Pro-abortion? Why?

[Hale]

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.
There’s ample information online as to why women seek out abortions, all one needs to do is search for it.

Wow. Four rapid-fire caustic posts, where you could have just thought "None of your business".

You protest too much.

 

[Lesh]

So at what point in gestation does the fetus become a baby?

Science says one thing...anti-abortion freaks another

Why can people be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman?

Antiabortion freaks have PUSHED that ;legislation just so you could ask that question

At what point does the fetus evolve from a mass of cells to a viable life?

Anti'abortion freaks would say ..as soon as the penis spews

 

[Lesh]

Wow. Four rapid-fire caustic posts,

Which you somehow couldn't respond to

 

[Blues Man]

So at what point in gestation does the fetus become a baby?

Science says one thing...anti-abortion freaks another

Why can people be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman?

Antiabortion freaks have PUSHED that ;legislation just so you could ask that question

At what point does the fetus evolve from a mass of cells to a viable life?

Anti'abortion freaks would say ..as soon as the penis spews

Thank you for that utterly inane reply.

Now do any adults want to have a dialog about the questions I asked ?

 

[Hale]

Which you somehow couldn't respond to

You were given the truth, you disagree. That doesn't require a response.

 

[DOTR]

If you feel strongly that abortion should be available to all women at all times, I'd like to know why you think this is important.

I am NOT interested in whether you think abortion is "moral" or "immoral", only in why you feel access to abortion as a health service is necessary.

This is not a "trick question", I want honest answers.

Flamers will be reported and ignored.

Why is it that anyone who is pro abortion is also pro homosexual?

 

[dblack]

If you feel strongly that abortion should be available to all women at all times, I'd like to know why you think this is important.

I am NOT interested in whether you think abortion is "moral" or "immoral", only in why you feel access to abortion as a health service is necessary.

This is not a "trick question", I want honest answers.

Flamers will be reported and ignored.

I wouldn't say I think abortion "should be available", but I don't think it's something that government should legislate. My reasoning is that sovereignty over one's body is fundamental to individual freedom.

 

[Hale]

Why is it that anyone who is pro abortion is also pro homosexual?

I've never seen any connection between these two camps.

 

[Lesh]

Which you somehow couldn't respond to

You were given the truth, you disagree. That doesn't require a response.

I was given what YOU claim is the truth...and that "truth" turns out to be your OPINION.

Learn the difference

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I wonder if a woman on death row and 8 months pregnant would still be put to death.The liberals would scream bloody murder.

Oh, well then, let me help you out. It's the mother's choice to not have an abortion.

Say it twice, if you have to do so.

 

[JoeB131]

Is this telling? I think so. Those who allegedly believe that abortion does not take a life still approach the practice only from a defensive position. Some immediately tagged me with a "religious" label, apparently so they could dismiss me as a "nut".

Yes if you think there is a magic man in the sky who is judging you, you are a nut.

I'm confident that I've spelled out my request in the clearest possible terms, and at this point I'll have to (reluctantly) agree that the responses given by Chuz Life are most likely the truth. Those on the "pro" side of this issue seem to be, for whatever reason, socially invested in abortion, and are utterly unable to justify themselves personally. Their only reason seems to be "You are wrong to be anti-abortion" - and that's rather sad.

No, guy, I live in the real world.

In an ideal world, you wouldn't have some asshole in a theater who will talk on his cell phone while the movie is on. But there's always one.

In an ideal world, women will always practice perfect contraception and only have sex with good guys who are good father material and will never, ever have a medical complication.

In the real world, women make mistakes, nature makes mistakes, and shit just happens.

So you really have only one of three options.

1) Real world- mistakes happen, people will get abortions.

2) Denial World - Mistakes happen, people don't have legal options, abortions still happen, but from unsafe providers. This is what the US was like before Roe v. Wade, and it's what the reality is in a country like the Philippines, where despite having the kind of abortion laws you nutters want, they have 800,000 abortions a year and 1.8 million unwanted children running about in their slums.

3) A Theocratic Religious State where there is no freedom because we are making sure that no women have abortions! Think you have confidentiality with your doctor? Forget that... he's on the phone reporting you to the Pregnancy Police!

I might not be happy with option 1. But it's the least bad alternative.

 

[JoeB131]

This viewpoint is common but illogical. Is a newborn child able to live on their own, unassisted? How about a 2 year old? 8? How about an adult that needs additional oxygen, dialysis, a respirator, a feeding tube, or any other form of life support?

The idea that "it's not a child until it's born" is absurd. It IS a child - it's a child on life support, provided by the mother. Uninterrupted, it will remain a child. Aborted, it will die. If it wasn't alive you wouldn't feel compelled to "remove" it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Here's the problem with this argument. No one is FORCED to provide that life support. And if the poor person can't pay for that life support, fuck 'em, say the insurance companies. We got dressage horses to buy for rich people!

so what you religious nuts are saying is that a woman should be COMPELLED to provide life support for that glob of meat in her belly.

Even if it got there because a rapist put it there.
Even if is going to be horribly deformed when it is born.
Even if it is a threat to her physical and mental health.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the point: According the CDC, there have been between 600k and 1 million abortions per year since 1995. Other sources say more, some say less. Regardless, that's a lot of demand.

So what drives this demand??? Millions want and get an abortion, but none of them seem to know why...

Are women some kind of strange alien to you?

Millions of women decide, a baby wouldn't work at this point in her life. Maybe she's going to school, maybe she's getting established in her career, maybe she really doesn't want to have the child of that drunken hookup she had.

