Susanetal Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I think having babies is a damn inconvenient thing. And I think life is the most extraordinary phenomenon in the universe. So I say keep abortion legal and heap shame upon those who get abortions because the life they brought into this world inconveniences them. Legion, I agree that life is truly beautiful and extraordinary. But why "heap shame" upon those who have abortions? You don't know what their situations are! It's not anyone's place to judge or look down on someone else. Do you really think it's compassionate and/or the right thing to do to "heap shame" on me? You obviously have no idea how it feels to be raped by 3 young men - losing your viriginity - and listen to their cruel, degrading and dehumanizing insults as they do so... Just try to imagine being stripped, held down and violently raped repeatedly. You have no idea how much horror that evokes. You have no idea how it feels to think that they are going to kill you and leave your body in the dump... And you have no idea how it feels to find out that you are pregnant because of that situation. Are you really so self-righteous and judgmental that you would "heap shame" on me for choosing to abort that embryo? What kind of person has no compassion for someone who went through that?!? Go ahead, I guess, and call me a murderer. I can't handle this thread anymore. I'm done. I hoped that people here would strive to understand and actually care about what women go through, and how intensely painful it is to find yourself in a position where you are pregnant and scared and terrorized and helpless. But I guess I was wrong. Go ahead and have your ivory tower discussions. But don't throw any stones until you have lived through what I've lived through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Even if the only reason someone gets an abortion is because it's an inconvenience, why try to shame them? Because I think human life is among the most extraordinary phenomena in the universe. That's why. And to end it's potential because it's inconvenient is shameful. What do you want? You want your cake and eat it too? I think that abortion should remain legal. But I will not celebrate or condone an abortion of convenience. There are those out there who cherish life as much as you say you do, and still have abortions because it's the least destructive option in a situation. As far as saying that women have abortions because they find children inconvenient, you obviously get your information from somewhere other than reality. Have you ever sat in an abortion clinic with a room full of women waiting for the procedure? Probably not. It's no pampered chef party. If you've read the stories of the women on here you would know that abortion has nothing to do with convenience. So, let me get this straight. If you met someone who had an abortion you would do your self-appointed duty of shaming them? Why not just admit that you don't know WHY she had the abortion, and not assume that it was out of convenience. What is your justification for wanting to shame people based upon decisions that would affect the rest of their lives when their decisions do not affect you at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Susanetal, yours was a case of rape. In these cases I fully condone abortions. I think you did the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Dianka are you suggesting that no abortions are sought out by women because they don’t want to be inconvenienced with children? Come on. Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them. Do you agree with that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Susanetal, yours was a case of rape. In these cases I fully condone abortions. I think you did the right thing. And what about a situation where a girl wanted to go through with her pregnancy because it was the 'right thing' to do. She and boyfriend talk it aver and he can't wait to be a father. Then boyfriend quits his job, does nothing but smoke pot all day, steals money from girlfriend, cheats on her, and then beats the shit out of her when girlfriend demands he get another job. She moves out of the apartment they share and with only an $8 an hour job to take care of a baby that dear boyfriend says he'll take and repeatedly threatens her life. Another friend of mine was in a relationship with a controlling man who didn't allow her to get a job, she had no one she could turn to and was not allowed to have a job. She was also not allowed to use birth control, and got pregnant over and over again. He told her that if she ever got pregnant he would kick her out onto the street, so she terminated each of them. What's your high and mightly solution in each of these situations? Ask yourself if you should even have a say if they come to a solution they can live with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderwire Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 What I'm wondering is how do I justify my opinion that its a barbaric and immoral practice in a secular sense? To me it is killing a human life, even if that life is not yet able to survive outside of the womb. However, abortion used as a last ditch form of birth control just screams out irresponsibility. I believe the first of your quotes I've posted is a healthy and responsible way to look at ANY situation. Educating yourself to the best of your ability and forming an opinion based upon evidence and experience is fantastic, but in this particular situation, one's emotions may play a part as well. Even if your opinion is bat-shit crazy, it's still your opinion. (Just be prepared to face criticism on a bat-shit crazy opinion!) You specifically mentioned the words "barbaric" and "immoral". I believe your second quote is a sufficient justification of your opinion. It appears that those two words describe, in your mind, the act of aborting a fetus - but not in the actual act itself. Rather, the callousness and the flippancy with which such an act would be initiated and carried out appears to have a signifigant effect on your opinion of this particular issue. If this is the case, then I feel that warrants sufficient conviction to justify your opinion on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the fence. Few people in our society condone the wreckless or flagrant destruction of human life and it appears that this is the basis of what actually offends you. I would certainly be inclined to agree with such a position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Dianka, Have I attacked you personally? I don't believe I have. "Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them." Do you agree with that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Dianka are you suggesting that no abortions are sought out by women because they don’t want to be inconvenienced with children? Come on. Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them. Do you agree with that statement? First of all, your position is to heap shame on those who have abortions becasue there are people out there who find abortions inconvenient doesn't leave room to differentiate between those who do it becasue it's 'inconvenient' and those who do it for a reason that you can personally live with. Don't ask me questions if you're not going to answer the ones I asked you. Are you going to walk around forever and shame those who have abortions? If so, where do you get the right to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 As far as your last point, that is not so. And a human life does begin at conception, whether you believe it or not. This sounds like a very fundamentalist thing to say. If you make a claim it should be supported with evidence, not just "if you disagree with me you are wrong." Why do you feel life begins at conception? What is your evidence for this? Exactly what do you mean by life? A soul? As a said before 50% of fetus abort spontaneously by failing to implant on the uterus' wall. This would make nature ( or god ) the biggest abortionist of all. What do you do with fraternal twins? How do you define something as alive when it is not conscience, and has no nervous system. Again, I'll point out that a rational argument is supported with evidence, not emotionalist pleas. If you cannot even clearly define what you mean by "life" then your argument lacks power. You are free to hold any opinion you wish, but as long as your opinion is not supported by evidence it is nothing more than opinion, so stating your opinion as if it is an obvious fact is just likely to piss people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Dianka I suspect that you are evading this question. I'll ask one more time. "Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them." Do you agree with that statement? And in answer to your question... Yes, I think abortions of convenience are shameful. I have little doubt that there are many cases, as in the case of Susanetal, where convenience or inconvenience had no bearing. She was raped. I think she did the right thing. Now, how about an answer to my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 And a human life does begin at conception, whether you believe it or not. Convince me. It's fairly obvious that a fetus is not sentient. Thus, I'd put it that "potential" for human life begins at conception. If we are going to start protecting potential then we necessarily must take the Catholic view that condom use also limits potential life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 As far as your last point, that is not so. Touche. What a cogent rebuttal, full of valid argumentations and an intimate knowledge of law. And a human life does begin at conception, whether you believe it or not. Um, no. Just because the cells that comprise a thing are human in DNA doesn't automatically make it a person. HeLa cell cultures have their own unique DNA and are not persons either. The only two options I would have of ending the marriage would be to divorce my husband, or to kill him. If I chose to kill him, I would be a murderer. The only difference is that he has already been born. Yes, which grants him legal personhood with rights and responsibilities. Not to mention your husband isn't inhabiting your body and isn't forcing you to provide. Abortion is not and has never been considered murder, even when it was illegal. It was an illegal medical practice in which the practitioner was punished. Are you really pushing for the death penalty for mothers who choose to abort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Dianka I suspect that you are evading this question. I'll ask one more time. "Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them." Do you agree with that statement? And in answer to your question... Yes, I think abortions of convenience are shameful. I have little doubt that there are many cases, as in the case of Susanetal, where convenience or inconvenience had no bearing. She was raped. I think she did the right thing. Now, how about an answer to my question. Where did you see me ask you whether you thought abortions of convenience are shameful? What do you mean by children being inconvenient to those who have abortions simply for that reason? Are you just wrapping up a lot of reasons for having an abortion under one blanket term and then reducing the significance of their decision? Saying that a woman has an abortion because having children would be inconvenient glosses over the real reasons why she had the abortion. It's a bullshit argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them. Do you agree with that statement? So, what if they do? Why is it your self appointed duty to shame them for this decision? How is ending potential after conception different from preventing potential before conception via birth control? Is there something magical about the natural process that occurs at the time of conception that somehow makes the event holy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insanity personified Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I find that the mainstream pro-life movement is deeply rooted in the vile and inane "abstinence movement"....that alone makes me weary of calling myself pro life, but I don't think abortion should be ones first Resort. I think making birth control more available and less stigmatized would help more in the long run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 The very function of a womb informs us that this is not the case in my estimation. A womb encapsulates, protects, and nourishes a new life as it gestates. And pregnancy hardly happens against the will of a body. First of all, the function of a specific organ being what it is does not denote that women must procreate and must carry a child to term even if she doesn't want to. The nature of a wanted pregnancy is definitely not parasitic, because the benefit being received is that child itself. Even though the child physically changes a mother sometimes even to the point of long-term harm, if the mother wants to have the child, she can. The parasitism is occurring when these negatives happen, the mother doesn't want them to happen, and suddenly her body is "deformed", with hormones being injected into her and her physically functionality is compromised. "# a person who lives at the expense of another or others without making any useful contribution or return; hanger-on" http://www.yourdictionary.com/parasite I never stated that all children in utero are parasites, and that was the only aspect of my argument (an entirely irrelevant one, IMO), that was latched onto for purely emotional reasons. In fact I think a good argument could be made that a standing imperative of organisms is to reproduce. Indeed it may almost be a defining characteristic of living things. How then can pregnancy be equated with parasitism when so much of the effort of life is geared towards reproduction? Contextless statement is contextless. I've very clearly made a differentiation between an unwanted pregnancy and a chosen pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them. Do you agree with that statement? So, what if they do? Why is it your self appointed duty to shame them for this decision? That's not an answer either Vigile. I asked a question and you responded with more questions. I sense great evasion amongst some of you. A simple yes or no would suffice. Also, it's not my duty; it's my opinion. Abortions of convenience are shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Describe the fetus as unwanted, as tragic, which it is. But please don't propose that conceptions of our unborn children must flicker between 'parasite' and 'baby.' Try telling a mother of 5 that her unwanted fetus is a parasite and see what she says. :/ Try arguing the point instead of semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 "Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them." Do you agree with that statement? I'm pretty sure most abortions occur because of failed birth control. They were not intending to have a child and the method they were using to prevent that failed. Doubtless some women have abortions because of inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Doubtless some women have abortions because of inconvenience. Thank you Asimov. A straight answer. So you agree that some women have abortions because having a child would inconvenience them. What do you think and feel about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Some women get abortions because having a child would inconvenience them. Do you agree with that statement? So, what if they do? Why is it your self appointed duty to shame them for this decision? That's not an answer either Vigile. I asked a question and you responded with more questions. I sense great evasion amongst some of you. A simple yes or no would suffice. Also, it's not my duty; it's my opinion. Abortions of convenience are shameful. Are you being obtuse? Unless English is your second language then it should be fairly obvious that I agreed that yes they do. If anyone is being evasive it's you. I asked you what's the big deal if they do? As for your opinion, you have a right to that. Unless someone appointed you to the board of moral policemen, however, you don't get to shame others with what is just your own opinion. Personally I find your position of shaming others immoral. That's my opinion, but I doubt I will wag my finger in your face over it or stand outside your house with pickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Why is having a child inconvenient? The fact that the resources to take care of the child are simply not there and the mother does not want to raise a child on public aid until it's 18 and has to make it's own way? Or that they know they won't be emotionally attatched to the child and see it as being unfair to bring the child into this world knowing this? What if they're on drugs and in a situation that would have a very negative impact on the kid? Since when was putting a kid up for adoption the rosy path? From the moment that kid's born the clock is ticking. People want babies, not growing children for the most part. So, if they're not taken in by adoptive parents when they're babies, they face moving from foster home to foster home with other kids. And there's a lot of talk about people who have abortions because having kids would be inconvenient; there are a lot of foster parents out there who do it because they get paid for it. It's not much, but they do make a living. Even if they are doing it for good reasons, foster parents may not want to be completely emotionally attached to the kids that may end up leaving them. There are abusive foster parents. Abusive foster kids who abuse other foster kids. Some people don't want to risk the chance of sentencing their children to that fate, and feel that having an abortion is more ethical a decision than handing another kid over to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Vigile I am at a loss of words if I have to explain why I think it’s shameful to end the potential for a human life because of convenience. What do you think/feel about abortions of convenience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Vigile I am at a loss of words if I have to explain why I think it’s shameful to end the potential for a human life because of convenience. What do you think/feel about abortions of convenience? As I've already said, I fail to see the difference between stopping potential for life prior to conception or after conception. Both instances represent stopping potential life. Your position on this seems more emotional than fact driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Your position on this seems more emotional than fact driven. I think this is a thinly veiled ad hom. Of course my emotions are engaged. I hope yours are too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts