal rights from conception? Investigate every death from conception? I'm sure all the women who have miscarried and had stillbirths would just love that. If you decide to treat fetuses as human beings with full rights, you need extremely draconian laws to protect them starting from conception. Frankly, the situation is not the same as a born child that is living independent of a woman for life support. Until first breath, you're talking about a parasitic relationship. Hard to spot in the beginning and you'd need to get pretty invasive to check that no one's performing DIY abortions at home. And even then, how do you tell the DIY's using meds from the one who is miscarrying?

A fetus and a baby are not the same thing and can't effectively be given the same rights.

 

[P@triot]

You're reaching, and failing

Reaching (for other people's money) and failing (at everything he does in life) is what JoeB. does.

He calls people "trolls" because that's literally what he is. I used to own him in all debates (I mean epic own) until I caught his **** up in a gun debate. Early in the thread, he claimed he "didn't care" one way or another about the gun issue. Later in the thread, he was going ape-shit about how bad guns are and how they need to be banned. If that's not glaring evidence of a bored, asshole troll, I don't know what is.

It was at that point I put him on "ignore". He's just looking to see what reaction he can get out of people and looking for an argument. Once he saw the gun thread was going in the pro-direction, he immediately turned "anti".

That's what you get with unemployed parasites like him. He can't get a job, he can't get a girl, he has no friends, so his only "interaction" with people is trolling for a reaction out of them. Kind of like a child who acts out for attention.

 

[P@triot]

The woman already gets to choose. There are those who would like to take women's rights away but that won't be happening anytime soon.

How shameful that we want to "take away" your "right" (comical term) to commit MURDER.

By the way, tell me again what section in the Constitution that states you have any rights to killing a baby?

 

[P@triot]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

Welcome to the 19th century. So good to have you here, back, um...er.....then.

In your world we can also have these little buggers working in factories by the time they are nine or ten. After all, with this plethora of children being born somebody's got to support them and WE KNOW IT AIN'T GONNA' BE JERKS LIKE YOU.

Spoken like a true liberal parasite stuck in the late 1800's and drinking the Karl Marx kool-aid

 

[P@triot]

The woman already gets to choose. There are those who would like to take women's rights away but that won't be happening anytime soon.

Don't be so sure. There have been bigger fallacies in the last 100 years about what could actually happen when the irrational and ignorant get their way.

Exactly! Barack Obama and Obamacare are glaring evidence of that.

For once, one of the dumbest posters on USMB said something accurate and intelligent! Kudos!

 

[koshergrl]

Is pointing out that I'm a newcomer supposed to have special meaning? Cause it doesn't bother me.

What about married women that have abortions and already have kids? I've known 'em. They already have responsibilities and aren't worried about "being seen weighed down by the chains of responsibility". They gave priority to supporting their children by terminating a pregnancy. 61% of women who terminate a pregnancy already have one or more children. Most of them aren't teenage girls worried about getting caught with their pants down. They're doing what they think is best for their child/ren. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

Your point? If I wasn't born, I wouldn't be mourning the loss of not being born. I just wouldn't exist. You're going to get all existential on this?

There's nothing wrong with my logic. You're the one getting philosophical about fetuses that were never even born. If we start counting human beings from pregnancy, where the hell would you even start? Conception? What do we do? Give women pregnancy tests every month just to make sure they don't murder or hurt a human being? It's unreasonable. There's an easy, straight forward line in the sand. Birth. Either you were born and took your first breath or you didn't. It's worked for a really really long time. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

Nobody who is dead "mourns" their own death. That's a piss poor justification for murder.

So what? What do you propose? You want to give equal rights from conception? Investigate every death from conception? I'm sure all the women who have miscarried and had stillbirths would just love that. If you decide to treat fetuses as human beings with full rights, you need extremely draconian laws to protect them starting from conception. Frankly, the situation is not the same as a born child that is living independent of a woman for life support. Until first breath, you're talking about a parasitic relationship. Hard to spot in the beginning and you'd need to get pretty invasive to check that no one's performing DIY abortions at home. And even then, how do you tell the DIY's using meds from the one who is miscarrying?

A fetus and a baby are not the same thing and can't effectively be given the same rights.

A fetus at 30 weeks and a baby ARE the same thing. A fetus at 22 weeks and a baby are the same thing. A fetus at 6 weeks and a baby are the same thing.