 

[Hale]

Yes if you think there is a magic man in the sky who is judging you, you are a nut.

Is this what you call "tolerant" and "inclusive"? Are you here to debate, or just to condemn?

so what you religious nuts are saying is that a woman should be COMPELLED to provide life support for that glob of meat in her belly.

I've never expressed religious belief here, yet you respond to my claim that some have tagged me as a religious nut - by calling me a religious nut. More "tolerance"?

 

[JoeB131]

Is this what you call "tolerant" and "inclusive"? Are you here to debate, or just to condemn?

There's really no 'debating" with religious nuts... They think God is on their side and they are "Right", and their magic sky fairy will reward them for being homophobic, misogynistic twits.

I've never expressed religious belief here, yet you respond to my claim that some have tagged me as a religious nut - by calling me a religious nut. More "tolerance"?

Well, that's become the new thing for anti-Choice nutters, trying to claim they have a "secular" reason for wanting to send women back to the 1920's.

 

[debbiedowner]

Women have many reasons for choosing an abortion: rape, incest, survival, mental/physical/financial health.

This is the closest anyone has come to answering my question, but it seems to be a sweeping rather than personal answer.

I find it odd that anyone takes exception to the "pro" prefix. I have no issue at all with stating I am "anti-abortion", and obviously the "pro" designation doesn't mean "everyone should get an abortion" as some here insinuate.

I can tell you why I am anti-abortion, but as I stated in Post #1 that's not my interest.

I'm just curious why people think abortion should be available to everyone at all times. If you accidentally cut yourself with a chain saw, you want the damage fixed so you'll heal, not be disabled, not get an infection and die, any number of reasons. You get an inflamed appendix removed so it won't rupture and kill you.

So why do any here want abortion available to all? What are the reasons? Has no one ever thought of this?

Why is access to abortion such a popular and volatile issue, when no one on the "pro" side seems to have any reasons?

While I am not an advocate for abortion I have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. Your side wants small govt in one hand and the in the other you want to control everyone and how they live which is really not your goddamn business.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'd like to know why the OP thinks that anyone here believes that he/she really wants answers to the questions asked. He/she has absolutely asked and been answered many, many times regarding these same questions.

The OP knows that he/she will not accept any answers provided as having real merit unless he/she is able to use them for the purpose of demonizing those who don't agree with him/her.

Check the archives, loser. This is a topic that has been covered THOUSANDS of times here.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ok, since folks insist I'll go there:

It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus as a "child". It is potentially a child, but it is a fallacy to define it as a "child" who is able to live and breathe on their own.

This viewpoint is common but illogical. Is a newborn child able to live on their own, unassisted? How about a 2 year old? 8? How about an adult that needs additional oxygen, dialysis, a respirator, a feeding tube, or any other form of life support?

The idea that "it's not a child until it's born" is absurd. It IS a child - it's a child on life support, provided by the mother. Uninterrupted, it will remain a child. Aborted, it will die. If it wasn't alive you wouldn't feel compelled to "remove" it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It is not a child any more than an egg is a chicken. It is the potential for life but it is not a life and it’s not a “child in life support”, it is a parasite hosted by its mother to be technically correct.

You can mumble jumble all you want. Everyone knows it is a baby...that fact is not going away. Unless the health of the mother or baby is an issue, NO ABORTIONS....PUT THE MURDEROUS MOTHER IN PRISON!

Yeah. That's how they'd do it in your Utopia. Sad.

 

[Lesh]

Yes if you think there is a magic man in the sky who is judging you, you are a nut.

Is this what you call "tolerant" and "inclusive"? Are you here to debate, or just to condemn?

so what you religious nuts are saying is that a woman should be COMPELLED to provide life support for that glob of meat in her belly.

I've never expressed religious belief here, yet you respond to my claim that some have tagged me as a religious nut - by calling me a religious nut. More "tolerance"?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth

 

[Hale]

so what you religious nuts are saying is that a woman should be COMPELLED to provide life support for that glob of meat in her belly.
Even if it got there because a rapist put it there.
Even if is going to be horribly deformed when it is born.
Even if it is a threat to her physical and mental health.

All potentially valid reasons for abortion - IF a pregnancy is not a life. If it is - and this is a huge "if" - it deserves the same consideration as you claim for the mother. This is not a religious concept.

Millions of women decide, a baby wouldn't work at this point in her life. Maybe she's going to school, maybe she's getting established in her career, maybe she really doesn't want to have the child of that drunken hookup she had.

Is it a Freudian slip that the "glob of meat" from your prior post has become a "baby" or an unwanted "child" in this one?

Though you obviously think abortion is permissible, could we agree that is not desirable, and that both unwanted pregnancy and abortion should be avoided if possible? If so, keep reading...

Your first reasons - rape, deformity, risk to health - are largely unavoidable. No one desires rape, a horribly deformed baby, or a risk to their own health. But let's contrast these reasons to your other reasons: "wouldn't work at this point in life", "just getting established in career", and "drunken hookup". These two sets of "reasons for abortion" are hugely different, and I believe that to class them together does a great injustice to women.

By conflating all potential reasons for abortion, you give equal credence to women who find themselves in the tragedy of rape and those women who just want to avoid the consequences of a "drunken hookup". If abortion is undesirable, is it fair to plead all these cases as being the same?

You see where I'm headed here? I'm anti-abortion, but I recognize that not everyone agrees with me. So I'm arguing for compromise, a principle that is central to our governmental system but largely forgotten in today's radical political environment. It's clear that you are not open to this, but I write in hopes that others might be encouraged.