Abortion. Pro Life or Pro Choice TS Men and Woman only please.

[tekla]

What you should really be asking is "if you were capable of becoming pregnant in the first place, would you still feel the same way"


"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Florynce Kennedy

[The None Blonde]

I agree with most you say The None Blonde.

I stated pro abortion above, but maybe I just should have qualified my answer. After 10-12 weeks the tiny fetus begins to resemble a tiny human being, this is where it becomes very difficult.  Sure the brain hasn't developed, but a tiny heart beat is present.

Would you turn off the life support on a family member with a functioning heart, but that was brain dead? Same situation imo... to me, no brain activity = the person is nolonger there, or not there. Brain activity.... person, a life, something precious.

[Dianna]

I am not a doctor of medicine, but it is often suggested to parents or relatives with a brain-dead injury.

That is NOT comparable to a fetus.

[The None Blonde]

Actually, in the strictest biological sense, it is.

If we are locating a point where abortion is cut off... the sensible option and only sane one to protect life, where is that point? Centuries have known the heart as the core of life... the being of a person, but in reality it is little more than a pump... vital, no arguments, but a simple pump performing a contraction through electrical charge. The brain, the true centre of 'personhood' should be our messure yes?

If a pregnancy gets to a point where the foetus is consious... or somehow aware... with brain activity, then abortion imo, is wrong unless extremely medically vital for the mothers health or mental wellbeing. Before this point, my analogy stands... It's a vessel, no more alive than a sadly bain dead person who is kept alive by life support... afterall, what is the mother upto a point?

This sounds detached and mechanical of me, but I belive the only way to truely discuss something this... emotive, is to remove emotion. Feeling is important, but feelings can stop one seeing the woods for the trees.

[Silver]

What you should really be asking is "if you were capable of becoming pregnant in the first place, would you still feel the same way"

Agree.

[K8]

When my daughter was 13 I told her that once you are pregnant and don't want to be, you have no good choices.  She has been very careful with birth control in the 22 years since then.

I believe that abortion is a very tough decision for any woman.  Some seem more cavalier about it than others, but I don't think it is easy for any woman regardless of appearances.

Since that is what I believe, I don't think a one-size-fits-all approach is a good idea.  Each unwanted pregnancy is different.  It should be a decision between the woman and her medical and spiritual guides.  I am not qualified to second-guess her.

- Kate

[Dianna]

An opinion on this topic is not restricted to one gender.    All I have to say on the topic.

[Alyssa M.]

Actually, in the strictest biological sense, it is.

If we are locating a point where abortion is cut off... the sensible option and only sane one to protect life, where is that point? Centuries have known the heart as the core of life... the being of a person, but in reality it is little more than a pump... vital, no arguments, but a simple pump performing a contraction through electrical charge. The brain, the true centre of 'personhood' should be our messure yes?

If a pregnancy gets to a point where the foetus is consious... or somehow aware... with brain activity, then abortion imo, is wrong unless extremely medically vital for the mothers health or mental wellbeing. Before this point, my analogy stands... It's a vessel, no more alive than a sadly bain dead person who is kept alive by life support... afterall, what is the mother upto a point?

This sounds detached and mechanical of me, but I belive the only way to truely discuss something this... emotive, is to remove emotion. Feeling is important, but feelings can stop one seeing the woods for the trees.

I think you're looking at the problem the right way. There are two things that I see differently. First, a brain isn't enough. For there to be consciousness, that brain has to interact with the world. That's why birth is such a sharp dividing line in how I see it. Of course fetuses respond to outside stimuli -- but they have almost no capacity to interact other than to absorb those stimuli.

On the other hand, the fact that fetuses have the potential to grow makes them more important, as any mother knows, or even any father who has anticipated the birth of his child.

I agree with Tekla -- it makes a huge difference whether you can get pregnant yourself. This issue is about women's rights in general, but not about my rights, not about the rights of postmenopausal women, women who are infertile for some other reason, etc. I suspect that's why the OP was looking for "TS Men and Woman only please" -- though the "Woman" part of that seems a bit transphobic if the intention was to exclude trans women, no? Yes, this is certainly a topic everyone has a stake in, but those of us whose stake is not quite as direct ought to show some restraint.

[Dianna]

I have no idea at all why the OP stated trans men or women.   One doesn't need to be pregnant only to have a viewpoint on this topic.  There are SO's on this board, are there not?

[Miniar]

One doesn't have to be capable of pregnancy in order to have an opinion, but from where I'm sitting, I think the matter should be up to those that can.

[Tammy Hope]

That makes no sense what so ever you know.
There is no (remotely sane) politician that supports "month 9 abortion".

Where abortion is considered a right it's not fully "unrestricted" either.
There's limitations on how late you can terminate (for example).