A miscarriage and induced abortion are two completely different things; as dying from a heart attack and being killed by deliberate poisoning are two different things. I find it fascinating that one who says a developing child at 22 weeks and a developing child at 22 months are two COMPLETELY different things; one isn't even a person!...can say that abortion and miscarriage are the SAME.

 

[Expat]

Nobody who is dead "mourns" their own death. That's a piss poor justification for murder.

So what? What do you propose? You want to give equal rights from conception? Investigate every death from conception? I'm sure all the women who have miscarried and had stillbirths would just love that. If you decide to treat fetuses as human beings with full rights, you need extremely draconian laws to protect them starting from conception. Frankly, the situation is not the same as a born child that is living independent of a woman for life support. Until first breath, you're talking about a parasitic relationship. Hard to spot in the beginning and you'd need to get pretty invasive to check that no one's performing DIY abortions at home. And even then, how do you tell the DIY's using meds from the one who is miscarrying?

A fetus and a baby are not the same thing and can't effectively be given the same rights.

A fetus at 30 weeks and a baby ARE the same thing. A fetus at 22 weeks and a baby are the same thing. A fetus at 6 weeks and a baby are the same thing.

A miscarriage and induced abortion are two completely different things; as dying from a heart attack and being killed by deliberate poisoning are two different things. I find it fascinating that one who says a developing child at 22 weeks and a developing child at 22 months are two COMPLETELY different things; one isn't even a person!...can say that abortion and miscarriage are the SAME.

If you made abortion illegal, women would still get abortions. How do you tell miscarriage apart from DIY abortion? I can go buy Misoprostol (used for gastric ulcers and effectively terminates pregnancies) and induce miscarriage/abortion from home. When women miscarry and show up in hospital, you want to investigate each and every one of them to see if they are "murdered" their baby?

By medical criteria, miscarriage and abortion are the same thing. The termination of a pregnancy either spontaneously or by interference.

If you want to make abortion illegal, you'll see more "miscarriages" in ER's that require medical treatment. Are you going to prosecute these women? Are you going to run investigations on every woman that shows up in hospital with a miscarriage? Please tell me how you are going to ensure that the "unborn people" are protected? If they should have absolutely equal rights with everyone, we should have cause of death known for each and every one and that leaves every miscarriage and stillbirth suspect. Can you honestly tell me you want all of these investigated?

What about the abortions/miscarriages that happen less than two months in? They might not even know they're pregnant. But they could do something that could harm their child. We protect children right? Where are you drawing this line to protect the unborn? Please, I really want you to enlighten me how you plan to treat the unborn as equal to everyone else.

 

[Noomi]

Nobody who is dead "mourns" their own death. That's a piss poor justification for murder.

So what? What do you propose? You want to give equal rights from conception? Investigate every death from conception? I'm sure all the women who have miscarried and had stillbirths would just love that. If you decide to treat fetuses as human beings with full rights, you need extremely draconian laws to protect them starting from conception. Frankly, the situation is not the same as a born child that is living independent of a woman for life support. Until first breath, you're talking about a parasitic relationship. Hard to spot in the beginning and you'd need to get pretty invasive to check that no one's performing DIY abortions at home. And even then, how do you tell the DIY's using meds from the one who is miscarrying?

A fetus and a baby are not the same thing and can't effectively be given the same rights.

A fetus at 30 weeks and a baby ARE the same thing. A fetus at 22 weeks and a baby are the same thing. A fetus at 6 weeks and a baby are the same thing.

A miscarriage and induced abortion are two completely different things; as dying from a heart attack and being killed by deliberate poisoning are two different things. I find it fascinating that one who says a developing child at 22 weeks and a developing child at 22 months are two COMPLETELY different things; one isn't even a person!...can say that abortion and miscarriage are the SAME.

I am sorry, but a six week old embryo and a six week old newborn are entirely different. Not just in location, but in virtually everything. Same with a six month old fetus and a six month old baby.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So what? What do you propose? You want to give equal rights from conception? Investigate every death from conception? I'm sure all the women who have miscarried and had stillbirths would just love that. If you decide to treat fetuses as human beings with full rights, you need extremely draconian laws to protect them starting from conception. Frankly, the situation is not the same as a born child that is living independent of a woman for life support. Until first breath, you're talking about a parasitic relationship. Hard to spot in the beginning and you'd need to get pretty invasive to check that no one's performing DIY abortions at home. And even then, how do you tell the DIY's using meds from the one who is miscarrying?

A fetus and a baby are not the same thing and can't effectively be given the same rights.

A fetus at 30 weeks and a baby ARE the same thing. A fetus at 22 weeks and a baby are the same thing. A fetus at 6 weeks and a baby are the same thing.

A miscarriage and induced abortion are two completely different things; as dying from a heart attack and being killed by deliberate poisoning are two different things. I find it fascinating that one who says a developing child at 22 weeks and a developing child at 22 months are two COMPLETELY different things; one isn't even a person!...can say that abortion and miscarriage are the SAME.

I am sorry, but a six week old embryo and a six week old newborn are entirely different. Not just in location, but in virtually everything. Same with a six month old fetus and a six month old baby.

How so? By physical appearance? By what?

What does an embryo need that humans dont? Food, water, air? What?

oh that's right you're a callous, selfish person that clubbing is more important to you than children.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what? What do you propose? You want to give equal rights from conception? Investigate every death from conception? I'm sure all the women who have miscarried and had stillbirths would just love that. If you decide to treat fetuses as human beings with full rights, you need extremely draconian laws to protect them starting from conception. Frankly, the situation is not the same as a born child that is living independent of a woman for life support. Until first breath, you're talking about a parasitic relationship. Hard to spot in the beginning and you'd need to get pretty invasive to check that no one's performing DIY abortions at home. And even then, how do you tell the DIY's using meds from the one who is miscarrying?

A fetus and a baby are not the same thing and can't effectively be given the same rights.

A fetus at 30 weeks and a baby ARE the same thing. A fetus at 22 weeks and a baby are the same thing. A fetus at 6 weeks and a baby are the same thing.

A miscarriage and induced abortion are two completely different things; as dying from a heart attack and being killed by deliberate poisoning are two different things. I find it fascinating that one who says a developing child at 22 weeks and a developing child at 22 months are two COMPLETELY different things; one isn't even a person!...can say that abortion and miscarriage are the SAME.

If you made abortion illegal, women would still get abortions. How do you tell miscarriage apart from DIY abortion? I can go buy Misoprostol (used for gastric ulcers and effectively terminates pregnancies) and induce miscarriage/abortion from home. When women miscarry and show up in hospital, you want to investigate each and every one of them to see if they are "murdered" their baby?

By medical criteria, miscarriage and abortion are the same thing. The termination of a pregnancy either spontaneously or by interference.

If you want to make abortion illegal, you'll see more "miscarriages" in ER's that require medical treatment. Are you going to prosecute these women? Are you going to run investigations on every woman that shows up in hospital with a miscarriage? Please tell me how you are going to ensure that the "unborn people" are protected? If they should have absolutely equal rights with everyone, we should have cause of death known for each and every one and that leaves every miscarriage and stillbirth suspect. Can you honestly tell me you want all of these investigated?

What about the abortions/miscarriages that happen less than two months in? They might not even know they're pregnant. But they could do something that could harm their child. We protect children right? Where are you drawing this line to protect the unborn? Please, I really want you to enlighten me how you plan to treat the unborn as equal to everyone else.

Questions those opposed to privacy rights haven’t the courage to answer.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I do not recognize that case because it cannot overcome a simple biological fact. It takes two to make a baby.

Simple biological fact is the law can't compensate men for the fact that they can't get pregnant. When men get pregnant, they should be the ones that make this decision.

Sooooo, using that logic, and the tables are turned,.....the man wants to terminate the pregnancy (have the child brutally killed in the womb), yet the woman wants to have the child, then the man should not be held responsible for providing for that child in any way, shape, or form, correct?

I mean, since the man has no say so in the matter, he should not be held to answer for the womans decision, correct?

Where is the fairness to the man in all this?

Basically, a woman can spread her legs for any Slapdick that comes around, and they have all the power to pick and choose, based on convenience or inconvenience, whether to kill that innocent life or not.

In a nutshell, the woman can use abortion as birth control, as many do, while the man has no rights either way.

Seriously, do you ghouls realize how ridiculous you sound?

 

[buckeye45_73]

A fetus at 30 weeks and a baby ARE the same thing. A fetus at 22 weeks and a baby are the same thing. A fetus at 6 weeks and a baby are the same thing.

A miscarriage and induced abortion are two completely different things; as dying from a heart attack and being killed by deliberate poisoning are two different things. I find it fascinating that one who says a developing child at 22 weeks and a developing child at 22 months are two COMPLETELY different things; one isn't even a person!...can say that abortion and miscarriage are the SAME.

If you made abortion illegal, women would still get abortions. How do you tell miscarriage apart from DIY abortion? I can go buy Misoprostol (used for gastric ulcers and effectively terminates pregnancies) and induce miscarriage/abortion from home. When women miscarry and show up in hospital, you want to investigate each and every one of them to see if they are "murdered" their baby?

By medical criteria, miscarriage and abortion are the same thing. The termination of a pregnancy either spontaneously or by interference.

If you want to make abortion illegal, you'll see more "miscarriages" in ER's that require medical treatment. Are you going to prosecute these women? Are you going to run investigations on every woman that shows up in hospital with a miscarriage? Please tell me how you are going to ensure that the "unborn people" are protected? If they should have absolutely equal rights with everyone, we should have cause of death known for each and every one and that leaves every miscarriage and stillbirth suspect. Can you honestly tell me you want all of these investigated?

What about the abortions/miscarriages that happen less than two months in? They might not even know they're pregnant. But they could do something that could harm their child. We protect children right? Where are you drawing this line to protect the unborn? Please, I really want you to enlighten me how you plan to treat the unborn as equal to everyone else.

Questions those opposed to privacy rights haven’t the courage to answer.

It's not like we dont have these tools in place for say....murders, suicides, how do we determine if its a homicide or a suicide?

pretty easy, we'd treat them like other crimes. Intent is very important and can be determined in most cases through forensics. Are you going to hire your boyfriend to punch you in the stomach? Is he going to take the fall? I doubt it. They can test for drugs to induce miscarriages...Just like anything else they can tell by quantity and how often you use it and what you use it for to determine intent.

 

[jgarden]

Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.

And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.

Those are all choices.

Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.

And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.

And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.

****************************************************************************************************

Countries restricting abortions, particularly in Africa and Latin America, have higher rates of unsafe abortion than those that allow the procedure, according to a study published today in The Lancet journal.

The rate of unsafe abortion in Africa was 28 per 1,000 women of childbearing age and 31 per 1,000 in Latin America, regions where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries, according to the study led by Gilda Sedgh at the Guttmacher Institute in New York, using the most recent data gathered in 2008. That compares with less than 0.5 per 1,000 in western Europe and North America.

Countries Banning Abortion See Higher Rates of Unsafe Procedures - Bloomberg

The reality is that women around the world are not prepared to follow the dictates of the Vatican or laws passed by conservative old men in grey suits who have absolutely no knowledge of their personal circumstances.

Some of the highest abortion rates are in Africa and Latin America where it is either illegal or highly restricted.

What punishment does the OP propose to impose on young women in America if and when they choose to defy such laws?
Murder 1
Murder 2
Manslaughter

Pro-Life supporters need to come to the realization that this is not something you can limit by simply passing laws.

 

[Noomi]

Sooooo, using that logic, and the tables are turned,.....the man wants to terminate the pregnancy (have the child brutally killed in the womb), yet the woman wants to have the child, then the man should not be held responsible for providing for that child in any way, shape, or form, correct?

I mean, since the man has no say so in the matter, he should not be held to answer for the womans decision, correct?

Where is the fairness to the man in all this?

Basically, a woman can spread her legs for any Slapdick that comes around, and they have all the power to pick and choose, based on convenience or inconvenience, whether to kill that innocent life or not.

In a nutshell, the woman can use abortion as birth control, as many do, while the man has no rights either way.

Seriously, do you ghouls realize how ridiculous you sound?

I believe that if the man doesn't want the baby, and he makes it clear to the woman that he doesn't wish to be a father, then he should be able to relinquish his rights as a father, because I agree, it is unfair that a woman can terminate a pregnancy that the man wants, and he cannot get out of paying child support for a baby he never wanted.

 

[Noomi]

A fetus at 30 weeks and a baby ARE the same thing. A fetus at 22 weeks and a baby are the same thing. A fetus at 6 weeks and a baby are the same thing.

