Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Just wanted to see what a few of you guys and gals thoughts about the subject.

thxs for your input.

I was born in the UK, I have lived in Australia for the last 30 odd years. I'm a scientist pathologist. I have no religon.
Abortion is a womans's right. Not having an abortion is a woman's right. Any one trying to inflict their moral values on others is disgusting.

If a woman is raped she should be offered chemical and or surgical abortion ASAP. If she decides to carry the fetus all possesions of the rapist go to her. The rapist !!!!! just kill it. Hopefully painfully. Sorry my humanity gene doesn't work wll on rape.

Sorry off the mark again

Night all
Hugs

Cindy

rapists should be hung by genitals until dead

that being said, women who are raped (I figured incest to be rape) should be given a choice, beyond that, i don't think anyone has a right to kill a kid even before they are born. abortion should not be birth control.

Just adding, mother life versus kid life should also be a choice.

If you are pregnant outside of that, you made the choice to behave in a way that got you pregnant, now deal with the consequences

I'm pro choice only in that I feel women had the choice to use birth control or not...once they get pregnant killing the baby to me is not an option.  As for rape and incest cases to me..2 wrongs don't make a right, they don't have to keep it.  Now if the woman is facing death then yes I can see doing it to save her life.

At any rate this is my opinion...I know most don't feel the way I do.

It's a complicated question.
I could say I'm both, the thing just is, I don't measure "life" in numbers. Neither as in "how many living things are there", nor in "how many hours of life".
Life, as I see it, isn't measurable in such a way.
Life isn't drawing breath or surviving, it's "living". It's dancing, it's kissing, it's doing things you love and grumbling through things you don't want to do.

It is Not, forcing a human being, against her will, to carry to term a child that she does not want, just to put that child into the adoption system and scar that "mother" for life, because not doing it is somehow religiously reprehensible.

I love my daughter, but if I could do it again, I wouldn't have kept her.
Pregnancy was torture for me, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word. It caused me extreme levels of physical discomfort, culminating in extreme levels of physical pain, and it ripped right through me on a psychological level as well. It was a horrible experience for me.
And at that time I didn't know just how "iffy" my body is.
It aggravated my loose joints and made my hips, knees, and lower-back far worse for wear.

I don't hold her accountable for MY choice to keep her and the effects there of, but that's just me. There are a Lot of people who can't seem to do that.
My partner for one has a father who projects all his frustrations on his family, and one of his biggest frustrations is the resentment towards the family for tying him down from a not so terribly young age.
I know Several people with similar/same problems between them and their parents.

The main reason why I'm the one who takes care of my daughter is knowing that if I didn't, then she would be in the hands of my ex's mother. He's got his issues, but she's a terrifying woman. I wouldn't trust her to take care of a plant, let alone a small human being. She's raised three highly dysfunctional people. An obese pathological liar. A codependent boy who can't keep a job, let alone take responsibility for when he looses it. And my ex, who has such a hard time accepting that he's got some control over his own life that he joined the AA, even if he doesn't drink!
To put an aspbergers child in her care would be cruel.
So I'm the best choice in the situation...

(winded reply is becoming winded and partially off topic)

The point I'm trying to make here is;
- Not all parents are capable of doing a decent job. Heck, many parents do a really poor one and inflict upon their children serious problems and scars for life.
- Not all birth-parents are able to give up their children into better homes. In many places the grandparents are able to legally interfere the adoption process (though the easiest way is just to pressure the birth-parents to comply) and thus, if the grandparents aren't "decent" people it means that in some situations, a good home isn't an available option.
- Pregnancy is a dangerous, highly physically stressful and draining process. For nine months, the child is like a parasite that feeds off the mother. And even if everything goes well, it causes permanent changes to the body and not just aesthetic ones. By examining just the pelvic bone, and nothing else, there are telltale signs that make it possible to see whether the owner of said bone has given birth. And I'm not even thinking of serious complications at all. It's serious and should Not, under Any circumstances, be Forced on Any human being!
- Birth is a violent, extremely painful, dangerous, physically stressful and draining process. Even if the pregnancy goes "perfect" it's not over until the post-birth-bleeding stops. Children have died giving birth, because they aren't allowed an abortion.

I am pro Life.
I believe that every living human being should have full rights to live as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of other people to do so.
But this means I am pro Choice as well.
Because forcing a woman to carry to term and give birth to a child she doesn't want is imposing on her right to live, her right to dominion over her own body, and so on. It's cruel to the point of torturous to do that to a human being and no amount of "think of the baby" can justify that in my mind.
The growing child is in fact imposing on her right by it's mere presence, and thus her rights trump it's. It's self defense to end a pregnancy that causes the mother nothing but suffering, and it's compassionate to end a pregnancy that would otherwise place a child in a terrible situation.

Pro Choice.

Pro choice, however, we should be preventing it from happening at the same time.

Quote from: CindyJames on December 12, 2009, 05:16:02 AM
The rapist !!!!! just kill it. Hopefully painfully. Sorry my humanity gene doesn't work wll on rape.

Sorry off the mark again

Night all
Hugs

Cindy

I would think that if they don't kill it they should castrate the thing.  Using a rusty pizza cutter and no anesthesia.  And allow the victim to watch, or even better allow them to do it.

slowly

-Sandy

Pro Life.

Well, I consider myself Pro Choice if one has to pick a camp. A woman has the right to control her own body, for whatever reason. I belive it's better to not allow a life to begin, that would be unloved or unwanted. Rape survivors are a key point... If i were raped, and fell pregnant, I don't think I could look at the child that was born from that encounter. I couldn't give them the love they deserve without the horror of that person's act coming back through them. There are times when pregnancies will be too far along to abort, and some children will lose thier parents from other means, but I don't belive there is good reason to increase the number of unwanted unloved children without families... the Care and Foster systems are bleak places... nobody deserves that.
Speaking from a awkwardly scientific point of view, abortion is probably a good thing today... Calous as this may sound, it curbs population growth, that is raging out of control. It would, if legalised globally, slow growth, curb food shortages, ballence things... heck, reduce our carbon footprint. I hate to think of it in those terms, it feels so impersonal to what is a very intimate debate... but it has merit sadly.

pro choice as long as someone is not using it as means of birth control, as in has had 3 already.

Pro-Choice.  It should only be for rape, incest or when the Mother's life is in danger.  As a means of birth control, No.

Enough said.



Hugs and Love
Janet

Pro-choice. To echo others, the unloved unwanted foster children and children who are abused by their raped mothers really don't deserve that kind of treatment.

Of course, it would be unethical to use it as birth control. It makes people uncomfortable. But with giving women the power to decide when their bodies can be used to birth children, they also get the power to abuse it. And I think that the risk of that is worth the personal freedom.

I know that if I were raped and impregnated (however unlikely that may be) I wouldn't want to have a child. That would be horribly disturbing and disgusting. All so that the child could have a depressing life with no parents.

It's not suprising that most of the people here are pro choice.

Now, how do we feel about harvesting the discarded fetal tissue to help the living? It's pretty clear that is the future, including possibly ours.

Quote from: Becca on December 12, 2009, 01:17:07 PM
It's not suprising that most of the people here are pro choice.

Now, how do we feel about harvesting the discarded fetal tissue to help the living? It's pretty clear that is the future, including possibly ours.

Sorry..no.  I'm not using anything from a murdered baby. I don't need that blood on my hands or karma

I am pro choice. However I do wish that more women would be encouraged to consider the possibility of having the baby and letting someone who can't carry a pregnancy have the child that they so long for.

I definitely do not support bans on anything though. A ban is a very blunt tool to use and often ends up creating huge unintended injustices.

Havesting stem cells for anything but initial research (to find out how to make them) I feel less comfortable with, partly because I think that as we learn more about how to manipulate the human genome it may well become possible to make stem cells artificially from adult tissue.

They have begun to develop stem cells from adults.  Even from umbilical cord blood.  And once that begins the true stem cell research will bring forth wonders. 



Blessed Be
Janet

Quote from: Kurzar on December 12, 2009, 02:57:18 PM
Sorry..no.  I'm not using anything from a murdered baby. I don't need that blood on my hands or karma

I don't think she meant using the cells for bars of soap or anything... Stem cell research is a vital area. Frankly, human morality climbed too high too fast. Look at the outrage at the German Pathologist whos name  I forget's live autopsies? That was done in the 1800s... though live was just... public. Medical science has cloistered itself hugely thanks to ignorant public outcry that its 'icky' or 'wrong', and we wonder why we stall. Sometimes a few eggs need to be broken to make an omlette. No, its not nice, or comfortable, but some things need to be done for the good of humanity... I belive that line of research is one.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 12, 2009, 04:17:02 PM
I don't think she meant using the cells for bars of soap or anything... Stem cell research is a vital area. Frankly, human morality climbed too high too fast. Look at the outrage at the German Pathologist whos name  I forget's live autopsies? That was done in the 1800s... though live was just... public. Medical science has cloistered itself hugely thanks to ignorant public outcry that its 'icky' or 'wrong', and we wonder why we stall. Sometimes a few eggs need to be broken to make an omlette. No, its not nice, or comfortable, but some things need to be done for the good of humanity... I belive that line of research is one.

Maybe you can justify it..I can't, but to each their own.

Quote from: Miniar on December 12, 2009, 06:07:13 AM
It's a complicated question.
I could say I'm both, the thing just is, I don't measure "life" in numbers. Neither as in "how many living things are there", nor in "how many hours of life".
Life, as I see it, isn't measurable in such a way.
Life isn't drawing breath or surviving, it's "living". It's dancing, it's kissing, it's doing things you love and grumbling through things you don't want to do.

It is Not, forcing a human being, against her will, to carry to term a child that she does not want, just to put that child into the adoption system and scar that "mother" for life, because not doing it is somehow religiously reprehensible.

I love my daughter, but if I could do it again, I wouldn't have kept her.
Pregnancy was torture for me, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word. It caused me extreme levels of physical discomfort, culminating in extreme levels of physical pain, and it ripped right through me on a psychological level as well. It was a horrible experience for me.
And at that time I didn't know just how "iffy" my body is.
It aggravated my loose joints and made my hips, knees, and lower-back far worse for wear.

I don't hold her accountable for MY choice to keep her and the effects there of, but that's just me. There are a Lot of people who can't seem to do that.
My partner for one has a father who projects all his frustrations on his family, and one of his biggest frustrations is the resentment towards the family for tying him down from a not so terribly young age.
I know Several people with similar/same problems between them and their parents.

The main reason why I'm the one who takes care of my daughter is knowing that if I didn't, then she would be in the hands of my ex's mother. He's got his issues, but she's a terrifying woman. I wouldn't trust her to take care of a plant, let alone a small human being. She's raised three highly dysfunctional people. An obese pathological liar. A codependent boy who can't keep a job, let alone take responsibility for when he looses it. And my ex, who has such a hard time accepting that he's got some control over his own life that he joined the AA, even if he doesn't drink!
To put an aspbergers child in her care would be cruel.
So I'm the best choice in the situation...

(winded reply is becoming winded and partially off topic)

The point I'm trying to make here is;
- Not all parents are capable of doing a decent job. Heck, many parents do a really poor one and inflict upon their children serious problems and scars for life.
- Not all birth-parents are able to give up their children into better homes. In many places the grandparents are able to legally interfere the adoption process (though the easiest way is just to pressure the birth-parents to comply) and thus, if the grandparents aren't "decent" people it means that in some situations, a good home isn't an available option.
- Pregnancy is a dangerous, highly physically stressful and draining process. For nine months, the child is like a parasite that feeds off the mother. And even if everything goes well, it causes permanent changes to the body and not just aesthetic ones. By examining just the pelvic bone, and nothing else, there are telltale signs that make it possible to see whether the owner of said bone has given birth. And I'm not even thinking of serious complications at all. It's serious and should Not, under Any circumstances, be Forced on Any human being!
- Birth is a violent, extremely painful, dangerous, physically stressful and draining process. Even if the pregnancy goes "perfect" it's not over until the post-birth-bleeding stops. Children have died giving birth, because they aren't allowed an abortion.

I am pro Life.
I believe that every living human being should have full rights to live as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of other people to do so.
But this means I am pro Choice as well.
Because forcing a woman to carry to term and give birth to a child she doesn't want is imposing on her right to live, her right to dominion over her own body, and so on. It's cruel to the point of torturous to do that to a human being and no amount of "think of the baby" can justify that in my mind.
The growing child is in fact imposing on her right by it's mere presence, and thus her rights trump it's. It's self defense to end a pregnancy that causes the mother nothing but suffering, and it's compassionate to end a pregnancy that would otherwise place a child in a terrible situation.

Miniar really did the job of saying it all. I could not have made my point anywhere near as clear as this. I'm with him.

Both, and neither.

As for the official political positions, I can't stand completely with either one.

Neither "protected from conception" or "anything goes" makes any sense.

So I can't just pick a side.

First, there's a lot of mythology out there - like the idea that all the "unwanted" kids in the system is an argument against adoption as an option - the truth is that if you get rid of the bureaucratic red tape and expense and complication, there are enough parents and more for the kids in the system. In fact - there are plenty who specifically want a kid with special needs. And pointing to the older kids in the system who are hard to place says nothing one way or the other about infants who would otherwise have been aborted.

Likewise, all the real results in stem cell research have come from adult stem cells, not that harvested from abortions.

In any case, when you strip away all the misinformation from both sides I think that something like this makes sense:

First, short of saving the life of the mother, or saving her from permanent physical disability, no abortion should ever be preformed after the child has measurable brain waves (that's about 8-10 weeks depending on who you ask).

The way I see it, apply the same measure to the begining of life as you do to the end. If there's enough brain activity that we won't "pull the plug" on a person in a hospital, then the same amount of brain activity would enjoy legal protection in the womb.

By the way, women who have this sort of medical necessity make up something like 1% of all abortions.

Doing that still leaves a window of opportunity for the mother to make a decision when she finds out she's pregnant.

Ideally, most of those would be handled by morning after pills. I'd still be troubled that a small percentage of women would use this avenue as birth control - perhaps there should be some legal requirement attached to having one that tried to be sure that said women were on BC thereafter.

But still, that to me seems like at least a reasonable foundation that can be agreed on - pro-choice people still have a window for choice, and pro-life people know that at least no child is aware and suffering through a killing.

In a discussion of the balance of rights between a potential human and an actual human, I tend to favor the actual human.  I think that abortion should remain a safe and legal option, especially in cases of rape and major health problems.

But IMHO if we put as much effort into caring for born babies as we do worrying about unborn babies, there wouldn't be a need for this discussion.  I believe that if we had good sex education, readily available birth control, adequate pre-natal and well-baby care, solid parenting support, affordable daycare, and good early-childhood education we would see the abortion rate plummet.

- Kate

Quote from: K8 on December 12, 2009, 08:33:31 PM

But IMHO if we put as much effort into caring for born babies as we do worrying about unborn babies, there wouldn't be a need for this discussion.  I believe that if we had good sex education, readily available birth control, adequate pre-natal and well-baby care, solid parenting support, affordable daycare, and good early-childhood education we would see the abortion rate plummet.

- Kate

I agree with this completely!

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 12, 2009, 07:21:53 PM


First, there's a lot of mythology out there - like the idea that all the "unwanted" kids in the system is an argument against adoption as an option - the truth is that if you get rid of the bureaucratic red tape and expense and complication, there are enough parents and more for the kids in the system. In fact - there are plenty who specifically want a kid with special needs. And pointing to the older kids in the system who are hard to place says nothing one way or the other about infants who would otherwise have been aborted.

Likewise, all the real results in stem cell research have come from adult stem cells, not that harvested from abortions.

Well no... theres not likely to ever be less red tape... its peoples lives we're talking about... There are too many unloved children, abused and downright hurt by the system and in it... if you don't see that, you're quite nieve, would it be better if they weren't born? Do we have that many options? I'm not saying aborition can fix that, but it would reduce the numbers entering.

Mm, some stem cell research is done using foetal cells...

Quote from: K8 on December 12, 2009, 08:33:31 PM
In a discussion of the balance of rights between a potential human and an actual human, I tend to favor the actual human.  I think that abortion should remain a safe and legal option, especially in cases of rape and major health problems.

But IMHO if we put as much effort into caring for born babies as we do worrying about unborn babies, there wouldn't be a need for this discussion.  I believe that if we had good sex education, readily available birth control, adequate pre-natal and well-baby care, solid parenting support, affordable daycare, and good early-childhood education we would see the abortion rate plummet.

- Kate

you clearly have a higher opinion of your fellow human than most of them/s have earned.

that's like saying if we had better schools all kids would get a great education.

the simple fact is, there's always going to be a precentage of the population which is uneducated...
or dishonest...
or poor...
or unethical...

or whatever.

and MOST abortions are preformed on people for whom all the good intentions you just listed wouldn't have any effect at all.

Not that yours isn't a wonderful sentiment - all such programs are always very well intentioned...but people are not perfectable and the things a society wishes it could change are usually the things most unchangeable.

Yes, I'm a cynic.

Wlile this would not "save" everyone I think it could help the process and some. I have worked in places where I have come to the complete understanding that not everyone wants to be helped or saved but there are some that do and can move on with their lives.  Lowering the percentage of the population is a place to start.
Andrew Myles

I'm 100% pro-life and 100% pro-choice.

I don't accept abortion as an acceptable outcome in almost any circumstance, even rape. Rather, we ought to support pregnant women and provice lots of options for support in pre-natal care, raising children, adoption, etc.

But I also don't think it's acceptable to push that view down anyone's throat. It's a totally personal decision. I don't think that it's tantamount to murder: when someone is murdered, it deeply affects all of society, but with an abortion, it's no different than if the fetus had never been conceived. Perhaps there's a fuzzy line on that distinction, but drawing that line at birth seems totally reasonable to me.

So I oppose all abortions, and support full and unabridged rights and access to abortion.

I don't think there's a simple answer to it.  Sometimes it's the right choice, and sometimes it's a choice that I think I would disagree with.  But what I do know is that I don't really know when it IS the right choice and when it ISN'T.  I don't think anyone else knows either.  But what do I know.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 12, 2009, 09:03:12 PM
Well no... theres not likely to ever be less red tape... its peoples lives we're talking about... There are too many unloved children, abused and downright hurt by the system and in it... if you don't see that, you're quite nieve, would it be better if they weren't born? Do we have that many options? I'm not saying aborition can fix that, but it would reduce the numbers entering.

I'm positive many are hurt by the "system" but it's the system I'm saying needs fixed.

If the health care system were crippling kids, we wouldn't suggest the kids would be better off dead, we'd fix the system.

Quote
Mm, some stem cell research is done using foetal cells...

Absolutely. I didn't say "research" - i said "results"

Fetal stem cell research, so far, has been almost entirely chasing rainbows...adult stem cells have produced real results in several different ways.

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

I do see it as a feminist issue. Control over women's bodies and sexuality has historically been the basis of sexism.

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 12, 2009, 10:09:39 PM
Fetal stem cell research, so far, has been almost entirely chasing rainbows...adult stem cells have produced real results in several different ways.

Where do you get that from?  Because I haven't seen conclusive results that either one is better.  There's a whole lot of misinformation floating around about both of those methods.

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 12, 2009, 10:09:39 PM
I'm positive many are hurt by the "system" but it's the system I'm saying needs fixed.

If the health care system were crippling kids, we wouldn't suggest the kids would be better off dead, we'd fix the system.

Absolutely. I didn't say "research" - i said "results"

Fetal stem cell research, so far, has been almost entirely chasing rainbows...adult stem cells have produced real results in several different ways.

Difference is, theres a very real solution to not needing the system as much as we do... abortion can stop the system from being so overcrowded, and allow recources to work. Yes, its cruel bean counting. But it will benefit everyone

Researchwise... no, not really, theres only results from adult stemcell tests because so many rules and contraversies surround foeteal cell research. There is plenty of merit waiting to be unlocked, we just cant.


Overall, I think its a womans own choice what to do with her body. Its our body, we decide how we use it, and what we do. We have the right to govorn our own functions. If they suggested regulating the amount of times a man could ejaculate without inseminating a woman because its 'killing' genetic material. There would be outcry....  Though I can't quite see the 'freedom to masturbate' posters... or dont want to.

Quote from: Ketsy on December 12, 2009, 10:14:21 PM
Where do you get that from?  Because I haven't seen conclusive results that either one is better.  There's a whole lot of misinformation floating around about both of those methods.

I don't keep an archive but every so often a story comes out about results having been achieved in various ways. I've really tuned out the political debates so much in the last couple of years that all of that is reduced to vague memories. but I recall that the reports at the time were credible sources, not worldnetdaily or some such.

---

Post Merge: December 13, 2009, 03:11:48 AM

---

Quotetheres only results from adult stemcell tests because so many rules and contraversies surround foeteal cell research.

what other major nation in the world restricts ESC research besides the U.S.?

Surely we are not to assume that if they U.S. doesn't do it good results won't happen?

in fact, many of the breakthroughs i recall in ASC research came from other nations than the U.S.

Furthermore, the only restrictions in the U.S. are (or were) restrictions on Federal funding. Several states offer state funding and there are not a few sources of private funding for solid research, even in the U.S.

Taken on a worldwide basis, the lack of U.S. Federal funding for eight years was a marginal impact in terms of opportunity for breakthroughs.

that's not to say i oppose Federal funding for ESC research on ethical grounds. As long as they use the "overage" embryos from fertility clinics, I'd be ok with it...but I prefer funding go where the results are just under the heading of efficient government.

The only situation in which I think abortion is even slightly permissible is if a woman is raped. Otherwise, hello! birth control. It's simple to get (every low-income clinic, school clinic, and Planned Parenthood has free condoms) and easy to use. Anyone who doesn't use birth control and gets pregnant deserves to have to deal with nine months of pregnancy. At the end of it, there are tons of families who want kids but can't have them.

SD

Quote from: myles on December 12, 2009, 08:54:52 AM
pro choice as long as someone is not using it as means of birth control, as in has had 3 already.

Exactly

Jay

... I can't say I'm either way.

What I will say is... I think sex should be licensed !

Stupid people shouldn't breed.

I'm also a fan of "older" parenting. Someone 18 years old (or for gods sake younger) shouldn't be able to breed.

Slightly off topic...

Why is it in the U.S.A. a woman on WIC (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/ (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/)) (comes from tax payers $, my money) can go and get all the stuff she needs to care for a baby, just so she can afford 100 lbs if dog food. Saw that in front of me at a Wal-Mart on Friday and it pissed me off.

If you're going to have the child, then don't go begging for assistance just so you can be comfortable in a lifestyle you obviously can't afford.

/end rant.

One thing that irks me is...

I have these friends. A couple who're madly in love, and married.
And they do not want to have children, at all, ever.
But! Since neither of them are over 30 they aren't ALLOWED to have either a vasectomy nor her tubes tied.

This means they've got to rely on birth-control that not only isn't 100% safe, but also, the cost of using birth control over the years will be more than if they'd pay for the surgery out of pocket.

And yet, they are denied the right to have that surgery, cause "they might change their minds"....

Anyone wanna tell me that these two, responsible, intelligent adults, should be forced to go through pregnancy, completely against their will. that they do everything they can to avoid while having a "normal", healthy marriage, should the three levels of birth-control, they currently use, fail them?

I've been trying to get fixed since I was 18 years old.

I keep on getting told 'you're too young'

I've been told that for 12 years now.

Every year on my birthday I call and ask if I can schedule an appointment.

Quote from: Miniar on December 13, 2009, 09:10:07 AM
One thing that irks me is...

I have these friends. A couple who're madly in love, and married.
And they do not want to have children, at all, ever.
But! Since neither of them are over 30 they aren't ALLOWED to have either a vasectomy nor her tubes tied.

This means they've got to rely on birth-control that not only isn't 100% safe, but also, the cost of using birth control over the years will be more than if they'd pay for the surgery out of pocket.

And yet, they are denied the right to have that surgery, cause "they might change their minds"....

Anyone wanna tell me that these two, responsible, intelligent adults, should be forced to go through pregnancy, completely against their will. that they do everything they can to avoid while having a "normal", healthy marriage, should the three levels of birth-control, they currently use, fail them?

Good point. And birth control is hardly infallible. Condoms are a joke, honestly. Yes, they're the best we can do, but anyone who uses them regularly will tell you that they break, slip off, come out of the package defective, etc. And some guys simply don't fit condoms. It's true. There's a certain percentage of guys who are simply too large, small, or wide to fit a condom for the duration of sexual activity. Birth control pills also can fail. Not to mention the effects of using them on the female body. Women should not be penalized for being sexual, especially if the preventive measures they take fail them.

Medicare will pay for tubal ligation or vasectomy if you are 25 or more and have 2 children or more. I agree that not allowing you to have it done is wrong but it is like the hoops we go through to make sure we aren't making a mistake. I think if you change your mind later, you deal with it since you are only dealing with the consequences of your actions. These surgeries are considered permanent but can sometimes be reversed.

Quote from: LivingInGrey on December 13, 2009, 08:32:36 AM
... I can't say I'm either way.

What I will say is... I think sex should be licensed !

Stupid people shouldn't breed.

I'm also a fan of "older" parenting. Someone 18 years old (or for gods sake younger) shouldn't be able to breed.

Slightly off topic...

Why is it in the U.S.A. a woman on WIC (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/ (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/)) (comes from tax payers $, my money) can go and get all the stuff she needs to care for a baby, just so she can afford 100 lbs if dog food. Saw that in front of me at a Wal-Mart on Friday and it pissed me off.

If you're going to have the child, then don't go begging for assistance just so you can be comfortable in a lifestyle you obviously can't afford.

/end rant.

Well, I agree with the principle but, on the other hand...

It's kind of silly for WIC to exist, and be determined to give out supplies in any case, and qualify for it...

and NOT take it.

I can certainly agree that a person who qualifies should make better choices about what to do with their discretionary money than supporting a pet (or smoking, drinking, gambling, partying, whatever which a lot of people with little money also do)  - no argument there.

But as long as there IS a WIC program then I for one don't see the moral value in being above taking it.

I haven't read any of the rest of the thread yet, but I'm completely 100% against abortion in all but situations where it will likely be required due to extreme risk of complication for the mother.

My view of it is that once conceived, the fertilized egg represents a real person who may very well have been born and had a full life without intervention. And I don't think anyone has the right, mother included, to terminate.

I have a lot of philosophical views that relate to my stance on abortion, but I've had bad experiences with abortion debates running on for extremely long periods of time. No consensus is ever reached.

It probably doesn't help my impartiality that my dad wanted to have me aborted.  ::)

Thankfully for me my mother is also pro-life.

EDIT: So I read the rest of the thread now. Doesn't surprise me at all to learn that completely pro-lifer's (as in, against abortion for all non-medical circumstances, including rape) are in a minority here of 8 to 1.

Just a couple things I would like to add since there doesn't seem to be anyone else to really speak up for the pro-life side of the argument...

Quote from: K8 on December 12, 2009, 08:33:31 PM
In a discussion of the balance of rights between a potential human and an actual human, I tend to favor the actual human.

I would argue that the problem there is it isn't the same right's in question for both. It's the mother's right to have control of her body and the potential human's right to live at all.

I feel the child's right to live is more important than the temporary restriction of rights to the mother, because the only alternative to violating the mother's right to control her body for a limited period of time, is violating the rights of the child to live, at all, forever.

I'd also like to add that I reject the notion that you have to be religious to be pro-life. I consider myself agnostic personally.

Quote
I belive it's better to not allow a life to begin, that would be unloved or unwanted
this

This is another notion that I reject outright, who are you to say that someone should be euthanized because their life might suck.

Usually I read other posts for up-to-date positions before giving mine. I can change sides (occasionally), certainly see other positions and beliefs. On Women's Reproductive Rights, I'm an absolutist. I do not like abortion, I have never had one, even with modern surgery methods I will never be in a position to have to consider having one, but - it would be my decision whether or not to do so if circumstances arose calling for that decision. It would not be yours - stay the hell out of it!

That said, every thing possible should be done to aid any woman facing that decision.  Adoption help, medical care for tragically ill babies, medical care for the mother, child raising assistance, anything mothers in at-risk positions need to successfully raise a child, well or otherwise. As former President Bill Clinton said, "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare."

Any other policy is a blatant attack on a fundimental human right, an imperative for half the population, important for all. Most, of course not all, but most comes from the religious busy-bodies attempting to force their belief structure on all of society. I reject that.

SusanKG

Quote from: SusanKG on December 14, 2009, 11:34:00 PM
Usually I read other posts for up-to-date positions before giving mine. I can change sides (occasionally), certainly see other positions and beliefs. On Women's Reproductive Rights, I'm an absolutist. I do not like abortion, I have never had one, even with modern surgery methods I will never be in a position to have to consider having one, but - it would be my decision whether or not to do so if circumstances arose calling for that decision. It would not be yours - stay the hell out of it!

That said, every thing possible should be done to aid any woman facing that decision.  Adoption help, medical care for tragically ill babies, medical care for the mother, child raising assistance, anything mothers in at-risk positions need to successfully raise a child, well or otherwise. As former President Bill Clinton said, "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare."

Any other policy is a blatant attack on a fundimental human right, an imperative for half the population, important for all. Most, of course not all, but most comes from the religious busy-bodies attempting to force their belief structure on all of society. I reject that.

SusanKG

I'm not a religious busy body. What you need to understand is that people who are pro-life like myself tend to consider the conceived child to be, at any stage of development, to be a human being, with the same right to not be murdered as any other human.

I don't want to deny anyone rights over their body, but I would to protect what I see as the attempted murder of a child.

If you consider the abortion to be murder, then it doesn't matter what rights the mother should have over her body, they are secondary to the rights of the child to not be murdered.

I strongly believe in human rights, from my perspective being pro-life is just another way that I am pro respect of people's rights. The difference is I define the conceived child to be of same value as one that is born, and unfortunately there's no way to respect the rights of both.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 15, 2009, 05:39:40 AM
I'm not a religious busy body. What you need to understand is that people who are pro-life like myself tend to consider the conceived child to be, at any stage of development, to be a human being, with the same right to not be murdered as any other human.

I don't want to deny anyone rights over their body, but I would to protect what I see as the attempted murder of a child.

If you consider the abortion to be murder, then it doesn't matter what rights the mother should have over her body, they are secondary to the rights of the child to not be murdered.

I strongly believe in human rights, from my perspective being pro-life is just another way that I am pro respect of people's rights. The difference is I define the conceived child to be of same value as one that is born, and unfortunately there's no way to respect the rights of both.

What about self defence?

A woman is allowed to defend herself, even to the point of inflicting lethal bodily harm, to an outside assailant, no?
No one would convict a woman of murder if she defended herself, for example, against a rapist.

Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?

I really do mean these questions, I want to understand "why" this opinion.

Quote from: Janet Lynn on December 12, 2009, 10:40:13 AM
Pro-Choice.  It should only be for rape, incest or when the Mother's life is in danger.  As a means of birth control, No.

Enough said.



Hugs and Love
Janet

LOL!  I'm Pro-Life with the exact same exceptions!  Crazy how that works. ;)

Well I am closest to pro life.  But I am afraid I disappoint both camps.

In the case of rape, or when the mother's life is in danger, of course the woman should be allowed a choice.  Although these cases are rare, they are not unheard of.  In fact, I have friends in each situation.  In both cases they were condemned by pro-lifers.  I think that is shameful.

Other than that above, we are all pro choice.  We choose to have sex.  Yes, no birth control is perfect.  But if we are adult enough to have sex we should be adult enough to deal with the consequences.  Society has done a bad job of teaching this thing called responsibility.

I also think it is criminal for some to focus on saving babies and forget that this will be (or already is, depending on how you see things) a human being.  In other words, don't save a baby only to have that child in abject poverty or out on the streets or malnourished or abused or born addicted to drugs.  If a person is really pro life, s/he should be so consistently, else I have reason to doubt the sincerity of the individual, as well as the validity of his/her ethics.  If we made having children less of a stigma, made adoption a less complicated choice, and actually made it possible for single mothers to raise children if they choose, abortion would not seem the only option to many girls.

And then there is the part I will never understand:  Those who kill in the name of preventing death.  Well I guess we will not have much disagreement there.

Now that I have probably offended everyone here, I will stop.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: LordKAT on December 13, 2009, 04:27:28 PM
Medicare will pay for tubal ligation or vasectomy if you are 25 or more and have 2 children or more. I agree that not allowing you to have it done is wrong but it is like the hoops we go through to make sure we aren't making a mistake. I think if you change your mind later, you deal with it since you are only dealing with the consequences of your actions. These surgeries are considered permanent but can sometimes be reversed.

I don't understand why it's such a big deal to other people. Isn't the world overpopulated already? If someone wants to sterilize themselves, why should we stop them?

(Ok now that I have some internet back... hopefully)

There isn't a clear way to understand why a lot of Doc's wont do something like that for someone. I have looked into it and there's no medical reason why a Doc can't do a procedure like that to anyone that's completed puberty.

The issue lies between Morality and Faith. Most doctors are bound by those two things not to mess with God's will, depending on the faith of the doctor. For those that 'say' they don't follow a religious background while at work, they'll say that it's a liability for the hospital. In the event that down the road I want to have children, I could press charges against the hospital and the doc that did the procedure.

At least these are the reasons I've been told by people in the medical community.

Quote from: Kristi on December 15, 2009, 07:44:07 AM

Other than that above, we are all pro choice.  We choose to have sex.  Yes, no birth control is perfect.  But if we are adult enough to have sex we should be adult enough to deal with the consequences.  Society has done a bad job of teaching this thing called responsibility.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Is a polite way to say what I mean when i say "Stupid people shouldn't breed"

Quote from: Miniar on December 15, 2009, 06:57:17 AM
What about self defence?

A woman is allowed to defend herself, even to the point of inflicting lethal bodily harm, to an outside assailant, no?
No one would convict a woman of murder if she defended herself, for example, against a rapist.

Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?

I really do mean these questions, I want to understand "why" this opinion.

Because the rapist has committed a crime, the potential human has not. It isn't the conceived potential child's fault it was conceived, it is not responsible.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 15, 2009, 01:58:57 PM
Because the rapist has committed a crime, the potential human has not. It isn't the conceived potential child's fault it was conceived, it is not responsible.

so, since it's presence in the body against the woman's will is okay cause it's legal?
It's only because of the legal status of the infringement on the woman's body?

Well, I called no particular person a busy-body, and hopefully, most self-called "pro-life" persons didn't take my comments as an accusation. That said, anyone that would require and force by law childbirth upon another person is not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion rights, and contribute to women who do  not hold that position to be considered second-rate humans, not in charge of themselves, but under control of all the mulahs and other finger waggers.
To be clear, you do not have a right to enter my body and live their for any amount of time if I do not want you there. Oh, I think I hear a controversal posting on make-up elsewhere calling me away.  :P

SusanKG

Quote from: SusanKG on December 15, 2009, 03:54:41 PM
Well, I called no particular person a busy-body, and hopefully, most self-called "pro-life" persons didn't take my comments as an accusation. That said, anyone that would require and force by law childbirth upon another person is not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion rights, and contribute to women who do  not hold that position to be considered second-rate humans, not in charge of themselves, but under control of all the mulahs and other finger waggers.
To be clear, you do not have a right to enter my body and live their for any amount of time if I do not want you there. Oh, I think I hear a controversal posting on make-up elsewhere calling me away.  :P

SusanKG

I guess I just don't agree.

There is no way to keep the child alive outside of its mother. It'd be great if there was, but there isn't. You do have the right to control your body, but in my view the child also has the right to live, and its right to live supersedes your rights temporarily.

QuoteThat said, anyone that would require and force by law childbirth upon another person is not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion rights

You are defining abortion as a right, which I don't think it is.

But if you'd prefer to call it anti abortion rights, then yes, I'm anti abortion "rights".

Quote from: Miniar on December 15, 2009, 02:25:52 PM
so, since it's presence in the body against the woman's will is okay cause it's legal?
It's only because of the legal status of the infringement on the woman's body?

I don't care about its legality.

The fact is, however it got there, it's there now. I just can't support people having an abortion and thus killing it. My view is that whatever other outstanding ethical problems there are, they're not as bad as the ethical problem of killing someone. And to me, and I'd imagine most pro-lifer's, it IS a "someone".

It's a bad situation beyond anyone's control, and there's no answer that's completely without moral problems. I'm just in favor of what I see as the lesser of two evils.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 15, 2009, 04:43:39 PM
I don't care about its legality.

The fact is, however it got there, it's there now. I just can't support people having an abortion and thus killing it. My view is that whatever other outstanding ethical problems there are, they're not as bad as the ethical problem of killing someone. And to me, and I'd imagine most pro-lifer's, it IS a "someone".

It's a bad situation beyond anyone's control, and there's no answer that's completely without moral problems. I'm just in favor of what I see as the lesser of two evils.

I asked because you said; "Because the rapist has committed a crime, the potential human has not."

The way I see it, to someone who doesn't want it, being pregnant can be viewed as torture, and a tortured person has the right to defend herself from her torturer, and in this situation, even if it's not the "fault" of the potential person, the pregnancy is the torturer.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 15, 2009, 04:43:39 PM
I guess I just don't agree.

You do have the right to control your body, but in my view the child also has the right to live, and its right to live supersedes your rights temporarily.

You are defining abortion as a right, which I don't think it is.

But if you'd prefer to call it anti abortion rights, then yes, I'm anti abortion "rights".

I don't care about its legality.

It's a bad situation beyond anyone's control, and there's no answer that's completely without moral problems. I'm just in favor of what I see as the lesser of two evils.

Yes, you most certainly do not agree.

Then I don't have a right to control my body, but you do.

The U.S. Supreme Court said it is a right, and a majority of Americans think it is a right.

You're Anti abortion "rights". Fair enough.

Interesting. Obviously it's your morality first, the law someplace else.

But it is not beyond anyone's control! It is in the control of the individual woman.


SusanKG

Hate to be the person that starts this...

But from a biological perspective, to a point, a foetus is no more alive than  your hair is...

At the point where consiousness begins... yes, after that is murder... and its why abortion has limits of time...

However, when the foetus is no more alive than a cut healing... (stem cells diferentiating to form something ie, in this case, skin cells.) I don't really belive its possible to murder something that isn't alive.

If you belive celular activity is life... then I demand you never again injure yourself... that kills cells... Murderer...

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 12:13:47 AM
If you belive celular activity is life... then I demand you never again injure yourself... that kills cells... Murderer...

That theory would throw vegetarianism down the tubes.

In soviet russia, Controversial is you...

Quote from: Miniar on December 15, 2009, 06:57:17 AM
Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?

Hear, hear. Well put.

I remember in a freshman sociology class we had to write a paper on really anything we wanted from current events, with legalization of marijuana and abortion expressly prohibited. The professor was just tired of hearing it.

QuoteThe U.S. Supreme Court said it is a right, and a majority of Americans think it is a right.

In my book that pretty much settles it. The prolifers have been doing a very clever end run around it for a while now but if they keep poking the bear they're going to get bit.

Susan, I think that was pretty weak sauce. The U.S. Supreme Court along with a majority of Americans have a long history of denying rights to people who deserved them. There's a fair debate to be had over whether the status quo unfairly denies rights to women, or to fetuses, or strikes the right balance. But you seem to be saying that just because abortion is at present a Constitutionally-protected right, it ought to be. Well I agree with your conclusion, but not the logic that brought you to it.

I think NB's is closer to the mark. I don't agree with her definition of life -- really, I think personhood is what we're after more than just life -- but I agree that fetuses don't rise to a level that deserves legal protection as a person. This debate is so slippery because it's really about what it means to be a person, and that's a difficult thing to define no matter how you approach it.

Quote from: SusanKG on December 15, 2009, 11:35:26 PM
Yes, you most certainly do not agree.

Then I don't have a right to control my body, but you do.

The U.S. Supreme Court said it is a right, and a majority of Americans think it is a right.

As I said before, I don't care what the legality is. The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong. Some governments think women should be lashed for speaking with men she's not related too. So what the supreme court thinks doesn't matter to me.

Quote from: SusanKG on December 15, 2009, 11:35:26 PM
You're Anti abortion "rights". Fair enough.

Interesting. Obviously it's your morality first, the law someplace else.

But it is not beyond anyone's control! It is in the control of the individual woman.


SusanKG

You're right, I believe that doing what's right is more important than doing what's written on some paper defining what the government will and will not prosecute.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 12:13:47 AM
Hate to be the person that starts this...

But from a biological perspective, to a point, a foetus is no more alive than  your hair is...

At the point where consiousness begins... yes, after that is murder... and its why abortion has limits of time...

I don't care, it still WOULD have been a human that could have led a life and have been just as much an individual as anyone else.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 12:13:47 AM
However, when the foetus is no more alive than a cut healing... (stem cells diferentiating to form something ie, in this case, skin cells.) I don't really belive its possible to murder something that isn't alive.

If you belive celular activity is life... then I demand you never again injure yourself... that kills cells... Murderer...

You don't seem to understand my point of view very well.

The way I see it, the fetus has the value of a human because uninterrupted it would have become a human. An individual person just like you or me. Because of that, they deserve the rights they would have as a person in advance of birth.

What stage the pregnancy is at doesn't matter to me, the reason for the pregnancy doesn't matter to me. I can't morally justify what I see as killing an innocent person.

I said in my first post, I've had these sorts of arguments before, and I'm almost always in the extreme minority, and as such people tend to get very secure in being abusive towards me because they know I'm in the minority opinion and they have plenty of support to justify themselves.  ::)

Obviously none of you have to agree with me, but if you want to know my reasons and justifications I'm happy to give them. But maybe you'd get a better insight if you tried to understand my reasons rather than pick out perceived flaws in them.

From MY perspective, I'm only trying to advocate the protection of people's lives from a period wherein they can be legally murdered. I'm not unsympathetic towards people who've had to make the hard choice of abortion. And I certainly hate that people should have to suffer because of their pregnancy. But I just can not condone what I perceive as murder. And no amount of scientific or definitions of what is construed to be life, or a human being, is going to change for me the fact that this is a potential person who COULD exist and have opinions and relationships and friends and a live like anyone else.

It's really frustrating because I understand and respect WHY people are pro-choice, and generally I don't think badly of people for being pro-choice or having an abortion. Of course that's never meant they ever try to understand my point of view. My philosophical views on life mean I will never be pro-choice, or condone abortion. It is the same as murder in my eyes.

QuoteThe government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong

Actually it kinda does, and as a former enforcer believe me you do not want to cross it. My peers and I have done a lot of things in the name of protecting our nation that would get me the chair otherwise. It's all perspective.

I think we established a week or so ago that right and wrong are human constructs and there is no such thing as right and wrong, just shifting moralities. I was at my brothers house earlier and he was watching some goofy program with a cartoon alien in it who said:

"I love your religion, it's like Harry Potter but causes genocide".

I was like  :eusa_eh: that's brilliant

Quote from: Becca on December 16, 2009, 02:13:01 AM
Actually it kinda does and as a former enforcer believe me you do not want to cross it.

No, it doesn't. It declares what is and is not illegal. Right and wrong is an entirely different subject.

Yes, it does lol. Don't make me pull your hair!

Eventually it is going to be made indisputable law and the issue will die out in the space of a few generations. People who resist will increasingly be marginalized, for example those who continue to insist that a woman's place is in the home. The very concept brings up images of bubba in a wifebeater. Unchecked abortions are not going to bring about armageddon or bring meteors smashing down on humanity. Right and wrong are decided upon by collective agreement and enforced (supposedly) by government.

Besides, getting an abortion is a relatively unpleasant experience. It throws the endocrine system out of wack, is gruesome, nasty, somewhat risky and just all around icky. It's never going to become widespread birth control so we're really beating a dead horse with the worst case imagery used by the people on the prolife side.

Quote from: Becca on December 16, 2009, 02:31:27 AM
Yes, it does lol. Don't make me pull your hair!

Eventually it is going to be made indisputable law and the issue will die out in the space of a few generations. People who resist will increasingly be marginalized, for example those who continue to insist that a woman's place is in the home. The very concept brings up images of bubba in a wifebeater. Unchecked abortions are not going to bring about armageddon or bring meteors smashing down on humanity. Right and wrong are decided upon by collective agreement and enforced (supposedly) by government.

Besides, getting an abortion is a relatively unpleasant experience. It throws the endocrine system out of wack, is gruesome, nasty, somewhat risky and just all around icky. It's never going to become widespread birth control so we're really beating a dead horse with the worst case imagery used by the people on the prolife side.

I don't seem to recall me or anyone else coming up with any such worst case scenario.

Even if abortion becomes accepted by most all of society (which it more or less it already), that doesn't make it right.

Hopefully there will always be a pro-life lobby to push for what's right in the face of widespread condemnation.

Actually, I know a few people who have had multiple abortions and never gotten on the pill or any other kind of approved birth control. Don't say it will never happen because it already has.
quote from becca

QuoteBesides, getting an abortion is a relatively unpleasant experience. It throws the endocrine system out of wack, is gruesome, nasty, somewhat risky and just all around icky. It's never going to become widespread birth control so we're really beating a dead horse with the worst case imagery used by the people on the prolife side.

Quote from: LordKAT on December 16, 2009, 02:53:01 AM
Actually, I know a few people who have had multiple abortions and never gotten on the pill or any other kind of approved birth control. Don't say it will never happen because it already has.
quote from becca

I've known people to do that too. But like Becca I don't think there's any danger of it becoming a routine and common form of birth control, legal or not.

The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong.

Ummm, yes they do.  Matter of fact, its pretty much the first thing they do.

Quote from: tekla on December 16, 2009, 06:00:02 AM
The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong.

Ummm, yes they do.  Matter of fact, its pretty much the first thing they do.

I soooo disagree.  Yes they declare what happens to be legal or illegal.  There are things that are legal I do not do because I do not think they would be good choices for me.  Was it right to discriminate against slaves or women right up until the time the government changed its mind and granted equal rights?  I do not ever think it was right.  Just because the government, by its commission or omission, makes a moral judgment for or against any particular action, I do not consider that my ultimate source.  In fact, it is quite impossible to do so.  Those things, such as abortion, have changed in recent history based on the prevailing political winds.  They are likely to change again.  Only time will tell.  Many other things change based upon which state a person happens to be in at the time. Where I live, some things even vary by county.  When I am on the road, the legality of some things changes several times by the time I get to my next appointment.   Equating legal permissibility with moral integrity is a slippery slope and, in the end, an exercise in futility.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 16, 2009, 01:59:52 AM
As I said before, I don't care what the legality is. The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong. Some governments think women should be lashed for speaking with men she's not related too. So what the supreme court thinks doesn't matter to me.

You're right, I believe that doing what's right is more important than doing what's written on some paper defining what the government will and will not prosecute.

I don't care, it still WOULD have been a human that could have led a life and have been just as much an individual as anyone else.

You don't seem to understand my point of view very well.

The way I see it, the fetus has the value of a human because uninterrupted it would have become a human. An individual person just like you or me. Because of that, they deserve the rights they would have as a person in advance of birth.

What stage the pregnancy is at doesn't matter to me, the reason for the pregnancy doesn't matter to me. I can't morally justify what I see as killing an innocent person.

I said in my first post, I've had these sorts of arguments before, and I'm almost always in the extreme minority, and as such people tend to get very secure in being abusive towards me because they know I'm in the minority opinion and they have plenty of support to justify themselves.  ::)

Obviously none of you have to agree with me, but if you want to know my reasons and justifications I'm happy to give them. But maybe you'd get a better insight if you tried to understand my reasons rather than pick out perceived flaws in them.

From MY perspective, I'm only trying to advocate the protection of people's lives from a period wherein they can be legally murdered. I'm not unsympathetic towards people who've had to make the hard choice of abortion. And I certainly hate that people should have to suffer because of their pregnancy. But I just can not condone what I perceive as murder. And no amount of scientific or definitions of what is construed to be life, or a human being, is going to change for me the fact that this is a potential person who COULD exist and have opinions and relationships and friends and a live like anyone else.

It's really frustrating because I understand and respect WHY people are pro-choice, and generally I don't think badly of people for being pro-choice or having an abortion. Of course that's never meant they ever try to understand my point of view. My philosophical views on life mean I will never be pro-choice, or condone abortion. It is the same as murder in my eyes.

I can understand your point of view perfectly fine Ashley... I however, cannot agree.

Your beliefs are your own,. I won't ask you to change them, although I do belive theres an element of nievety in them along with a lot of the pro life campaign. I'm gla you posted.

Potential for life, I put to the forum, is not life itself... And thus, ceasation of this potential is not murder... as it is not possible to 'kill' a life you freely admit doesn't exist yet.

Yes, I fully agree, it can stop the potential for a new life. However that falls into a similar category with wasted tallents, bad grades.... et cetera... It's loss of potential, however not a crime.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm a religious woman.... I belive in the soul, and God... the whole package deal... If a potential life is not allowed to continue in one form, I belive it simply transfers to another... That everyone gets the chance to be born and make a go of thier life... Tenuous I know, but a personal... image almost.

Overall Ashley, your argument is relatively tenuous, you use 'omg i'm a minority so I know people will bully me' as a crutch for lack of evidence.... morality is a fine defence to a point, where it becomes largely fragile due to lack of ... substance.

Considering you're on this forum... and relatively likely chances... I use this.... comparison.

From this day forth, due to your own moral beliefs... I demand that you cease any self stimulation (masturbation) you may partake in. Any ejaculation of genetic material is wasting the CHANCE of a life that could have happened had there been a vagina waiting to catch it, a favouring easterly wind, and good omens from the gods... no seriously... your standpoint is fairly clear and defined... but this fits in quite simply.... so hands off.... ok? :)

You know, that's another good question;
Why is the potential of one egg and one sperm combined to become a fully grown human considered of more value than the potential of eggs and sperm uncombined?
Isn't every menstrual cycle allowed to go through without attempt to conceive a denial of that egg's potential to become a human being?

Why draw the line at that exact point?

And I still feel some of my questions haven't been answered.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 16, 2009, 01:59:52 AMI don't care, it still WOULD have been a human that could have led a life and have been just as much an individual as anyone else.

You don't seem to understand my point of view very well.

The way I see it, the fetus has the value of a human because uninterrupted it would have become a human. An individual person just like you or me. Because of that, they deserve the rights they would have as a person in advance of birth.

So, are you against condoms? Because uninterrupted, that sperm very well may have developed into an individual human, who deserves rights. Is that egg deserving of rights too? Really, by that logic any sexual activity with some measure that prevents pregnancy is negative. Maybe even masturbation, because you could be out having sex instead of wasting those sperm that could have ended up human lives.

Not meant as an attack, don't take it so. Just wanted to bring it up.

Quote from: SilverFang on December 16, 2009, 09:31:33 AM
So, are you against condoms? Because uninterrupted, that sperm very well may have developed into an individual human, who deserves rights. Is that egg deserving of rights too? Really, by that logic any sexual activity with some measure that prevents pregnancy is negative. Maybe even masturbation, because you could be out having sex instead of wasting those sperm that could have ended up human lives.

Not meant as an attack, don't take it so. Just wanted to bring it up.

Quote from: Miniar on December 16, 2009, 08:52:19 AM
You know, that's another good question;
Why is the potential of one egg and one sperm combined to become a fully grown human considered of more value than the potential of eggs and sperm uncombined?
Isn't every menstrual cycle allowed to go through without attempt to conceive a denial of that egg's potential to become a human being?

Why draw the line at that exact point?

And I still feel some of my questions haven't been answered.

Obviously there's a line to draw somewhere.

The genetic material, the egg and the sperm, are just two halves that could with any other egg or sperm form a near infinite possible number of potential people. It can't be considered an individual life apart from a limitless number of possible lives until a specific egg and specific sperm come together, and it's only at that point, when there's a specific entity and thus a specific future person, that I feel it should be protected.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 08:15:43 AM
I can understand your point of view perfectly fine Ashley... I however, cannot agree.

Your beliefs are your own,. I won't ask you to change them, although I do belive theres an element of nievety in them along with a lot of the pro life campaign. I'm gla you posted.

Potential for life, I put to the forum, is not life itself... And thus, ceasation of this potential is not murder... as it is not possible to 'kill' a life you freely admit doesn't exist yet.

Yes, I fully agree, it can stop the potential for a new life. However that falls into a similar category with wasted tallents, bad grades.... et cetera... It's loss of potential, however not a crime.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm a religious woman.... I belive in the soul, and God... the whole package deal... If a potential life is not allowed to continue in one form, I belive it simply transfers to another... That everyone gets the chance to be born and make a go of thier life... Tenuous I know, but a personal... image almost.

Overall Ashley, your argument is relatively tenuous, you use 'omg i'm a minority so I know people will bully me' as a crutch for lack of evidence.... morality is a fine defence to a point, where it becomes largely fragile due to lack of ... substance.

Considering you're on this forum... and relatively likely chances... I use this.... comparison.

From this day forth, due to your own moral beliefs... I demand that you cease any self stimulation (masturbation) you may partake in. Any ejaculation of genetic material is wasting the CHANCE of a life that could have happened had there been a vagina waiting to catch it, a favouring easterly wind, and good omens from the gods... no seriously... your standpoint is fairly clear and defined... but this fits in quite simply.... so hands off.... ok? :)

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 08:15:43 AM
Overall Ashley, your argument is relatively tenuous, you use 'omg i'm a minority so I know people will bully me' as a crutch for lack of evidence.... morality is a fine defence to a point, where it becomes largely fragile due to lack of ... substance.

I've given all the evidence I can give, this isn't an exact science. I don't see that I used that as a substitute for giving my views.

It is however true, it hasn't happened here yet, and I'd rather it not start, but I've gotten a lot of verbal abuse from well intentioned people over this.

In fact all of the counter arguments presented so far I've heard several times before. All I can do is reiterate what I've already said.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 08:15:43 AM
Potential for life, I put to the forum, is not life itself... And thus, ceasation of this potential is not murder... as it is not possible to 'kill' a life you freely admit doesn't exist yet.

I don't think I have quite the same concept of time. I do think it's possible to kill a life that doesn't exist yet, by actively preventing its existence.

given all the evidence? What evidence did you ever give? Nobody is insulting you, so stop playing the victim card...


I'm not going to continue this... you just arent going to listen to anything, regardless of what argument or evidence is used. So whatever... remember... no touchy.. its against your morals ;)

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
given all the evidence? What evidence did you ever give? Nobody is insulting you, so stop playing the victim card...


I'm not going to continue this... you just arent going to listen to anything, regardless of what argument or evidence is used.

What I said was, I've given all the evidence I can give, by which I mean, nothing. It's a philosophical viewpoint that I can't validate with any kind of scientific evidence.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
So whatever... remember... no touchy.. its against your morals ;)

Nobody's insulting me? Maybe I'm just hypersensitive but I find that remark insulting. Especially since you try to tell me what my own morals are.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 16, 2009, 05:07:57 PM
What I said was, I've given all the evidence I can give, by which I mean, nothing. It's a philosophical viewpoint that I can't validate with any kind of scientific evidence.

Well, then the question becomes, what gives you the right to impose your philosophical viewpoint on someone else?

Quote from: Miniar on December 16, 2009, 05:09:49 PM
Well, then the question becomes, what gives you the right to impose your philosophical viewpoint on someone else?

The idea that murder is wrong, not abortion but murder generally, is a philosophical viewpoint that life has a value that should be protected by society at large. So what gives the members of society the right to impose that viewpoint on other people?

Nothing does, and nothing needs too. Society accepts that murder is wrong and people who perpetrate it should be stopped.

Remember that to me, abortion IS murder. So I don't see prohibition against abortion any differently than the laws against murder.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 16, 2009, 05:20:08 PM
The idea that murder is wrong, not abortion but murder generally, is a philosophical viewpoint that life has a value that should be protected by society at large. So what gives the members of society the right to impose that viewpoint on other people?

Nothing does, and nothing needs too. Society accepts that murder is wrong and people who perpetrate it should be stopped.

Remember that to me, abortion IS murder. So I don't see prohibition against abortion any differently than the laws against murder.

But people generally don't agree with you on your view on abortion as murder.

And viewing murder as wrong is more practical and sociological than philosophical.

I have a tendency to agree with Ashley more than the rest of you. I did always figure that if choice was between mom and baby 's life, mom can choose. I have altered my viewpoint a tad recently. I still think that once egg and sperm meet, it is a new life.

Quote from: Miniar on December 16, 2009, 05:38:36 PM
But people generally don't agree with you on your view on abortion as murder.

And viewing murder as wrong is more practical and sociological than philosophical.

Yes, the majority disagree with me, and in a completely democratic society that should mean that abortion would be legal. But that doesn't change anything in my moral beliefs, I'll still speak out against abortion even if nobody wants to listen, and I'd still want to see it prohibited because to me, it's still murder.

If you think the law and government is wrong, you should have every right to advocate change to make it right.

Hypothetically, lets say that it were the other way around. Prolife was the massive majority, abortion banned everywhere. Would you think it's alright to impose your will to force people to be allowed to have abortions even if the majority want it prohibited?

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 16, 2009, 08:24:29 PM
If you think the law and government is wrong, you should have every right to advocate change to make it right.

I agree with this particular suggestion, but I still say it's self defense, first and foremost, and no human being should be forced to experience an intrusion on their own body, complete with excruciating pain, exhaustion, and mucking with it's inner working, against her will, as that would be torture.

Quote from: Miniar on December 16, 2009, 08:28:58 PM
I agree with this particular suggestion, but I still say it's self defense, first and foremost, and no human being should be forced to experience an intrusion on their own body, complete with excruciating pain, exhaustion, and mucking with it's inner working, against her will, as that would be torture.

I don't really disagree with you. No one should have to be forced to experience a pregnancy that they don't want. No one should be born without 2 parents who love them, and everyone should be raised in a nice home with parents that are there for them. But tragically the world just doesn't work like that. And the reality is that unplanned and unwanted pregnancies happen and as much as I wish they didn't, I can't help but feel that abortion is even more of an injustice than the unwanted pregnancy itself.

Not to mention the emotional torment of giving up a child you bore... if that happens... or the disruption to life caused by keeping the child, not to mention the implications to the childs life and upbringing if the parent/ family are not ready or able to care for it.

The philosophical view of 'when an egg and sperm meet its a new life' is quite nice... its very romantic... mommy egg met daddy sperm and lived happily ever after... The reality is far from the truth and much less fluffy and romantic. Perhaps its my scientific education, my different aproach to life... but I agree with Miniar, Every woman that is to give over a portion of her life in time and literal energy to the growth of a child has the right to decide the path...  to a point. Controversial point, but I stand by that. 'its philosophical' is probably the lamest argument in the book when faced with overwhelming oposition. Belive as you wish, but do not expect women to relinquish the rights to our own bodies easily...

You can take those rights from my cold god damn dead fingers personally...

Quote from: Janet Lynn on December 12, 2009, 10:40:13 AM
Pro-Choice.  It should only be for rape, incest or when the Mother's life is in danger.  As a means of birth control, No.

Enough said.

Hugs and Love
Janet

Exactly the way I feel as well.

Quote from: Janet Lynn on December 12, 2009, 10:40:13 AM
Pro-Choice.  It should only be for rape, incest or when the Mother's life is in danger.  As a means of birth control, No.

Enough said.



Hugs and Love
Janet

^ ^ this

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it's kind of funny how the MTFs generally seem to be pro-life and FTMs are about split down the middle.

Quote from: SilverFang on December 17, 2009, 01:07:01 AM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it's kind of funny how the MTFs generally seem to be pro-life and FTMs are about split down the middle.

You're wrong, but I forgive you.  ;D

I did a quick tally of the first 3 pages.

MTF -
Pro Life in all circumstances: 2 (including me)
Pro Choice in all circumstances: 5
Abortions acceptable only in cases of rape or incest (but not medical reasons, I've kept that under pro-life): 2
Plus one who identified as pro choice but didn't go into any details

FTM -
Pro Life in all circumstances: 1
Pro Choice in all circumstances: 7
Abortions acceptable only in cases of rape or incest (but not medical reasons, I've kept that under pro-life): 2
Plus two who identified as pro choice but didn't go into any details

Looks more like FTM's are overwhelmingly in favor of pro-choice. MTF's are likely the same, however less of them have voted generally.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 16, 2009, 10:23:46 PM
I don't really disagree with you. No one should have to be forced to experience a pregnancy that they don't want. No one should be born without 2 parents who love them, and everyone should be raised in a nice home with parents that are there for them. But tragically the world just doesn't work like that. And the reality is that unplanned and unwanted pregnancies happen and as much as I wish they didn't, I can't help but feel that abortion is even more of an injustice than the unwanted pregnancy itself.

Should a woman then be allowed to defend herself from other impositions against her physical and psychological well-being?
If murder is always worse than torture, is anyone allowed to defend themselves in a way that can/will kill their assailant if there's no direct threat of death?

Quote from: Miniar on December 17, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
Should a woman then be allowed to defend herself from other impositions against her physical and psychological well-being?
If murder is always worse than torture, is anyone allowed to defend themselves in a way that can/will kill their assailant if there's no direct threat of death?

If the "torture" were no worse than a pregnancy, and the "assailant" was as innocent as a newborn baby, with the "torture" only being for relatively limited time.

There you go showing you're total inability to understand...

Pregnancy can cause mental breakdowns, depression, suicide, even if the baby is never born.

Women have the right to defend thier own bodies, and your new reasons still suck... ANY torture is for a limited time... and as for innocent as a newborn baby... its not born, or even a baby yet.... innocence cannot be attributed to something that has no ability to even comprehend the difference.

As for 'torture' being no worse than pregancy... Hon, Ask any woman thats been through it, Labour is bad enough, but as a total... it takes a LOT out of a woman, and changes lives....


*sigh* Such big decicive views... so little sodding clue.

Are you sure your last name isn't Chaney?

IF I would get pregnant (seeing as I currently possess the biological components that could result in that), no matter if it were consensual sexual contact, rape, freak accident or divine intervention, I would terminate the pregnancy.
If I were unable to do so because it would be illegal, for any reason, I can pretty safely say I'd attempt to take my life, and probably succeed.

And I wouldn't be the first person to do so in a situation like that.

Miniar raises an excelent point... F2m guys that fall pregnant in a world where abortion is illegal... Jebus... I can't imagine how bad that would feel for guys that don't want that... (Don't start folks i refer to only one group that hate it).

I can quite realistically imagine they would take thier lives, look at the m2f and f2m deaths without having something so feminine pushed on guys against thier will.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 17, 2009, 07:22:00 AM
There you go showing you're total inability to understand...

Are you sure your last name isn't Chaney?

Easy there sparky, they understand the issues and know exacty what they are doing so don't sell them short. Cheney is a lot smarter than
he's given credit for. I've met the guy and he has a real mad scientist vibe. Evil and insane yes, but he's no dummy.

The truly insidious part of the prolife movement is the way they have realized they can't win public opinion, and so have gone to work on undermining access. It's deliberate, planned, and it's working better than any constitutional amendment. We wear ourselves out with this debate then come home to Oregon and California with our life partners and protcted rights, while in the rest of the nation they pass local legislation and business codes that make it impossible for abortion doctors and clinics to practice...effectively doing an end run around us.

edit: spelling and grammar  :-*

Quote from: Miniar on December 17, 2009, 07:34:10 AM
IF I would get pregnant (seeing as I currently possess the biological components that could result in that), no matter if it were consensual sexual contact, rape, freak accident or divine intervention, I would terminate the pregnancy.
If I were unable to do so because it would be illegal, for any reason, I can pretty safely say I'd attempt to take my life, and probably succeed.

And I wouldn't be the first person to do so in a situation like that.

If you check back, you'll see the very first thing I said on the thread was I'm completely 100% against abortion in all but situations where it will likely be required due to extreme risk of complication for the mother.

So I would probably not challenge an abortion where it's shown that the mother is suicidal directly as a result of the pregnancy.

If the mothers life is in an unusual and exceptional danger because from the pregnancy, that would be the one and only reason abortion would be acceptable too me. If the child or mother are likely to die from the pregnancy anyway, then it's an entirely different situation.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
Nobody is insulting you, so stop playing the victim card...

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 08:15:43 AM
From this day forth, due to your own moral beliefs... I demand that you cease any self stimulation (masturbation) you may partake in. Any ejaculation of genetic material is wasting the CHANCE of a life that could have happened had there been a vagina waiting to catch it, a favouring easterly wind, and good omens from the gods... no seriously... your standpoint is fairly clear and defined... but this fits in quite simply.... so hands off.... ok? :)

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
I'm not going to continue this... you just arent going to listen to anything, regardless of what argument or evidence is used. So whatever... remember... no touchy.. its against your morals ;)

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 17, 2009, 07:22:00 AM
*sigh* Such big decicive views... so little sodding clue.

Are you sure your last name isn't Chaney?

Alright, playing victim card now. I haven't made any such insults, to anyone on this thread.

But since you've decided to ensure that my record on abortion discussions degrading into personal attacks remains 100%, I guess I'm done with this thread. I've said pretty much everything I wanted to say.

That's rather tautological of you, isn't it? Jump into a discussion on the controversial topic of your choice and stay in it until someone insults you, and every discussion will end with an insult. NB insulting you doesn't mean pro-choice people are by nature insulting. It just means that if you couldn't strike out or fly out, everyone would bat 1000.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 17, 2009, 03:27:24 PMIf you check back, you'll see the very first thing I said on the thread was I'm completely 100% against abortion in all but situations where it will likely be required due to extreme risk of complication for the mother.

So I would probably not challenge an abortion where it's shown that the mother is suicidal directly as a result of the pregnancy.

If the mothers life is in an unusual and exceptional danger because from the pregnancy, that would be the one and only reason abortion would be acceptable too me. If the child or mother are likely to die from the pregnancy anyway, then it's an entirely different situation.

So you'll think Abortion is a viable option in situations where a woman would rather die than carry to term?

Quote from: Miniar on December 15, 2009, 06:57:17 AM
What about self defence?

A woman is allowed to defend herself, even to the point of inflicting lethal bodily harm, to an outside assailant, no?
No one would convict a woman of murder if she defended herself, for example, against a rapist.

Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?

I really do mean these questions, I want to understand "why" this opinion.

Legally though, the self defense card can only be played when you are in IMMEDIATE risk of real physical harm or death.

I thihnk pretty much everyone supports the right to abortion, and wouldn't call it murder, if the existence of the child presented an IMMEDIATE risk of real physical harm or death.

But just as I cannot kill in self defense because a person causes me inconvenience or economic damage (i.e., for instance, I can't kill my son because I can't afford to support him) likewise a woman who is pregnant with a child which will cause her life difficulty, but not physical harm, cannot claim that the abortion is an act of self defense - at least not under the current legal paradigm.

---

Post Merge: December 17, 2009, 04:15:34 PM

---

Quote from: Miniar on December 17, 2009, 06:02:33 PM
So you'll think Abortion is a viable option in situations where a woman would rather die than carry to term?

The problem with this exception is that it makes it simple for any woman seeking an abortion to claim that is the case because there's no way to prove otherwise.

IF the "gatekeeper" to such an abortion were as diligent as your typical gender therapist is expected to be that would perhaps get to the bottom of it but there's only a narrow window before you get into creating a late-term abortion where there would have been an early one without the screeing.

In my humble opinion, saying "I would rather die than be pregnant" is really an argument without much merit because pregnancy will end in a relative short term and it's nonsensical to end a decades long life (potentially) over a months long situation.

it's like being sentenced to prison for a year and saying you'd rather die than serve the term - you might really feel that way but it's still a ridiculous conclusion objectively.

I'd say such a woman should be ensured close mental health monitoring throughout the pregnancy but that it should not be a free ticket to get an abortion.

---

Post Merge: December 17, 2009, 05:21:17 PM

---

To amend the previous post, I WOULD accept that a pre-existing F2M case of GID was sufficient evidence that pregnancy would do real mental damage to the person who was pregnant. I assume there are possibly other such exceptions.

A closely defined standard that avoided the "Oh, by the way" sudden case of feigned depression would be an obviously compassionate choice here.

---

Post Merge: December 17, 2009, 06:25:28 PM

---

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 10:23:56 PM
Not to mention the emotional torment of giving up a child you bore... if that happens... or the disruption to life caused by keeping the child, not to mention the implications to the childs life and upbringing if the parent/ family are not ready or able to care for it.

there are thousands and thousands of women who DID have abortions and testify to considerable psychological trauma resulting from THAT choice too.

There is no reason to assume that either choice is clearly the one which will ensure no psychological repercussions in the aftermath.

That being the case, it is at best a secondary consideration.

A pregnancy doesn't just inconvenience, there are thousands of little things it does to the body, many of them permanently damaging to the system even without any complications what so ever.
And childbirth itself is no joking matter. It does cause permanent damage, even when everything goes smoothly.

And you don't have to be transgendered to suffer real and overwhelming psychological effects of pregnancy.

In countries where there's no legally available options to terminate, women have been known to try truly dangerous methods, "home remedies" and such, out of desperation, trying to get out of a situation they truly don't want to be in, and loosing their life in the process.
Coat-hangers, Extreme amounts of Alcohol, Poisonous herbs, even throwing themselves down a flight of stairs hoping the trauma will end the pregnancy.

And then there was that case of the 12 year old girl who was denied abortion, forced to carry to term, and then forced to try to give birth, resulting in the death of both child, and child...

It's freaking barbarism Min, and it's infuriating to think about. All that so some white trash shotgun toting hillbilly can feel right with "the Lawd" on Sunday when he takes a hipocrisy break from beating his wife and molesting his daughter to go sit in church for an hour.

Quote from: Miniar on December 17, 2009, 06:32:12 PM
A pregnancy doesn't just inconvenience, there are thousands of little things it does to the body, many of them permanently damaging to the system even without any complications what so ever.
And childbirth itself is no joking matter. It does cause permanent damage, even when everything goes smoothly.

I hesitate to say this...and do so with the greatest possible respect...but you make pregnancy sound like a disease.

It is a naturally occurring process which occurs in all mammals and has millions of years of evolution to bring it to a point where it is today. Nothing which happens in a normal pregnancy is "damaging" - it is simply "altering"

I can't help but suggest that your inborn aversion to the female condition perhaps colors your opinion of pregnancy. I think I can say with confidence that the vast majority of natal females would not agree with your description.

(I know that sounds presumptions not being a natal female but I don't think you have to be one to know that)

Quote
And you don't have to be transgendered to suffer real and overwhelming psychological effects of pregnancy.

Of course not, and I didn't say that - i said that being trans would be prima facia evidence that such trauma was a potentially psychological trauma.

Quote
In countries where there's no legally available options to terminate, women have been known to try truly dangerous methods, "home remedies" and such, out of desperation, trying to get out of a situation they truly don't want to be in, and loosing their life in the process.

Certainly. but that in and of itself is not justification for the procedure.

the legality or illegality of abortion must stand on it's own merit. Saying "people will do it anyway" makes no more sense than saying that we should have euthenasia centers that you can take the person you want to kill to so they can be put down safely.

(I'm not saying "abortion is murder!!" just speaking to the logic of the point made)

Quote
Coat-hangers, Extreme amounts of Alcohol, Poisonous herbs, even throwing themselves down a flight of stairs hoping the trauma will end the pregnancy.

And then there was that case of the 12 year old girl who was denied abortion, forced to carry to term, and then forced to try to give birth, resulting in the death of both child, and child...

Which, of course, is a situation that (a) the great majority of people who call themselves "pro-life" wouldn't agree with and (b) falls under "threat to the life of the mother" and is thus not an argument relevant to the overall abortion discussion.

---

Post Merge: December 18, 2009, 02:15:24 AM

---

Quote from: Becca on December 17, 2009, 07:13:41 PM
It's freaking barbarism Min, and it's infuriating to think about. All that so some white trash shotgun toting hillbilly can feel right with "the Lawd" on Sunday when he takes a hipocrisy break from beating his wife and molesting his daughter to go sit in church for an hour.

Somewhere in Arkansas, some redneck speaks:

"The only reason they want this health care crap is some perverted leather-wearing freak >-bleeped-< can take a break from molesting little boys long enough to get a boob job his dick cut off while I pay for it"

Ah....the circle of life.

I sure wish one side or the other would rise above.

I don't see the circle of life. Maybe an unfair generalization on my part but I really dislike the pro life lobby. The difference between Bubba and I is while we might both be distasteful creatures I do not actively seek to control other peoples access to fundamental healthcare out of some religious need to enforce the will of a supernatural half-man/half-god with some distorted sense of right and wrong.
And I don't own a stitch of leather.

and therein lies the point.

Stereotypes never help anyone's argument. We always hate them when they are directed at us (not just transsexuals, whatever it is we are that is being stereotyped) and yet we (humans, not transsexuals) seem all too willing to wallow in them when it comes to others.

Don't we, among all people, have more reason to recognize the downside of people pre-judging others (most especially as a group) and not respecting them as individuals?

Don't we, among all people, most often suffer the real dangers of that kind of thinking?

I'm not trying to pick on you Becca, I love you a bunch but it's not just you. This is the third or fourth forum I've spent some time on for the trans community (or some part of it) and gosh knows how many more general ones besides and over and over again i see people in group X protest their mistreatment in one breath and turn around and belittle those in group Y in the next.

Maybe I should just learn to live with it, because my protests never seem to make a difference.

I'd just like to reiterate that I don't consider pro-life to be an inherently religious standpoint. Certainly a large proportion or likely the majority of the pro-life movement is religiously motivated, but I am not.

On most all issue's I am extremely pro-civil liberties. But abortion isn't one of them.

Quote(I'm not saying "abortion is murder!!" just speaking to the logic of the point made)

I'll say it then, abortion is murder.

QuoteI'm not trying to pick on you Becca

It's ok lol, I'm more just poking the bear than anything :angel:


(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.neoseeker.com%2Fmgv%2F351644-Master%2520Jynch%2F644%2F53%2Fboxxy_display.gif&hash=335332b3dbb7795e9a531824686fdf02a1854721)

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 18, 2009, 02:06:50 AM
I hesitate to say this...and do so with the greatest possible respect...but you make pregnancy sound like a disease.

It is a naturally occurring process which occurs in all mammals and has millions of years of evolution to bring it to a point where it is today. Nothing which happens in a normal pregnancy is "damaging" - it is simply "altering"

I'm not discounting it's positive effects on a person. I'm stressing the effects we don't talk about, 'specially not in a pro-life/choice situation because people seem to forget it at that time.

No, it's not a disease, it's a natural process, but natural does not mean safe, it does not mean side-effect free, it does not mean "good", and it does not mean pain nor damage free. Many of the side effects of pregnancy can only be considered damage.
It's a natural process that which is Highly Stressful on the body, any body.

Quote from: Laura HopeI can't help but suggest that your inborn aversion to the female condition perhaps colors your opinion of pregnancy. I think I can say with confidence that the vast majority of natal females would not agree with your description.

No, they wouldn't.
Partially because most of them don't "know" about the list of symptoms over the ones people talk about. And those that do don't talk about it, they talk about their beautiful babies.
They say a woman simply forgets the pain of childbirth in the first week of bonding with her child. Which isn't too strange since it is, after all, as you mentioned, something required for the survival of the species.
We have a strong instinct to breed and with good reason.

But that's hardly the point here. The reason I'm focusing on the negative aspects of pregnancy is for the purpose of the debate.
We all know the positive effects and potential good. We've all seen a woman who's happy for every effect she feels as it's a part of the miracle/joy of her carrying her own child to term. To many of these girls, the aches and pains are a reminder of the positive experience, even if they can feel extreme discomfort at the time.
But these aren't the women who want, at that time, the right to choose whether or not the "intruder" into her body is allowed to stay there.
Those that need the choice to say no to pregnancy, even once it's begun, aren't the ones that are happy about it. And for their sake it's important to point out exactly what we're forcing on them, against their will.
Majority of the side effects of pregnancy cause at the very least discomfort. A lot of these side effects cause pain, some an extreme amount of it, and birth isn't "pretty" when you look at it in the details (C section = you're cut open. Natural = frequently you tear open.), it's extremely painful and never comes without some blood being shed from the mother.
These are facts, one doesn't have to be uncomfortable with one's own female body to know the facts.

Quote from: Laura Hope(I know that sounds presumptions not being a natal female but I don't think you have to be one to know that)Of course not, and I didn't say that - i said that being trans would be prima facia evidence that such trauma was a potentially psychological trauma.Certainly. but that in and of itself is not justification for the procedure.

The point I was making is that there doesn't have to be anything even remotely like GID in the equation.
Psychological trauma is an innate factor of pregnancy (Trauma being an important part of life and development of an individual from a psychological standpoint and thus not necessarily something negative in this context.), it is a traumatic experience to loose control and dominion over one's own body, and birth is extremely obviously traumatic, not just physically but also psychologically.

The point I was making was that there are millions of factors at play here, and that there can be women which, for all intents and purposes, are perfectly happy and healthy prior to their pregnancy, who experience such an overwhelming aversion to being pregnant, for any given reason, that they may be likely to commit suicide as a result of being barred from terminating. There's no way to know 'till the situation arises.

Quote from: Laura Hopethe legality or illegality of abortion must stand on it's own merit. Saying "people will do it anyway" makes no more sense than saying that we should have euthenasia centers that you can take the person you want to kill to so they can be put down safely.

Er, no. That's a straw-man argument and I'm sure you know that.
I never said "people will do it anyway", what I said is that women will, out of desperation, make attempts to try and do this, with methods that can cause them severe harm or even death, as they already do in countries where abortion is illegal.
There is a difference there.

Quote from: Laura Hope(I'm not saying "abortion is murder!!" just speaking to the logic of the point made)Which, of course, is a situation that (a) the great majority of people who call themselves "pro-life" wouldn't agree with and (b) falls under "threat to the life of the mother" and is thus not an argument relevant to the overall abortion discussion.

This is just an example of what can happen in a country that adopt a fully "pro-life" set of laws and thinking.
It is pertinent to the discussion the same way as mentioning the potential mis-use of abortion is.
_

And here's a quick copy-pasta of the short list of side effects of pregnancy;

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

    * exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
    * altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
    * nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
    * heartburn and indigestion
    * constipation
    * weight gain
    * dizziness and light-headedness
    * bloating, swelling, fluid retention
    * hemmorhoids
    * abdominal cramps
    * yeast infections
    * congested, bloody nose
    * acne and mild skin disorders
    * skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
    * mild to severe backache and strain
    * increased headaches
    * difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
    * increased urination and incontinence
    * bleeding gums
    * pica
    * breast pain and discharge
    * swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
    * difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
    * inability to take regular medications
    * shortness of breath
    * higher blood pressure
    * hair loss
    * tendency to anemia
    * curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
    * infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
      are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
    * extreme pain on delivery
    * hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
    * continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent permanent side effects of pregnancy:

    * stretch marks (worse in younger women)
    * loose skin
    * permanent weight gain or redistribution
    * abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
    * pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
    * changes to breasts
    * varicose veins
    * scarring from episiotomy or c-section
    * other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
    * increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
    * loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

Occasional complications and side effects:

    * spousal/partner abuse (in more than 30% of domestic violence cases, the abuse started during pregnancy)
    * hyperemesis gravidarum (unrelenting, excessive pregnancy-related nausea and/or vomiting that prevents adequate intake of food and fluids)
    * temporary and permanent injury to back
    * severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
    * dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
    * pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
    * eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
    * gestational diabetes
    * placenta previa
    * anemia (which can be life-threatening)
    * thrombocytopenic purpura
    * severe cramping
    * embolism (blood clots)
    * medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
    * diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
    * mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
    * serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
    * hormonal imbalance
    * ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
    * broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
    * hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery
    * refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
    * aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
    * severe post-partum depression and psychosis
    * research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
    * research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
    * research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

    * peripartum cardiomyopathy
    * cardiopulmonary arrest
    * magnesium toxicity
    * severe hypoxemia/acidosis
    * massive embolism
    * increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
    * molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
    * malignant arrhythmia
    * circulatory collapse
    * placental abruption
    * obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:

    * future infertility
    * permanent disability
    * death

_

Pregnancy is a serious thing.
It's not just something that you "get over with" in a "few months" with ease.
There is no woman that goes through a pregnancy that doesn't come out the other side with "some" permanent change in her body that can (often, can only) be considered damage.
Tooth rot, back-pains, stretched and torn muscles, scars, the damage caused by relaxin (My abs still have a gap in them, an inch wide gap, down the middle, and my daughter is eight years old!), etc, etc, etc...
It's not a disease, no.
It is a natural process, yes.
But that damage is still a matter of fact.
And No one should be forced to take that damage against her will.
No one should be forced to suffer the temporary effects against her will either.

To stress how the effects are simply temporary does not take away from the pain, discomfort, exhaustion, and psychological trauma involved.
I am Not saying that abortion is not traumatic, I'm saying that if a woman does not want to carry to term and risk any of the "potential" damage from that list, it would be beyond cruelty to say "tough luck" and force it on her.

There are a lot of other things that are "just temporary" that we would never consider "okay" simply because they are.
Rape's just temporary, Torture's just temporary, Spousal-Abuse is just temporary (per time), etc..
But in all those situations, even pregnancy, the situation can turn permanent(deadly).
A healthy woman can die as a result pregnancy.
I'm not saying she will, I'm saying it's a chance that isn't my business, nor anyone's business, to force anyone to take against their will.

QuoteThey say a woman simply forgets the pain of childbirth in the first week of bonding with her child.

If I remember correctly it's  actually the result of the same hormone that keeps us from eating our young and creates some of the drives that prolly fuel this entire debate  :icon_chew:

Quote from: Becca on December 18, 2009, 03:20:23 AM
If I remember correctly it's  actually the result of the same hormone that keeps us from eating our young and creates some of the drives that prolly fuel this entire debate  :icon_chew:

*nods*
It's easy to love a baby, cause we're hard-wired to do so.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 18, 2009, 02:54:26 AM
I'll say it then, abortion is murder.

See? You are saying that a fetus and even an embryo -- even just a fertilized egg -- is morally equivalent to baby or a child or an adult. I respect that, and I disagree. You'll see my position at the heart of all arguments in support of abortion rights, and yours at the heart of all arguments against. Everything else is irrelevant and just increases the level of acrimony.

Where is the space for compromise? I just don't see it.

I'm Pro-Life

Quote from: Alyssa M. on December 18, 2009, 01:19:34 PM
See? You are saying that a fetus and even an embryo -- even just a fertilized egg -- is morally equivalent to baby or a child or an adult. I respect that, and I disagree. You'll see my position at the heart of all arguments in support of abortion rights, and yours at the heart of all arguments against. Everything else is irrelevant and just increases the level of acrimony.

Where is the space for compromise? I just don't see it.

I think my post reresents a decent stab at a middle ground.

if abortion rights activist will come off the absolutest position that ANY reason for ANY abortion right up until the ninth month MUST be uninhibited in law....and if pro-life activist will come off requiring even the fertilized egg to be protected in law....

then there is room for a solution in which neither side gets everything it wants but both sides gain something significant.

if a window is established wherein abortion is legal in the first 8 weeks (10 at the outside) andrestricted to extreme circumstances thereafter, then pro-lifers can know that at a minimum they have prevented the potential that an aware being is suffering a painful death and pro-choicers can know that at least they have an opportunity for, in particular, chemical abortifacients which should, in all but health related cases, be the method of choice for various reasons.


the thing is, too many people are married to the all-or-nothing position.

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 18, 2009, 05:55:40 PM
if abortion rights activist will come off the absolutest position that ANY reason for ANY abortion right up until the ninth month MUST be uninhibited in law....

Uhm, I have yet to see a single person of that view... at all...

Laura,

That's possible, but looking at it a different way, you are just chosing a different starting point for the beginning of what I'm calling "personhood." There's a hint of that when you talk about an "aware human being." I respect your point of view and see its benefits, but I don't think you'll find a lot of support from people on either side, only from the few in the middle.

I'm always glad when a topic like this comes up and we can show the world how open minded and accepting we really are.  And how, as reasonable adults raised in the sweet bosom of democratic values and tolerance we can demonstrate how people raised in one of the top scientific and technological environments can rationally look at scientific evidence and come to a measured response that cares for the rights of the women as equal members of society who can make their own medical decisions. 

Just kidding.  I put on the popcorn and sat back, because I've never seen one of these threads end well, they tend to end like the old-school NASCAR races, with cars all over the track and the drivers out on the infield beating the snot out of each other.  Good Times.

But really, I do love them because the political contortions people go through on this one issue is really worthy of a top level circus act.  People who don't think that the Gubm't has no business telling them what they should do with their body, or better not even try to tell them they can't be strapping serious heat when they venture out in public, are all of a sudden peachy-keen with shoving the Gubm't between a woman and her doctor and deciding in her place what the best decision for her is.

And there is very little middle ground that I've ever seen.  Either we as a society have a right to make decisions about what medical procedures someone may/or may not undergo, or choose - or - those decisions, medical decisions, are between a person, their doctor, and whoever is covering the insurance or writing the check, and as such are private matters in which the State does not have an interest, or a control.  One or the other.  Doubtful you can really go both ways on that.

What I find more interesting, is any debate of this sort, ie, a serious, yet non trans issue, people expect others to be 'hyper liberal' as they are... or hold the same views because they share a condition with them...

Do all Tennis fans like the same music?
Do all Artists prefer Edam?
Do all Asthmatics drive Fords?

It's impossible to pidgeon hole a personality by one factor alone, (unless thats politician), and I've yet to meet a trans person that lives upto the ideals almost coveted and lorded by the trans community... Tollerance is a very two way street.... It's very easy to be tollerant about being trans when one is... but it doesn't mean they are tollerant about all things.

We must learn to take people as people, not trans people, or we fall foul of the same traps we lament on these very boards.

I return to the "debate?" with trepidation -well, OK, not really, but with the sense of futility that any meaningful result will, well, result. Miniar and Tekla very well cover my attitudes about whose freedom are we going to respect - the pregnant woman, or the potentially future person planted in her, with or without her consent.

So, in light of Miniar's graphic and lengthy list of side effects of pregnancy, I pose a question, and would suggest it be limited to only the male-to-female  pro-life persons out there:
If you should receive SRS at some time in the past, present or future, would you accept random surgical procedures to be administered to you at that time that provide one or more of those side effects to you, from minor to fatal, from that list, so you can fully experience the female prospective upon transition? Or would you absolutely insist that no gender specific medical downside occur for you? If you say that the risk goes with the territory, then you mean what you say; if not, will you then give furtile females the same choice?

I know that this is so completely hypothetical that it may be meaningless, but come on pro-lifers, would you commit to recieving a full and complete male to female transition, or just the appearance of being female without the baggage? And no fair claiming since you can't become pregnant it doesn't count; if the surgical addition of pregnancy related challanges would be possible, so would the full monte! Or Monique!

SusanKG

Pro-choice here, even though I was raised in a denominnation that declares that abortion is a fatal sin and the woman is doomed thereafter.

I am not religious, but Jesus Christ never uttered any such words.

Quote from: SusanKG on December 18, 2009, 11:57:41 PM
I return to the "debate?" with trepidation -well, OK, not really, but with the sense of futility that any meaningful result will, well, result. Miniar and Tekla very well cover my attitudes about whose freedom are we going to respect - the pregnant woman, or the potentially future person planted in her, with or without her consent.

So, in light of Miniar's graphic and lengthy list of side effects of pregnancy, I pose a question, and would suggest it be limited to only the male-to-female  pro-life persons out there:
If you should receive SRS at some time in the past, present or future, would you accept random surgical procedures to be administered to you at that time that provide one or more of those side effects to you, from minor to fatal, from that list, so you can fully experience the female prospective upon transition? Or would you absolutely insist that no gender specific medical downside occur for you? If you say that the risk goes with the territory, then you mean what you say; if not, will you then give furtile females the same choice?

I know that this is so completely hypothetical that it may be meaningless, but come on pro-lifers, would you commit to recieving a full and complete male to female transition, or just the appearance of being female without the baggage? And no fair claiming since you can't become pregnant it doesn't count; if the surgical addition of pregnancy related challanges would be possible, so would the full monte! Or Monique!

SusanKG

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

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.

It would be like telling an intersexed female person that in order to get any corrective surgery, they also need to undertake that random chance. They can't give birth and if they want to be more like normal female's they need to take the risk, right?

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

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Miniar on December 18, 2009, 06:27:56 PM
Uhm, I have yet to see a single person of that view... at all...

In real life - no, neither have I.

but in the political wars, it is the ONLY acceptable position.

Let any politician come out with ANY proposed legislation that infringes in ANY way on unrestricted abortion and Planed Parenthood and the rest of the pro-"choice" lobby mobilizes in force to stop it at all cost.

---

Post Merge: December 19, 2009, 01:58:53 AM

---

Quote from: Alyssa M. on December 18, 2009, 07:07:19 PM
Laura,

That's possible, but looking at it a different way, you are just chosing a different starting point for the beginning of what I'm calling "personhood." There's a hint of that when you talk about an "aware human being." I respect your point of view and see its benefits, but I don't think you'll find a lot of support from people on either side, only from the few in the middle.

Oh, I surely agree.

The hard-liners will never buy it, which is why we'll never have any sane peace on the subject.

Yes, it is absolutely an arbitrary legal definition of "personhood"

but we already make such decesions in law when we are dealing with the END of life so there is clear legal precedent, reasoning, and logic for finding and establishing a legal begining of life and in my humble opinion, the most obviously logically defensible such definition would be to define the begining by the exact same criteria with which you define the end.

But, being a logical, sane, and rational concept - it has no prayer of ever getting through ANY legislative body.

---

Post Merge: December 19, 2009, 03:05:11 AM

---

Quote
People who don't think that the Gubm't has no business telling them what they should do with their body, or better not even try to tell them they can't be strapping serious heat when they venture out in public, are all of a sudden peachy-keen with shoving the Gubm't between a woman and her doctor and deciding in her place what the best decision for her is.

I see that simplistic canard all the time and it's nonsense.

such a remark derives from the obviously false logic that all government actions are equal.

To wit:
Two situations -

An officer of the government witnesses a parent beating his 8 year old child with a steel pipe.

An officer of the government witnesses a parent giving his 8 year old child an unhealthy sugary drink


Are we to believe that if I oppose government meddling in the latter case that I am thus logically bound to oppose government meddling in the former?

Obviously not.

thus, that whole little bit of BS in the preceding quote is as useless to this argument as pixie dust.

---

Post Merge: December 19, 2009, 04:09:46 AM

---

Quote
So, in light of Miniar's graphic and lengthy list of side effects of pregnancy, I pose a question, and would suggest it be limited to only the male-to-female  pro-life persons out there:
If you should receive SRS at some time in the past, present or future, would you accept random surgical procedures to be administered to you at that time that provide one or more of those side effects to you, from minor to fatal, from that list, so you can fully experience the female prospective upon transition? Or would you absolutely insist that no gender specific medical downside occur for you? If you say that the risk goes with the territory, then you mean what you say; if not, will you then give furtile females the same choice?

that's awfully convoluted and confusing so let me distill it a bit into something workable:

IF the ONLY surgery available for M2F transsexuals was a surgery that would leave one indistinguishable biologically from a natal female and, with the same statistical chance of suffering potential negative effects from all the things which happen to natal females including menstration, pregnancy, and menopause, would I (finances and such aside) consent t the surgery and assume all the risk that my ciswomen acquaintences are born into without choice?

No just yes but oh HELL yeah!

Clear enough?

In fact, I challange you to find a single M2F TS on this or any other board who now desires SRS but would decline that opportunity if all those circumstances applied.

I  strongly suspect such a woman doesn't exist.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 18, 2009, 10:50:47 PM
What I find more interesting, is any debate of this sort, ie, a serious, yet non trans issue, people expect others to be 'hyper liberal' as they are... or hold the same views because they share a condition with them...

Do all Tennis fans like the same music?
Do all Artists prefer Edam?
Do all Asthmatics drive Fords?

It's impossible to pidgeon hole a personality by one factor alone, (unless thats politician), and I've yet to meet a trans person that lives upto the ideals almost coveted and lorded by the trans community... Tollerance is a very two way street.... It's very easy to be tollerant about being trans when one is... but it doesn't mean they are tollerant about all things.

We must learn to take people as people, not trans people, or we fall foul of the same traps we lament on these very boards.

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.

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 19, 2009, 03:55:33 AMIn real life - no, neither have I.

but in the political wars, it is the ONLY acceptable position.

Let any politician come out with ANY proposed legislation that infringes in ANY way on unrestricted abortion and Planed Parenthood and the rest of the pro-"choice" lobby mobilizes in force to stop it at all cost.

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.

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

Quote from: Dianna on December 19, 2009, 04:26:07 AM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: tekla on December 19, 2009, 07:22:03 AM
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.

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

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

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 19, 2009, 08:39:09 AM
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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Miniar on December 19, 2009, 04:59:12 AM
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:

Quote
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 (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

---

Quote from: tekla on December 19, 2009, 07:22:03 AM
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Florynce Kennedy

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

Quote from: Dianna on December 19, 2009, 06:42:14 PM
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....

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

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 20, 2009, 12:29:35 AM
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.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 19, 2009, 01:49:40 AM
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.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 19, 2009, 01:49:40 AM
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.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 19, 2009, 01:49:40 AMAnd that's just the start of the problems with that hypothetical.

How can a hypothetical be a problem and ridiculous?

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 19, 2009, 01:49:40 AMI'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.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 19, 2009, 01:49:40 AMI 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.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 19, 2009, 01:49:40 AMThe 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 

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.

QuoteThis 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.

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?

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.

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

http://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment (http://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment)

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 20, 2009, 07:05:32 AM
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.

Actually your exact words were "Sure, others can have a view point, but is it that relvant at the end of the day?" in reference to discussing abortion on this topic.

I took that concept to its logical extreme, by saying it's no more relevant to anyone infertile, then that it's no more reliant to anyone not currently pregnant. Because the most difference there could be between those people is a question of mentality, and very minor, rather than any kind of experience.

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

Which says to me, you think that people should not be posting (although they can but should be ignored if they do) unless they are actually, currently able to get pregnant.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 20, 2009, 07:05:32 AM
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.

Which is the very conundrum that keeps us all form agreeing on an obvious solution.

In the view of a person who believes it is a child, abortion - except in obvious self defense - is murder.

That's why it's very difficult to get such people to consider pro-choice arguments.

The thing is, all but the hard core political activist pro-choicer will concede that sometime in the late term the fetus should be considered a child - at the least when it gets to the point where it can survive outside the mother's womb if delivered pre-maturely.

so, for us normal people who are not all-or-nothing political activists, whether we are pro-life or pro-choice or something in between, we SHOULD all be able to agree that after 23,24 weeks - lets say the third trimester (26 weeks) for a verbal shorthand - we are speaking of a "child" just as much as we are speaking of a fetus.

How much further back than that one goes is a matter of disagreement.

for me, just to clarify my future remarks, I prefer quarters over trimesters (which is - both are -  a wholly arbitrary scale which has no basis in biology)

10 weeks, 20 weeks, 30 weeks

It has been determined that there is measurable higher brain function in the fetus by 10 weeks...some suggest as early as eight weeks.

That, in my opinion, is the measure of "person" and not simply fetus. After 10 weeks, we are speaking of a fetus but also of a child, in my opinion and when I refer to that being I will commonly call it a child.

Before that brain activity it is a fetus (far enough back an embryo) and I, for one, am willing to accept broad latitude for the mother in terminating the pregnancy.

Past 10 weeks, I would only accept a termination in extraordinary circumstances which were court approved.

Past 20 weeks, only in defense of the mothers life, or to prevent permenant physical disability. At 20 weeks or shortly thereafter, a child is viable outside the mothers womb.

Past 30 weeks, I would make abortion for any reason other than those two a criminal offense, punishable at least as manslaughter. I concede that 20 weeks is an arbitrary distinction but I'm following the 10-week pattern. It's no more arbitrary than "trimesters"

So, in short, when I say "child" I refer to a being with brain function which MAY indicate self-awareness and definitely indicates the ability to feel pain.

Should we let white racists decide whether black people should have civil rights? Should we let men decide whether women can vote and hold public office?

No, we should not. Those are what we in the United States call "unalienable rights." Nevertheless, that's exactly what we did: people in power denied those rights in order to maintain their power, until they finally deigned to respect them.

Such is the case with all systems of government. That's why we unjustly let a bunch of homophobes decide whether gay people can marry (and yes, that affects trans people too). That's why we let people who can't get pregnant decide whether they can have access to abortion. (Or, from anti-abortion point of view I disagree with, why we let people whose life will never be threatened by abortion decide whether we can destroy fetuses.) That called government. It is certainly not the same as justice.

What makes it SO hard talking to pro-choicers, is that so many of them just don't seem to get that the pro-lifer's see this as TWO people being affected by abortion. Not one, two.

Which makes it not a civil liberties issue to us.

You do not have the right to murder anyone else? And if you see abortion as murder, then it's no different an infringement on civil liberties as any other law against murder.

These arguments of "whites persecuted blacks" "men persecuted women" are perfectly valid justifications from the pro-choice viewpoint where there's only one person being effected by an abortion, the person undergoing it. But they are completely irrelivant to someone who see's abortion as one person destroying another. Please try to understand that.

Well, good. You've just made the point I was making from the start.

Did you read my entire post? Then you ought to have noticed where I mentioned that the same argument is used by pro-lifers: I've heard plenty of pro-lifers talk about civil liferties of fetuses. Notice the part in boldface:

Quote from: Alyssa M. on December 20, 2009, 02:41:02 PM...That's why we let people who can't get pregnant decide whether they can have access to abortion. (Or, from anti-abortion point of view I disagree with, why we let people whose life will never be threatened by abortion decide whether we can destroy fetuses.) That called government. It is certainly not the same as justice.

I understand your point of view perfectly, and did from the start. I simply disagree with your definition of personhood.

I understand that some people see me as a murderer for eating meat. I disagree with their definition of personhood too.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on December 20, 2009, 07:26:32 PM
Well, good. You've just made the point I was making from the start.

Did you read my entire post? Then you ought to have noticed where I mentioned that the same argument is used by pro-lifers: I've heard plenty of pro-lifers talk about civil liferties of fetuses. Notice the part in boldface:

I understand your point of view perfectly, and did from the start. I simply disagree with your definition of personhood.

I understand that some people see me as a murderer for eating meat. I disagree with their definition of personhood too.

QuoteOr, from anti-abortion point of view I disagree with, why we let people whose life will never be threatened by abortion decide whether we can destroy fetuses.

Isn't that like saying we can never let white people talk about discrimination against black people? Or men stick up for womens rights?

My life WAS directly threatened by abortion, does that count enough to give me a say?  ::)

So was mine. If it had been available, I would have been aborted. I wasn't. I'm still pro-choice. I do enough child protection work and young offender work that I know what a miserable life the unwanted have. And how they reflect that misery outwards on others. Some do good. I did. But my parents stepped up to the plate, even though I was unwanted, and gave me the best life they could. Most don't.

I would put a puppy down that didn't have a hope. I have euthanized dogs who are in such pain that another minute in agony is cruelty. I wasn't allowed to make that choice for my father, even though he begged. Killing is not always murder. Sometimes it's compassion. You can look at the world in black and white, but you're forcing the shades of grey into one category or another.

I think abortion is a morally wrong choice for a whole human being to make. I think every child should be given a chance, but I know that not everyone who is pregnant is a whole human being or capable, and it's not just a case of giving a child up for adoption, even if they would, and it's not that easy. You're talking about kids neurologically damaged by drug use, alcohol use, in utero. Women who can't feed themselves, let alone a child. Men who are nothing but sperm donors, and that imperfectly. If the world was perfect, then people wouldn't choose abortion. The world's not. And people aren't. I do think more people make the choice to abort than should. But I would not be in favour of legislating them into giving birth.

I will never think it is right to make morals into laws.

Dennis

Ashley, I think I was pretty clear, and moreover my point was rather innocuous and apolitical if one were to read carefully and without preconceptions. I was not arguing in support of or againse either side of this debate, though I did state which side I'm on. So I won't try to explain it again. If you didn't see that it was innocuous and apolitical, then you read it wrong. The fault lies either with your reading comprehension or my ability to communicate clearly. I suspect it's the former. But if it's the latter, tough, I'm done. I gave it my best shot, and I don't care any more.

To answer your questions:

1) No, and no.

2) Not in the sense I was talking about, unless you plan to enter a second time into your mother's womb to be born.

QuoteI will never think it is right to make morals into laws.

You do realize just how many of our laws are legislated morals don't you?

Who says murder is wrong? or rape? or theft?

Some moral code, that's who.

How long are you people gonna beat this dead horse?

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F7579%2Fpicture026h.jpg&hash=93eb0e3e41630a18f83c915ed0070a8b1e2ba788)


Back and forth, back and forth, lots of talking and anybody who was listening stopped 6 pages ago. I'm genuinely surprised the masturbation thread was the one that got locked first.

Quote from: Dennis on December 21, 2009, 12:51:14 AM
So was mine. If it had been available, I would have been aborted. I wasn't. I'm still pro-choice. I do enough child protection work and young offender work that I know what a miserable life the unwanted have. And how they reflect that misery outwards on others. Some do good. I did. But my parents stepped up to the plate, even though I was unwanted, and gave me the best life they could. Most don't.

I would put a puppy down that didn't have a hope. I have euthanized dogs who are in such pain that another minute in agony is cruelty. I wasn't allowed to make that choice for my father, even though he begged. Killing is not always murder. Sometimes it's compassion. You can look at the world in black and white, but you're forcing the shades of grey into one category or another.

I think abortion is a morally wrong choice for a whole human being to make. I think every child should be given a chance, but I know that not everyone who is pregnant is a whole human being or capable, and it's not just a case of giving a child up for adoption, even if they would, and it's not that easy. You're talking about kids neurologically damaged by drug use, alcohol use, in utero. Women who can't feed themselves, let alone a child. Men who are nothing but sperm donors, and that imperfectly. If the world was perfect, then people wouldn't choose abortion. The world's not. And people aren't. I do think more people make the choice to abort than should. But I would not be in favour of legislating them into giving birth.

I will never think it is right to make morals into laws.

Dennis

The laws against murder are nothing but morals made into laws.

I'm not against euthanasia, I had to put my dog of 15 years down less than 3 weeks ago. And if I were in so much pain that I didn't want to live anymore, I would want the right to die too.

But we're not talking about euthanasia, and I don't think you can justify abortion as euthanasia on grounds that the childs life might be horrible. Yes, it might be, but it shouldn't up to us to decide to not even give them the chance at life because of how good or bad it may be.

Becca,

Because whacking on the dead ones protect the living ones from attack. Now that's a pro-life position everyone can support, right?...right? ....right?....Oh the heck with it, on with the show!

The masturbation thread got locked??? What was going on there I missed?

SusanKG

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 20, 2009, 04:13:12 PM
What makes it SO hard talking to pro-choicers, is that so many of them just don't seem to get that the pro-lifer's see this as TWO people being affected by abortion. Not one, two.

Actually, you've been given a lot of arguments from an "assuming we're talking two people here".

It's not murder if a woman kills her rapist, it's self defense.
If someone enters a woman's body, against her will, drains it of resources and causes permanent damage to it, all against her will, it doesn't matter if that someone doesn't have the mental capacity to comprehend his or her actions. It doesn't matter if it's a fetus and thus incapable of being guilty. She still has the right to defend herself against the invader.
It's still self defense.

If a tiger mauls a human being, the tiger gets shot and killed, even if the tiger is only acting within it's nature and thus not truly guilty of anything. It's Still self defense.
(And other similes like that can be spouted in rapid succession.)

Threat and force and harm against another being is why there's self defense, not "guilt".

Quote from: SusanKG on December 22, 2009, 12:18:19 AM
Becca,

Because whacking on the dead ones protect the living ones from attack. Now that's a pro-life position everyone can support, right?...right? ....right?....Oh the heck with it, on with the show!

The masturbation thread got locked??? What was going on there I missed?

SusanKG

Well arguing on this site sure hasn't saved any babies. . .

I had just been waiting for a chance to use that funny-bunny, I'm not really emotionally invested in the discussion either way. Conversations like this are good for mental weight lifting but you can only discuss it for so long before you have to shut up and put your money where your mouth is, so I'll be looking for a bunch of bickering trannies outside the next serious rally.

It's easy here in the northwest to armchair general these things because our politicians pretty much have their heads out of their asses. If we had a bunch of bible thumping rednecks down at the clinic shouting people down though you can bet I'd be down there with the rest of the hippys running them off.

Though I think abortion is..well..uh...bad?
Yeah.
That's basically the only way I know how to put it. bad.
I still am pro-choice, as I don't know their situation and why they are seeking an abortion.
I also don't think it's right for me to tell other people what to do.

I think it depends on the person/situation. I do not, however, think it should be outlawed altogether, but merely controlled.

Example situations:
Stupid people: sorry babe, no free-out ticket for you (just be sure child services keeps a watch on 'em)
Victimed people: Yes, let 'em
Medical complications: Yes, let 'em

Really? I think anyone should have the right to an abortion. No matter their situation.It's a right that they should have. However, in the US, I believe that the constitution should be thrown out on this (upcoming) note so that citizenship has to be earned through a comprehensive test. That's just me.

But even if there are stupid people in the world, if they want an abortion, they'll get an abortion. Legal or illegal, it's going to happen. Now, would you rather have a high percentage of female death due to abortions gone wrong or would you rather keep it legal? I'm going to hope you keep it legal, but there are people in the world who are so stuck on their beliefs and say "Well, it was your own damn fault." or "That's God's way of punishing you for your sin."

By the way, however alive a fetus is in the womb, it is still a fetus. Not a child, kid, human necessarily, but a fetus. It is essentially a parasite in the way that it acts in the womb. I'm not saying anything other than what is really just logical. Not out and breathing on your own? Not a baby. (I'm sorry incubator baby.)

A caterpillar is still a butterfly, just in an earlier state of being. A fetus is still human, just in an earlier state of being.


I already know people who use abortion as a type of birth control. That is just wrong. If you don't want a baby, alter your behavior to prevent it. Birth control, abstinence, but not abortion.

I think anyone should be able to have an abortion, I don't care if they sleep around or are rape victims they should both be able to chose what to do with their uterus.

I think anyone who uses abortion as birth control should not have a uterus.

I'm pro-choice...with restrictions.
.
I'm definitely against anything that goes much past the 1st trimester.  There is a point where flesh, blood and cellular tissue develop into something more.  It is at that point that I don't think it should be allowed.  It's a determination that should be made medically...not a judgement that should be determined through superstition, religion, or blind belief.  There is a window there for an ethical abortion, but the window is short, and should not be abused or used as a substitute for birth control.
.
After the first trimester, I would only support abortions for health concerns of the mother, or rape (which amounts to mental/physical health of the mother).
.
Women should be free to do what they want with their bodies, yes. 
But there is a point where both parties (man & woman) need to take responsibility for their actions, and need to respect the fact that the tissue and genetic material they supplied is no longer solely their own anymore.

I am pro life..

mostly because I know that if I ever got pregnant(Im a gay transguy) that I would 100% get an abortion. 

My point being.. that guys shouldn't have to worry about being pregnant, and I do, and I am VERY VERY bitter about it.  and its not like Im not using condoms, or being responsible, its just i'm paranoid.


I also think that the world is too populated to have unwanted babys around, and.. no person should have to carry around another life for 9 months if they do not desire to.

Quote from: Elijah on April 20, 2010, 10:16:03 PM
I am pro life..

mostly because I know that if I ever got pregnant(Im a gay transguy) that I would 100% get an abortion. 

My point being.. that guys shouldn't have to worry about being pregnant, and I do, and I am VERY VERY bitter about it.  and its not like Im not using condoms, or being responsible, its just i'm paranoid.


I also think that the world is too populated to have unwanted babys around, and.. no person should have to carry around another life for 9 months if they do not desire to.

You said pro life, but what you're describing is pro-choice.

Quote from: Rhalkos on April 20, 2010, 09:36:09 PM
You walk into a restaurant and order the chicken salad.
When it gets to your table, it's a cup of seeds and egg yolk.
Now me, I'd complain to the chef.

However, by your logic, it's still chicken and lettuce.

egg not fertilized and growing, seed not growing. I didn't say not to have your ovaries removed.

Quote from: Rhalkos on April 20, 2010, 11:06:17 PM
You order 10 turkeys online for a huge thanksgiving dinner.
The delivery man turns up with 10 fertilised turkey eggs and says "They're turkeys, sure as the sky is blue."
Do you demand a refund?

.
Fast food and biology aren't exactly apples to apples.
You're trying to make it into a straw man argument, but you're ignoring the portions of the facts that you don't want to consider.
.
You ask for a completed product (the turkey), you request a refund if it's something less than what you asked for.  Biology doesn't work that way...it's a process...not a choice of instant gratification or not.  If it were, I could say...'That's a newborn, I wanted a 10 year old so I could take it fishing.  Send it back!'  In that respect, your logic can be exploited even within your own system.
.
That said, the "butterfly" explanation is often overutilized and oversimplified as to ignore the biological complexities involved.
.
With biology, you start with a fertilized egg...and progress through the stages of development until birth.  At some point along the way, that egg becomes its own person.  "When" that point is...where cells become an individual...is the question of eternal debate.  All of it hinging on what criteria do you use to define sentience?

A heartbeat?  3 weeks after conception
Brain waves?  8 weeks after conception
Quickening (independant movement)?  13-16 weeks
etc...etc...etc...

It would be far more productive to debate the particular criteria being considered than to simply debate endless moral platitudes of "freedom vs. life" without any logical context with which to attempt to come to some sort of consensus or decision on the matter.  Alas...our society does like to argue endlessly such.

I'm pro-science/logic, pro-civil liberties, proudly feminist, and therefore proudly pro-choice and pro-stem cell research.

I'm also, incidentally, anti-execution, and think that the comments about killing rapists at the beginning of this thread are quite authoritarian and just a tad disgraceful.

Turkeys are fast food now? That's new :o
== If you're ordering a delivery on-line?  I'd say that's a bit faster than shooting and plucking it yourself.  :P  You didn't specify whether or not they were frozen from a truck or cooked from the grocery store though, so point taken.  ;)

The pro-life argument is this:
A blastocyst or a zygote is a human.
Therefore a fertilised turkey egg is a turkey.
You cannot claim one and not the other. It's dead simple.

The extreme pro-life argument perhaps.  It's a bit naive to think that all pro-life individuals simplify things to such an extreme degree.  Your argument, unfortunately, is the converse of that....and both are like someone who can only see black and white...while ignoring the vast array of grey and color that the world has to offer.  Which was precisely my point...not everything is black or white...it's not quite that dead simple.  ;)

The "rights" of an unborn human being should never override the rights of an actual human being.

LordKAT: About your butterfly comment. Yes, a catapillar turns into a pupa and then a butterfly. Do note though that a pupa is not a butterfly and it isn't one until it is out and about. So, you just walked yourself back into what I said. Not breathing, not a baby, still a fetus.

I'm pro-choice.

If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have had my daughter (I had her at 19 and gave her up for adoption). The only reason I did was that I was in denial about being pregnant for six months. I starved myself because I convinced myself I was just gaining weight. I self-induced contractions by dehydrating myself, trying to get it out of me. I got almost no prenatal care even after being forced to acknowledge I was pregnant because I'd induced premature labor, because I couldn't tolerate the exams, and she was born six weeks prematurely because I couldn't stand being pregnant anymore and broke my own water with a knitting needle.

In the end, I was only consciously pregnant for six weeks, and it was still the most horrible, interminable, traumatic experience of my entire life. Abuse and rape have nothing on the experience of a foreign being growing in organs you shouldn't have.

So not only am I pro-choice, I think some people simply shouldn't be allowed to possess uteri, and I am one.

(Happy ending: my daughter's now 7, healthy, profoundly gifted, and a joy to her parents and everyone around her. No thanks to me.)

Quote from: Wolf Man on April 21, 2010, 02:14:03 AM
The "rights" of an unborn human being should never override the rights of an actual human being.

LordKAT: About your butterfly comment. Yes, a catapillar turns into a pupa and then a butterfly. Do note though that a pupa is not a butterfly and it isn't one until it is out and about. So, you just walked yourself back into what I said. Not breathing, not a baby, still a fetus.

BS

You are not human then cause you are in a state of change.

I don't understand why a potential human being's right to being born into a situation where it's not wanted, is considered more valuable than a human being's right to not jeopardize their health and quality of life against their will.

Even if you view a zygote as a human being, it's still one that puts another in harms way.
No matter if there are zero "complications" a pregnancy in and of itself causes severe stress on the human body, some damage, some irrevocable damage, and has a serious consequence on the quality of life outside of the mere flesh.

And to put a human being through the process against their will is equatable to torture in my mind.

So, I'd like to know, exactly how, you justify that torture?
And saying "It's a human being" isn't reason enough. Even in cases where no malicious intent is involved, a human being's right to defend themselves from harm is considered somewhat sacred. You can protect yourself from being harmed by someone who doesn't know any better.

Min,

I'm not in total disagreement with you. I am against people who use abortion as birth control. If you don't want to be pregnant, use birth control pills, condoms, tubal ligation, or something along those lines. If you choose not to prevent the pregnancy, then you are killing not to defend yourself but out of not caring about destroying another life.

Should it happen anyway or be a threat to a mother's health or life, then it should be the mothers choice.

Quote from: LordKAT on April 21, 2010, 10:50:19 AM
Min,

I'm not in total disagreement with you. I am against people who use abortion as birth control. If you don't want to be pregnant, use birth control pills, condoms, tubal ligation, or something along those lines. If you choose not to prevent the pregnancy, then you are killing not to defend yourself but out of not caring about destroying another life.

Should it happen anyway or be a threat to a mother's health or life, then it should be the mothers choice.

Accidents happen. There is no mode of birth control that is 100%.
I know a person who was on the low-dose-pill And used condoms, and she still got pregnant.

And a pregnancy Always carries some threat to the mother's health.

Quote from: Miniar on April 21, 2010, 11:10:20 AM
Accidents happen. There is no mode of birth control that is 100%.
I know a person who was on the low-dose-pill And used condoms, and she still got pregnant.

And a pregnancy Always carries some threat to the mother's health.

As I said Should it happen anyway.....

I've been peeking in on this thread and it is certainly a hot button for everyone.  Myself included!

I am Pro-choice, in every instance, if that makes any difference.

Anyway, the real reason I popped my head back in was to ask what if we flip this argument on it's head?

What if all women were completely unable to get pregnant except when taking a drug which makes them fertile.

This is one of those story ideas that rattle around in my head while I'm on the train.

The drug was very easy to make, but required a prescription for dispensing.

Now the woman *must* choose to get pregnant.

But there would be people who would say that there are already too many people on the planet already so they would want to prevent women from access to this drug.  They say that they are pro-life because they want to *prevent* pregnancies.

Ok, I'm a woman.  Nothing in the world would make me happier than growing a life within me.  But it is my *choice* to get pregnant.  And if I were denied access to this life creating drug, I would be advocating for the ability to have free access.

What is the feeling of the thread readers now?

Would you be pro-life and want to stop pregnancies?

Or

Would you be pro-choice and want to allow free access to getting pregnant?

(Jenny, if you want to play with this as a story idea, feel free to PM me later).

-Sandy(just stirring the pot...)

Quote from: Laura91 on April 21, 2010, 10:43:56 AM
I agree with most of what you said, however, I think that the death penalty should be utilized more in capital murder cases. I see no point in keeping someone in prison for decades when they are clearly guilty of murder. It's a massive waste of space and money.

It's still the right thing to do, because the justice system is fallible. If we find out that someone we executed under seemingly the clearest of evidence was in fact innocent, we have then murdered that person. This sort of thing happens quite a bit more than anyone would like to admit.

I share your concern about the cost and general undesirability of a large prison system. The best thing to do to reduce prison population, though, isn't to execute prisoners, but rather to (a) institute reforms aimed to reduce recidivism and assist with prisoners' re-integration into society and (b) stop filling the prisons with people brought in on relatively minor drug charges. I'm sorry, but smuggling marijuana - a drug that should be legal anyway - is no reason to make someone a forced ward of the state for years on end.

I say these things especially because here in California we have a ballooning, out-of-control prison system, and it's filled with people whose "crime" was something to do with Mary-Jane or other relatively minor drugs. We're paying a fairly enormous amount of money to keep people in prison who shouldn't be there in the first place.  Sigh.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Since this is an abortion thread, I'll leave this with the comment (not directed at you, obviously) that being anti-choice is being anti-science. There's no real way of getting around that; I don't think that science should rule the world or anything, but reproductive health is a branch of medicine, which is under the auspices of science, not religion. These people who go around screaming about how aborting a fetus is "baby murder" rarely seem to have any problem with killing and eating full-grown animals which are measurably quite a bit more intelligent and substantially more able to feel pain than a fetus. I'd really love to see these "pro-life" folks protesting against cruel and inhumane treatment of animals in factory farms.

Abortion is no picnic, but it's often not the worst of all possible outcomes. Forcing a baby on a woman who simply made a mistake and is not prepared to mother that baby is cruel to both the baby and the parents. Babies should be had on purpose, as part of a planned decision between the parents to start a family. That anti-choice positions so frequently go hand-in-hand with anti-comprehensive sex education and generally prudish, anti-sex and abstinence-oriented views is telling. This creates a system under which one is incredibly ashamed of one's body and tortures oneself by abstaining from so much as masturbating, doesn't know a damned thing about sex or sexuality, and when one finally does break down, one ends up having spontaneous, secret, unprotected sex that leads to pregnancy at a very young age - pregnancy which one is trapped in, since it is just so terrible to get an abortion. One is then jailed to a single sexual partner for the rest of one's life, and told that one is to have sex with said partner only if one desires more babies. To be sure, this is a severe form of the ethos, but it's believed by far too many people, it's promoted by major religious institutions, and it's the standard from which the gentler forms of sexual and reproductive prudishness and ignorance deviate. It's also completely intolerable and cruel.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 21, 2010, 12:07:13 PM
It's still the right thing to do, because the justice system is fallible. If we find out that someone we executed under seemingly the clearest of evidence was in fact innocent, we have then murdered that person. This sort of thing happens quite a bit more than anyone would like to admit.

Yes you are right and it does happen far more than people would think

I share your concern about the cost and general undesirability of a large prison system. The best thing to do to reduce prison population, though, isn't to execute prisoners, but rather to (a) institute reforms aimed to reduce recidivism and assist with prisoners' re-integration into society and (b) stop filling the prisons with people brought in on relatively minor drug charges. I'm sorry, but smuggling marijuana - a drug that should be legal anyway - is no reason to make someone a forced ward of the state for years on end.

Yes, reform is a good idea (not for all, though because I believe that some people simply can't be reformed). I also agree with ceasing to filling the prisons up for minor drug offenses. Putting someone in prison for growing pot or what have you is pretty stupid when you consider that it's a relatively harmless drug in comparison to say..meth. Plus, legalizing certain drugs would provide a massive tax boost from the legal sale of it and MIGHT put a dent in the use of much harder and more harmful drugs.

I say these things especially because here in California we have a ballooning, out-of-control prison system, and it's filled with people whose "crime" was something to do with Mary-Jane or other relatively minor drugs. We're paying a fairly enormous amount of money to keep people in prison who shouldn't be there in the first place. 

I think abortion is wrong, unless its for rape or if the pregnancy complicates the life of both (meaning the mother and child's life could be in danger).

Quote from: Ketsy on April 20, 2010, 10:54:33 PM
You said pro life, but what you're describing is pro-choice.

oops typo.. lol

Quote from: annyms on May 09, 2010, 09:50:13 PM
I think abortion is wrong, unless its for rape or if the pregnancy complicates the life of both (meaning the mother and child's life could be in danger).

So it's not enough if the mother's life is in danger?

I still want to know why people are okay with eating highly intelligent  and pain-feeling animals that have been given short, extremely miserable lives, imprisoned in cages so small they can't move and essentially tortured to death - and yet killing a human fetus is terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad, even though that baby will not be as intelligent as that animal even once it's born.

Where do we get this idea from that human beings are so special, so exceptional, that it is substantially more ethical to give an intelligent and pain-feeling animal a life of suffering and torture than it is to terminate the existence of a bundle of cells still in the process of turning into a human baby? Certainly not from science - there is no science to support the doctrine of human exceptionalism. The science shows us that we're at the top of the food chain and at the top of the intelligence scales, that we're highly conscious, etc. However there's not science or logical, scientifically-sound reasoning to support the idea that, given two creatures of roughly equal intelligence, equal consciousness and equal ability to feel pain, etc., one of those creatures has a substantial ethical advantage over the other simply because that creature is human.


The problem with the abortion debate is that is involves a lot of people at their illogical worst - using vague spiritual notions, outmoded theological dictates, or simply pure emotion to address an issue of reproductive medicine - that is, of science. It is true that there is a bit of emotion and judgment involved, since things like suffering can be difficult to measure and quantify, but that's the case in many medical matters around which people are able to stay calm. It's because the idea of abortion as "killing babies" - which fails to differentiate between a fetus at its various stages and a baby or toddler - conflicts with people's emotional sympathies that this is such a big deal. Of course, this is all part of our wiring telling us to take care of babies, because babies grow up into adults, and more humans is good. However, our drive to reproduce is just that - a drive - and should not have a say in the logic of medical science.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 10, 2010, 08:02:10 PM
It's because the idea of abortion as "killing babies" - which fails to differentiate between a fetus at its various stages and a baby or toddler - conflicts with people's emotional sympathies that this is such a big deal.

This.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain in an earlier post. I completely agree with your entire post, PanoramaIsland.

Pro Life

Pro choice

Pro-choice. 

My answer is more complicated than simply pro-choice or pro-life.

I think that at the point of time that if the child were to be delivered, doctors would implement life saving measures to the child, abortion should be off the table completely (I think its usually at 24 weeks or so, earlier than this the chances of survival are too low and doctors as a rule don't try to keep the baby alive.)  What if technology and science advances to bring this to 20 weeks? 16 weeks?  Well then I think the abortion cutoff date should change with it.

With that in mind, politically I am pro-choice, I don't think its the governments business to control our lives even if the choices we are making are the wrong ones, as long as they are not infringing on another persons basic human rights (I think the UN has a pretty good handle on what this includes).

Personally, I am pro-life.  If it is my child, the answer would be no to an abortion if it were up to me. 

Definitely pro-choice. 

And definitely pro reducing the rates of abortion.  Not because it's wrong, but because abortion rates often speak to large issues of access, resources, education, economics, etc.

I'm pro (really) comprehensive sex education which addresses consent as a daily practice, which fits the needs of queer and trans youth, and which is ongoing (not just one class in 6th grade or whatever). Sex ed that includes information about protection that is relevant to people having all different kinds of sex, not just PIV intercourse between a straight cisgender couple. Sex ed that doesn't teach us that our bodies are shameful or dirty, or that they're nothing but a cold medical illustration of the most exaggerated ends of the sex binary. 

Sex ed that includes exercises to help us all understand the ways in which we have likely violated other's consent in the past (whether in a sexual or non-sexual context), the ways in which we may have been manipulative or even abusive towards people in our lives, and education about how to recognize and change those things. We're not taught to question our own behavior, to ask ourselves if we may have hurt someone. And this is important, because rapists are not strangers in ski masks.  Most often they are friends, loved ones, people we trust, family, or even our*selves*. A rapist is a kid who was once sitting in a sex ed class, not learning that consent is way more nuanced that just "no means no". 

I'm pro social safety nets.  I'm pro healthcare and pro welfare. Because I understand that abortion is a personal choice, but it's also more than that.  It's a choice that is often affected by a person's context, social location, and economic situation.  Providing thorough safety nets allows people to make a more personal decision about whether they are ready for a child, without also having to wonder if they will be able to care for and feed their child?  Without having to wonder if their child will be taken away from them because of racism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, or something else? 

If with all those safety nets in place that person still chooses to have an abortion, that is so beyond fine.  That is their body and their call.  I just want everyone to be able to make that call on their own terms, not on the terms of the >-bleeped-<ed up systems that have shaped the world around them.

I don't understand the dichotomy, but to not have safe abortion access available is insane. The arguments always seem to stem from some lame culture wars notion that someone would use abortion as their contraceptive of choice. No one wants to have an abortion. People have abortions when it is the option that causes the least harm. To deny someone that option and potentially do greater harm is cruel.

Pro life with certain exceptions. My thinking is this. The baby did not ask to be conceived, and abortion (Be it a doctor or morning after pill) should not be a form of birth control. Now if the mother's or baby's life were in danger due to complications, or if a rape created the pregnancy; thats another story. Other than that there is adoption. There are many people who would love to have a child of their own but for what ever reason can't.

This is my view on this matter and, its fine to disagree with me. I value everyone's opinion.   

100% pro choice.

Abortion is one of the few topics on which I agree with Hillary Clinton: like her, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal... and rare. With rights come responsibilities, and in an ideal world I would hope that anybody who is capable of falling pregnant, or making someone else pregnant, would behave responsibly.

This is an issue that has affected me personally: I was once offered a late-term abortion (26 weeks) due to complications which could've resulted in severe disability for the surviving child. Fortunately I didn't have to take them up on the offer and my daughter is perfectly healthy, but I'm enormously grateful that my doctors gave me the opportunity to have an abortion - and that they supported my choice not to have that abortion.

Pro Life (with exceptions)

Reasons when I feel that abortion is okay:

• When a woman is raped
• Incest (consensual, as the baby is likely to have severe health problems, non-consensual falls under #1)
• If following through with the pregnancy will endanger the mother's life or cause the child to have severe health problems

Otherwise, I think people need to practice safe sex and if they don't then they should have to live with the consequences, it was their choice to begin with, not the baby's.

Amy

The biggest problem with the Pro-choice/Pro-life debates I've noticed is that both sides are arguing about completely different things.
The pro-life side is typically arguing against abortion morally with legal implications while the pro-choice side is typically arguing for abortion in a legal sense with implied moral implications.

What I mean by this, is the debates seem to go down this way a lot:
Pro-choice: "I think women should have the right to choose."
Pro-life: "It is wrong to kill a child."

The words used by pro-choice advocates typically seem to be things like "rights", which refers to whether it's legal or not.
While words like "wrong", "immoral", or "it's murder" are used by pro-life advocates, and this reflects a moral standpoint.

The issue here is that moral and legal standpoints are two entirely different things.
For example, I do not find it moral to cheat on one you're dating or married to.
Do I think the cheater should be imprisoned? No.

Personally, I'm not really sure where I fall on the moral standpoint.
But I am sure that I'm a libertarian, meaning, the less laws, the better.
I find the moral standpoint on whether abortion is right or wrong morally to be waaaay too subjective to make it illegal.
Even if I found abortion to be horrendously evil, I still would not want to impose legal actions to enforce that opinion.

If you really find it immoral, then do something to stop it. Promote safe sex, help make it easier for women to put babies up for adoption, etc.

That's my opinion on it, anyways. I just think it's too opinionated to legally enforce any actions, so I think it should be left up to the individual.

Adamantly pro-choice. I won't even nuance it, and won't apologize for it.

Pro-life!  :)

I'm adamantly pro-choice.

1) Birth control fails. Even with "safe" sex, there is room for error. Condoms are pathetic, and even female birth control fails. My friends IUD failed recently and she got pregnant. She was protecting herself and being a responsible adult and it wasn't enough.

2) Pro-life science is typically very skewed. Heart beats and other signs of "life" are nothing but electrical impulses and do nothing to indicate sentience. It's a blob of cells. A cabbage. It has the potential to become something great, but during most of the pregnancy aborting it would be nothing more than vacating cells. I can't remember how accurate this is, so I may be wrong, but the brain stem doesn't even connect with the brain until almost the third trimester.

3) I believe in bodily autonomy. If I want to change genders I should be able to. If I want to tattoo and pierce my body I should be able to. The parents of sick children frequently donate organs if needed, but are under no legal obligation. If a parent can watch their sentient child die knowing they could save their life, why is a pregnant mother forced to literally give her entire body for almost a year?

4) Our adoption and foster systems suck. While your nice little white baby may find a home relatively easily,  statistically if the child is black or some other minority race, or if there's a likelihood of a developmental disorder then their chances of being adopted suck, and only decrease with age. My mom has worked with emotionally handicapped low income boys in the public school system, and the number of them that will rot  in foster homes until theyre adults is staggering

I think the question is too complicated for courts to decide... so I am pro-choice. I don't believe in religion dictating government and I think this is a solely religious issue, not a domestic one. (The domestic issue is population control, IMO).

I would not personally have an abortion (damn... if I could get pregnant I'd be overjoyed) and I would not like my partner to have one - these are personal decisions that IMO should always be made by 2 people (except in cases of rape, abandonment, minors, etc).

I suppose that politically I'm pro-choice (which we have in Belgium). The thing is, as it has been said I believe no-one just gets an abortion because they were to lazy to use anticonception. It's not the easiest thing in the world, mothers often suffer under  getting one. (You're required to have psychological support in Belgium, is that the same in the US?). I'm pro-quality of life :p Honestly I don't see the need to keep a 'not-alive' foetus alive when in all likelyhood, the baby that will be born will have a bad quality of life. If parents  have some kind of reason for not wanting the baby or they can't support the baby often the child will not be cared for the way it deserves (Not as an attack on the parents, because sometimes things happen and even if you try to care for the child sometimes you just can't) so why force those parents to keep a child alive if that's all they can do? I don't believe life is about a beating heart, it's about certain needs of a child being met it's about a child living in a good home. Adoption would be an option but the reality sadly is that there are too much children in that system allready. So yeah, I'm pro-choice and Pro-quality of life!

Pro Choice.  There's 7 Billion people in this world already.  Far, far too many.  I believe Malthus was right.

Until Jesus comes back and tells me otherwise, that's how it's going to be.

Why does the far right in the US want to force you to have a kid you have no hope of supporting, then take away all safety nets after it's born?  Men also have the option of abandoning a pregnant woman, but these same people don't seem to have a problem with that.  The Pro-life movement is nothing more than a modern manifestation of dark-ages-throwback misogyny.  The women who get sucked into the pro-life camp seem to have a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

I will fight straight, white male privilege until everyone born in the US has the same opportunities to succeed.  Think about it- every time some minority group asks nicely to be treated fairly and equally, who opposes it most vocally?  Some people think they're entitled by birthright to a bigger piece of the pie or higher social status and will fight tooth and nail to hang on to it as they see it diminishing.

OK, I'll get involved in this fray.

While I will keep my own views about abortion to myself for the time being, I will skewer the American Pro-Life movement. I lot of the organizations opposing abortion also fight against easy access to birth control, which would be THE ONE THING that has the greatest possibility to DECREASE abortion.

I don't think those folks care about protecting fetuses. I think they're more interested in controlling women's sexual behavior.

Quote from: suzifrommd on November 14, 2013, 04:44:28 PM
OK, I'll get involved in this fray.

While I will keep my own views about abortion to myself for the time being, I will skewer the American Pro-Life movement. I lot of the organizations opposing abortion also fight against easy access to birth control, which would be THE ONE THING that has the greatest possibility to DECREASE abortion.

I don't think those folks care about protecting fetuses. I think they're more interested in controlling women's sexual behavior.

Can i get an Amen on that one please! ;)  I have strong views in this polarizing debate and have volunteered with others to escort women thru the lines of screaming protestors at clinics.  I would have loved to be able to have a baby but i value the rights of all women to control their reproductive choices even more.  Yes there are moral issues and if some are opposed to abortion then exercise your right not to have one and recognize others constitutional right (in the USA) to do so as they and their health care provider determine best.  Some of the same biblically based arguments attempting to deny reproductive rights are used to deny us basic bodily control and to transition.  As a transitioning transsexual I am altering and controlling my body and respectfully want all to have the right to control theirs.

Quote from: Tessa James on November 14, 2013, 05:13:30 PM
Can i get an Amen on that one please! ;)  I have strong views in this polarizing debate and have volunteered with others to escort women thru the lines of screaming protestors at clinics.  I would have loved to be able to have a baby but i value the rights of all women to control their reproductive choices even more.  Yes there are moral issues and if some are opposed to abortion then exercise your right not to have one and recognize others constitutional right (in the USA) to do so as they and their health care provider determine best.  Some of the same biblically based arguments attempting to deny reproductive rights are used to deny us basic bodily control and to transition.  As a transitioning transsexual I am altering and controlling my body and respectfully want all to have the right to control theirs.

It's not just a woman's right IMO.

And I'm pro choice I guess.

I don't think the way abortion clinics treat their clients though.

It should involve a less biased party in the matter since these facilities earn a profit if they choose to terminate.

Pro choice.  Abortion is natural, life is expendable, the world keeps turning.  A zygote, or a human adult for that matter is no more alive than an ant or a blade of grass.  Nature is blind, and free will reigns.

I have a reason to be against abortion...

I was born 3 months premature on the 6 th month of my moms pregnancy...the doctors had told her to get an abortion cause it was gonna be too risky and my mom and I may end up dying ...anyway my mom took the risk and here I am...


Still even after that I thought that I would get an abortion ( If i could that is,,,) if I wasnt able to raise the baby etc etc...
and then I saw this movie that changed my life...after that I said to myself that Id never do this ( well if I was fricking able!)

dis is the movie btw
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498311/

There are already too many people competing for scarce resources on this planet with a built-in carrying capacity.  We need negative population growth like yesterday.  So as a pragmatic measuse, I don't have a problem with it.  I just don't want to see Malthus proven right on a global scale in my lifetime.  That being said, I don't like being told what to do with my body and don't want to live in a world where abortions become mandatory either. 

The answer is to admit we all want sex from an early age, have better access to birth control and create financial incentives to not have a huge family.  And don't even get me started about these barfy reality show women with clown car vajayjays...

Pro choice.

"TS Men and Women only" is more disturbing to me than the rest of this thread tbh. I'm not sure why. I guess if people are already on this forum and not lurking, I don't really care how their bodies and minds and social personas match.

Having been in some bad situations, I think we forget how grey the actual situation of rape can be. Sometimes I was forced and sometimes I wasn't. I always always used condoms, and the time I had a kid it was after sorta-willingly agreeing to have sex with a guy who had given me a black eye and a dislocated shoulder the day before. The condom broke. I was a teenager, and I was living in his parents' storage room. That's not exactly rape, but it's not what most people want when going into parenthood. I tried several times to get an abortion, and I was turned away, redirected, and at times even outright lied to. So many strangers had strong opinions. I was promised help or eternal damnation, I was labeled, I was denied care, I was referred for tests I couldn't afford, and I was so confused and overwhelmed by all the talk that I just kept punching the clock at McDonald's and telling myself I would decide later. Eventually I felt different, and my hormones went crazy, and I loved the lump in my belly even as I went back and forth between beat-up and homeless and alone.

I'm pro-choice, but after a certain point I'm obviously incapable of killing a baby. I don't think murdering an incomplete human is any worse than murdering a fully-assembled cow. I think we are all overreacting about everything most of the time and the oversimplification is why we can't get along.

(fwiw I stopped smoking and ate healthy food and nursed the baby etc, and she's as fine as my behavior could do anything about)

Pro-choice. 100% of the way. If I got preggo, you better believe I'd rip out my uterus with my own two hands before I went through all that.