Suggesting that the pro-choice lobby would "mobalize in force" to stop a law that would set a time limit on abortion (such as, first trimester only) is suggesting that the pro-choice lobby wants abortion to be available even if you're 24 hours from birth, which is absurd at best.

Absolutely untrue.

that's exactly what they want.

Here's an example from the mornings news:

A loophole in state law is preventing Campbell County investigators from charging a woman they say killed her newborn baby.

Deputies were called to a home in the 1200 block of Lone Jack Road in Rustburg around 11:00a.m. Friday.  The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor.  When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1:00a.m., about ten hours earlier.  Investigators say the baby was already dead when deputies got there.

Investigators tell WSLS the baby's airway was still blocked.  They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother.  Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life.  Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.

"In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.", says Investigator Tracy Emerson.  "She could shoot the baby, stab the baby.  As long as it's still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it's no crime in the state of Virginia."

The Campbell County Sheriff's Office and Commonwealth's Attorney's office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly.  He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Emerson tells us there's a double standard with the law.  If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.

The baby's grandmother was home and was the one who called 911.  Police say she will not be charged because the baby was born in the middle of the night and the grandmother did not know until late morning.  Investigators tell us the baby's father was upset when he showed up at the home after deputies.

"He was very upset.  I think the grandparents were upset.  I believe everyone was upset, except for the person who should have been upset, the mother.", says Emerson.

Emerson tells us the woman knew she was pregnant and had received prenatal care.  He says the baby was full-term, due Tuesday.  The medical examiner says the baby was born healthy.  An autopsy is being performed.  The baby's body will then be released to the family.

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/local/lynchburg/article/mother_wont_be_charged_with_babys_death_because_of_law_loophole/68659/#comments

One of a great many times when lawmakers are too petrified of the might of the pro-choice lobby to dare to cross them.

the so called "partial birth abortion" debate is the big obvious example. there were perfectly reasonable exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother in those bills but because it didn't have the mental health loophole (and seriously, who suddenly gets life-changingly depressed in the last month of pregnancy? 1 in a million?)

But it was a restriction on ANY abortion and thus had to be opposed.

there are plenty of examples.

In my own state of Mississippi, the legislature tried to pass a law which required abortion clinics to meet the same health and cleanliness standards as all other outpatient surgery clinics. A reasonable requirement that shouldn't have impacted the access to abortion in the state (already very limited) at all.

Yet the pro-choice lobby fought the bill tooth and nail. why?

Not because they wanted women to get abortions in unsanitary clinics (albeit the charge could be made they seem unconcerned about the possibility) but because it was a law that meddled with ANY abortion in ANY way.

It's an intimidation ploy. to be sure, both sets of hard liners do it - I'm just elaborating on the pro-choice end because you deny they are so extreme.

Post Merge: December 20, 2009, 12:11:20 AM

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Florynce Kennedy

Which is why 100% of women are pro-choice.

[The None Blonde]

I have no idea at all why the OP stated trans men or women.   One doesn't need to be pregnant only to have a viewpoint on this topic.  There are SO's on this board, are there not?

Trans men,
Women,

The two groups that CAN get pregnant.

Though it can also include transwomen, but mostly i feel the op was aiming to discuss the topic with those its pertinent to. Sure, others can have a view point, but is it that relvant at the end of the day?


Who has the right to choose thier hair colour? The person, or other people? well, actually ther person who the hair belongs to.

This debate, nomatter what anyone say, should rest with those it effects. End of story....


I mean, you wouldn't leave the final say on Trans rights with Lesbian and Gay people to decide would you..... Oh..... wait....

[Dianna]

^^  Laura Hope, that sounds like clear murder to me.  Unbelievable?

[Asfsd4214]

Trans men,
Women,

The two groups that CAN get pregnant.

Though it can also include transwomen, but mostly i feel the op was aiming to discuss the topic with those its pertinent to. Sure, others can have a view point, but is it that relvant at the end of the day?


Who has the right to choose thier hair colour? The person, or other people? well, actually ther person who the hair belongs to.

This debate, nomatter what anyone say, should rest with those it effects. End of story....


I mean, you wouldn't leave the final say on Trans rights with Lesbian and Gay people to decide would you..... Oh..... wait....

NONE of those things involve a potential human life.

Why is this so hard to understand?

It's not about pregnancy, it's not about freedom of choice, it's about someone's life.

But what do I know, I'm just a crazy pro-lifer who's apparently disqualified from the discussion anyway. 

Also apparently are all infertile women, for any reason, all women past reproductive age, and all men.

So everyone who is either infertile, male, past say... 45. You're all out. Apparently you have no say in issues of right and wrong unless it effects you.


Should we extend it further? Maybe you shouldn't be able to discuss ANY form of discrimination, for any side, unless you are personally a member of the discriminated group. You can't advocate for or against any kind of military action taken by the government unless you've been in the military. Etc, etc, etc.