A miscarriage and induced abortion are two completely different things; as dying from a heart attack and being killed by deliberate poisoning are two different things. I find it fascinating that one who says a developing child at 22 weeks and a developing child at 22 months are two COMPLETELY different things; one isn't even a person!...can say that abortion and miscarriage are the SAME.

I am sorry, but a six week old embryo and a six week old newborn are entirely different. Not just in location, but in virtually everything. Same with a six month old fetus and a six month old baby.

How so? By physical appearance? By what?

What does an embryo need that humans dont? Food, water, air? What?

oh that's right you're a callous, selfish person that clubbing is more important to you than children.

A fetus is physically reliant on one person to survive, a newborn baby is not. A newborn baby breathes, a fetus does not.

You know nothing about the miracle of birth and all the changes that take place when a baby takes the first breath, do you?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Sooooo, using that logic, and the tables are turned,.....the man wants to terminate the pregnancy (have the child brutally killed in the womb), yet the woman wants to have the child, then the man should not be held responsible for providing for that child in any way, shape, or form, correct?

I mean, since the man has no say so in the matter, he should not be held to answer for the womans decision, correct?

Where is the fairness to the man in all this?

Basically, a woman can spread her legs for any Slapdick that comes around, and they have all the power to pick and choose, based on convenience or inconvenience, whether to kill that innocent life or not.

In a nutshell, the woman can use abortion as birth control, as many do, while the man has no rights either way.

Seriously, do you ghouls realize how ridiculous you sound?

I believe that if the man doesn't want the baby, and he makes it clear to the woman that he doesn't wish to be a father, then he should be able to relinquish his rights as a father, because I agree, it is unfair that a woman can terminate a pregnancy that the man wants, and he cannot get out of paying child support for a baby he never wanted.

Sooooo, since he should have that right, then he should have the right to say no to an abortion, seeing as though he's 100% just as responsible for creating that life, correct?

 

[Noomi]

Sooooo, using that logic, and the tables are turned,.....the man wants to terminate the pregnancy (have the child brutally killed in the womb), yet the woman wants to have the child, then the man should not be held responsible for providing for that child in any way, shape, or form, correct?

I mean, since the man has no say so in the matter, he should not be held to answer for the womans decision, correct?

Where is the fairness to the man in all this?

Basically, a woman can spread her legs for any Slapdick that comes around, and they have all the power to pick and choose, based on convenience or inconvenience, whether to kill that innocent life or not.

In a nutshell, the woman can use abortion as birth control, as many do, while the man has no rights either way.

Seriously, do you ghouls realize how ridiculous you sound?

I believe that if the man doesn't want the baby, and he makes it clear to the woman that he doesn't wish to be a father, then he should be able to relinquish his rights as a father, because I agree, it is unfair that a woman can terminate a pregnancy that the man wants, and he cannot get out of paying child support for a baby he never wanted.

Sooooo, since he should have that right, then he should have the right to say no to an abortion, seeing as though he's 100% just as responsible for creating that life, correct?

The man is not pregnant, so of course he has no say.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I am sorry, but a six week old embryo and a six week old newborn are entirely different. Not just in location, but in virtually everything. Same with a six month old fetus and a six month old baby.

How so? By physical appearance? By what?

What does an embryo need that humans dont? Food, water, air? What?

oh that's right you're a callous, selfish person that clubbing is more important to you than children.

A fetus is physically reliant on one person to survive, a newborn baby is not. A newborn baby breathes, a fetus does not.

You know nothing about the miracle of birth and all the changes that take place when a baby takes the first breath, do you?

Are you actually saying a newborn baby can survive on its own?

Because he/she cannot survive on their own.....No way, no how.......A newborn baby is just as reliant on one person to survive as a fetus......And that's a damn fact.

The whole argument you are trying, and seriously failing to make, is abjectly ridiculous.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I believe that if the man doesn't want the baby, and he makes it clear to the woman that he doesn't wish to be a father, then he should be able to relinquish his rights as a father, because I agree, it is unfair that a woman can terminate a pregnancy that the man wants, and he cannot get out of paying child support for a baby he never wanted.

Sooooo, since he should have that right, then he should have the right to say no to an abortion, seeing as though he's 100% just as responsible for creating that life, correct?

The man is not pregnant, so of course he has no say.

So a mans participation in the creation of that life, during mutually consented intercourse, with both knowing the possible consequences, is meaningless, as long as that life is an inconvenience to the woman?

What a crock of loony bullshit.