Question for pro-choicers

Grugore said:
Many liberals think post birth abortions are OK. Let's be clear about one thing here. The left is not pro choice. They are pro death...unless it's a mass murderer on death row. Then they are pro life for some sick reason. I used to say liberalism is a mental disorder. I've changed my mind. It is a gangrene of the soul. It is moral treason. It is opposed to everything that is good and decent.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "post-birth abortion," despite what your masters tell you.
 
StoneByStone said:
Because once the baby is born, pretty much everyone recognizes it as a life that now must be cared for.
Click to expand...

Well, everybody but our social welfare-hating conservative friends who want to force a woman to give birth, then tell her "Sorry, no food stamps/public housing/AFDC/medicaid/Head Start for you -- you should have been more responsible and thought of that before you got yourself knocked up."
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
The younger of my two sons was born two months premature as well. Without critical care (NICU for a month), a ventilator, and oxygen he would have died. Other babies born that early might fare better.



If the reason for the abortion is simply that the woman doesn't want to be a mom, then I would support laws against that for sure. However, if it's determined that the fetus has major defects and/or the mother's life is threatened, then it should be okay -- but only after consultation with more than one physician specializing in OB.
Click to expand...

so i take it you would be against "partial birth abortions" for late term fetus's unless in the case of health of the mother? and if so would that include mental health?
 
g r i n d said:
aren't some fetuses viable much earlier? My cousin was born at 7 months for example.

So you would also take the position that ultimately the viability of the baby trumps the womens right to her body once the baby is at a certain developmental stage?
Click to expand...

a pair of twins born to a couple from my church were born at 21 weeks.....both survived........
 
Teflon Don said:
Two things

1) Is Grind trolling or moving toward a pro life position?

2) for the “rape and incest” argument

https://www.redstate.com/tladuke/20...y-used-birth-control-according-florida-study/
Click to expand...

im not trolling, I am trying to get some understanding where the core of a pro-choicers belief stems from. Many people talk past each other on this issue because the argument is never framed correctly, people for example end up spending time talking about the viability of the fetus. but it ultimately comes down to the sovreignty of the woman's body vs. the individual rights of the child and which one ultimately wins out. It seems, even in this thread that for seemingly ardent pro-choicers, they believe there is a point at which the baby's life trumps the womans bodily autonomy. Which ironically is the same thing pro-lifers believe, they just have an earlier line drawn in the sand.
 
g r i n d said:
sounds like fake news
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....its not......eight years old now.....

here's a pic of one of them......note dad's wedding ring around the kids arm.....
CIMG1042.JPG
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Well, everybody but our social welfare-hating conservative friends who want to force a woman to give birth, then tell her "Sorry, no food stamps/public housing/AFDC/medicaid/Head Start for you -- you should have been more responsible and thought of that before you got yourself knocked up."
Click to expand...

Correction. Pretty much all Liberals recognize it as a life that must be cared for. Conservatives seem to think life must be preserved for nine months in the womb, then the little free-loader is on its own.
 
g r i n d said:
im not trolling, I am trying to get some understanding where the core of a pro-choicers belief stems from. Many people talk past each other on this issue because the argument is never framed correctly, people for example end up spending time talking about the viability of the fetus. but it ultimately comes down to the sovreignty of the woman's body vs. the individual rights of the child and which one ultimately wins out. It seems, even in this thread that for seemingly ardent pro-choicers, they believe there is a point at which the baby's life trumps the womans bodily autonomy. Which ironically is the same thing pro-lifers believe, they just have an earlier line drawn in the sand.
Click to expand...

How dare you try to have an honest discussion without trolling or asking gotcha questions.
 
g r i n d said:
im not trolling, I am trying to get some understanding where the core of a pro-choicers belief stems from. Many people talk past each other on this issue because the argument is never framed correctly, people for example end up spending time talking about the viability of the fetus. but it ultimately comes down to the sovreignty of the woman's body vs. the individual rights of the child and which one ultimately wins out. It seems, even in this thread that for seemingly ardent pro-choicers, they believe there is a point at which the baby's life trumps the womans bodily autonomy. Which ironically is the same thing pro-lifers believe, they just have an earlier line drawn in the sand.
Click to expand...

True. I oppose abortion in all situations. Even rape and incest

As the data points out those are very rare to nonexistent.

And just because a woman was raped, as tragic as that is doesn’t mean we need to compound that with an even bigger one

The reality is that the “rape/incest” argument is a smoke screen by most pro abortion folks because they know their position is indefensible
 
g r i n d said:
sounds like fake news
Click to expand...

Fortunately for the pro life wing science is winning out

Why do you think that the pro abortion crowd is so opposed to women seeing ultrasounds prior to an abortion?

They don’t want a woman to see the consequences of the decision

95% of abortions are for birth control purposes not any of the dastardly things leftists try to obfuscate with

I once started a thread asking this question

“Would any leftist make a compromise to only make abortion legal for rape and incest and truly life threatening situation for the mother and illegal in all other instances”

Not one leftists took me up on it.
 
StoneByStone said:
No, because then it would be murder.
Click to expand...

It would not be murder unless the state law provided that an unborn child could be murdered. Today only a person can be murdered and an unborn child is not considered a person (cannot inherit, make contracts, etc.).
 
g r i n d said:
so i take it you would be against "partial birth abortions" for late term fetus's unless in the case of health of the mother? and if so would that include mental health?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of mental health issue would require an abortion, unless of course the mom was suicidal.

If the fetus is going to be born dead or close to it due to massive defects, I'm not sure what the big conniption is and why ppl feel the need to stick their noses into other ppl's deeply personal business. A caveat during these kinds of discussions: Be aware of emotionally-loaded words that attempt to spark a reaction. Phrases like "post-birth abortion" are meaningless rhetoric. I know of no physician who would perform a late term abortion on a healthy fetus unless not doing so meant that the mom would die. Let's not let ourselves by ruled by rhetoric and inflammatory nonsense.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'm not sure what kind of mental health issue would require an abortion, unless of course the mom was suicidal.

If the fetus is going to be born dead or close to it due to massive defects, I'm not sure what the big conniption is and why ppl feel the need to stick their noses into other ppl's deeply personal business. A caveat during these kinds of discussions: Be aware of emotionally-loaded words that attempt to spark a reaction. Phrases like "post-birth abortion" are meaningless rhetoric. I know of no physician who would perform a late term abortion on a healthy fetus unless not doing so meant that the mom would die. Let's not let ourselves by ruled by rhetoric and inflammatory nonsense.
Click to expand...

well mental health is a really vague term. I believe that was one of the main issues recently, where "health of the mother" included mental health and that was not defined. Would it be ok to abort a baby if the mom was suicidal or thought to become suicidal if she gave birth?
 
StoneByStone said:
Correction. Pretty much all Liberals recognize it as a life that must be cared for. Conservatives seem to think life must be preserved for nine months in the womb, then the little free-loader is on its own.
Click to expand...

Conservatives think the after 9 months in the womb it is time for the parents to take over the baby's care and not turn it over to the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top