[SusanKG]

I'm sorry, but that hypothetical is just stupid. And has seemingly little if any relevance to the topic.

Whaaah, you attacked me for just expressing my opinion and....oh, never mind, that has already been used.

What you should really be asking is "if you were capable of becoming pregnant in the first place, would you still feel the same way". Because otherwise, the hypothetical is just absurd.

I'll decide what I should be asking. Apparently, not content making health decisions for me, you want to be my speech writer as well.

And that's just the start of the problems with that hypothetical.

How can a hypothetical be a problem and ridiculous?

I'm not going to answer your question, one because I think the answer is obvious, and two it would validate what is a completely rediculous hypothetical.

You're spending a lot of screen space not answering, and it's answers (dialogue) I seek, not validation, I can get that at any parking garage.

I will answer the far more legitimate question I'm surprised nobodies asked yet, which is if I could get pregnant, would I still feel the same way about abortion and advocate the legal restriction that would also encompass me against abortion, then yes, I would.

Your question is a very good question, but to declare it "far more legitimate" is unfair. But to answer it: If I could transition and be able to become pregnant, would I still feel the same way about abortion and advocate against the legal restriction that would encompass me against abortion, then yes, I would oppose your moral restrictions being enforced against me or anyone.

The closest hypothetical to yours that I can think of that makes sense would be asking "Would you have SRS if it meant having periods", which would also get a yes answer. But not unlike your hypothetical, it doesn't have any relevance to the abortion debate either. The only way to make the hypothetical you've given make sense, would be if 100% of all females got pregnant the moment they became physically capable.

And there are many, many people in the world (almost entirely men) who believe that is the only purpose of females, and it is their job in life to control their reproductive function. As Jimmy Durante, I believe it was said, "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone".


SusanKG
Post Merge: December 20, 2009, 01:28:30 AM
Ashley,

There are a lot of posts above on this subject. I don't believe anyone called you crazy - if they did, shame on them. Pro-lifer? Well, I see where someone might make that judgement about you. I hope no one "disqualified" you from participating because of your view. If someone tries that, just tell that SusanKG said it was all right!

SusanKG 

[Asfsd4214]

Everyone leaving everyone else alone as a governing structure would be anarchy. Complete, ungoverned, anarchy. Is that what you're advocating?

That means no laws against murder, rape, theft, destruction. Anyone who feels the desire to do any of those things can do so and the only retaliation you have is to try to find them and punish them yourself.

But presumably you have no problem with the laws against any of those things. I don't. Just as I don't have a problem against a law prohibiting a mother from murdering their child.

And I said the hypothetical was stupid, I didn't say you were stupid.

No, nobody called me crazy specifically, but its been implied of the pro-life viewpoint, which is one I share.

[Tammy Hope]

This debate, no matter what anyone say, should rest with those it effects. End of story....

That gets thorny when you have to decide at what point the child is a person who is affected.

that's to say nothing of whether or not you affect a father when you end what he perceives to be the life of his offspring.

Laying that aside, the state gets involved in your personal and private choices which affect only you all the time. the state meddles in where you can smoke, whether you can drive without seat belts or a motorcycle without a helmet or a boat without a life vest.

It neddles in your consumption of alcohol, drugs including useful ones, and wants to meddle in your consumption of sugar.

It meddles in, in may places, what you can do with your property, and how you raise your kids and what you can do with your money.

The state tells you that you can't legally accept payment in exchange for sexual activity, even though that transaction doesn't affect others.

So the logic that it's a private matter the government ought have no voice in, while appealing to me as a libertarian, has no precedent in the previous behavior of our various governments.

I'll be much more sympathetic to that argument when it's a universal baseline for government action and not selectively applied.

In any case, unless it can be conclusively proven that the baby facing termination is NOT a human life or legal person, then the argument that the mother is the only person affected by the decision is incorrect.

[Asfsd4214]

Even in a purely libertarian viewpoint, I would still argue that abortion should be illegal.

The idea of libertarianism is that the government should be committed to preserving individual liberty, and protecting people from others infringing on their liberty.

I would argue that abortion is an issue where neither option is completely free of infringement to liberty, but the abortion option represents a permanent loss of liberty vs a largely temporary one.

I'd also like to now suggest extending my previous thoughts and restriction discussion of abortion to ANYONE who hasn't BEEN pregnant.

After all, you can't honestly, reasonably say that the knowledge of infertility held by someone nullifies someones viewpoint on its own, can you?

[The None Blonde]

If you chose to read my post, not what you wanted to see... you'd see I said the FINALY say should rest with the effected body... not just them, but surely those it effects have the right to have a say... its our bodies, our right.

As for laura, well, you say when a child is a person? same thing no?

You need to clarify embryo, foetus, and child... this is murky, and not helping.

[Dianna]

Best to refer to here: Every step in 1st, 2nd and 3rd Trimester 36-40 weeks.

http://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment