Question for pro-choicers

[distraff]

through out history abortions have been considered appropriate for reasons of the mother's health.......your question is hardly tricky......

So you prioritize the health of the mother over the life of a fully formed baby? Very interesting. Don't you think a pregnancy has a huge impact on a woman's body and health? Does the life of a very early fetus in its first trimester trump the woman's health?

[ThatOwlWoman]

owl.. im not an abortion expert. the term is a common one and it's used in mainstream society as well as by the federal government. But as I said, you can call it what you want. I wasn't doing anything underhanded. I never argue in bad faith. I wouldn't waste my time.

It's used in legislation because, although incorrect and not the method used for all late-term abortions, it tugs the most at the ol' heartstrings.

At this point, my belief system might be changing. I used to belive in pro-choice except late term abortions. Now, I am considering full abortions all the time, but I am a bit more on the fence with regards to that. It depends on how invasive the procedure is. Like I made an analogy earlier in this thread, I wouldn't support someone being forced to do a b lood tranfusion to save a life, so logically I think it mostly follows I wouldn't support a mother carrying a baby to term to save a life (the baby's). But as I said, my opinion on this specific subset of abortion is in flux.

I think that being able to consider your opinion as not written in stone, and possibly change it when new information is available, is the sign of an intelligent, thinking person.

ok, thanks for clarifying. I still think that's a bit of a copout. One should either stand up for what they believe or not. If you truly think a baby at that stage is a baby and basically a human moments from being born, (remember my hypothetical), I am not sure why you wouldn't want to put a stop to it. (unless you take a similar position to myself, in that you think the womans bodily autonomy trumps all other considerations, which is a fair argument)

The world is not black-and-white, either-or. It is nuanced and shaded, and in terms of moral dilemmas there is no one-size-fits-all answer. There are many legitimate reasons why a late-term abortion might be necessary. There are also many reasons why a society would be interested in protecting life via their legal system. As the NPR article I referenced stated, late-term abortions are extremely rare and a fraction of 1% less than all procedures. The vast, vast majority of them are done for legitimate medical reasons. I suspect that any woman wanting to abort a 7-month-gestational-age fetus would have an extremely difficult, if not impossible, time finding a physician to do the procedure.

I think your take on body autonomy is very valid and I agree with it. You're right; we don't force ppl to donate blood or organs because we respect personal autonomy. Why then do some think it is okay to involve government when it comes to a female's body?

[PostmodernProphet]

So you prioritize the health of the mother over the life of a fully formed baby? Very interesting. Don't you think a pregnancy has a huge impact on a woman's body and health? Does the life of a very early fetus in its first trimester trump the woman's health?

I prioritize the health of the mother over both the fully formed baby and the partially formed baby.....but since killing the child also has a huge impact on the child's body a balance has to be determined.......

[Gonzomin]

Doesn't really hold up if there is another body inside her.

It holds up fine. what if a woman kept a baby until it was full grown and she birthed Hitler. Would late-term abortions be OK then?

[StoneByStone]

It holds up fine. what if a woman kept a baby until it was full grown and she birthed Hitler. Would late-term abortions be OK then?

[CFM]

And what if the mother didn't want to BE a parent, but was forced to -- by the government?

She shouldn't have taken the very action that produces that result then run from the results.

You sound like the type idiot that believes someone should be able to burn down their house if they decide they no longer want to pay the mortgage.

[Gonzomin]

A blastoma is 100 percent part of the woman's body. Is an acorn an oak tree? Now grind claims a few cells have more rights than a human being.You rightys of course ignore that forcing a woman to have a baby is making a lifetime decision for another person. How presumptuous. My belief is it is a baby and has more rights than a mother, who has absolutely none.I have decided that you shall pay the 300 thousand dollars it costs to raise a kid . I will force you to have a kid,while completely ignoring all your circumstances. They are irrelevant. My religious beliefs give you no say.

[BRUTALITOPS]

A blastoma is 100 percent part of the woman's body. Is an acorn an oak tree? Now grind claims a few cells have more rights than a human being.Y

what the fuck are you talking about I haven't said anything of the sort. I have basically said the exact opposite. How can you be so dense?

[USFREEDOM911]

what the fuck are you talking about I haven't said anything of the sort. I have basically said the exact opposite. How can you be so dense?

Dude; did you forget that you're dealing with a JPP emoting liberal??

[Gonzomin]

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.

Ignorance on parade. Liberals are most assuredly not pro after birth abortions. However both late-term and very late term are not just rare, but always due to medical problems. A baby that cannot survive on its own, or one that is killing the mother. Yep, helping a mother survive the gone wrong birth is bad and indecent. Is that what you "think"?
Lets be clear, you rightys are just pro-birth. You want nothing to do with a kid after it is born. A woman who opts for abortion makes the decision due to life circumstances. Forcing her to have a kid, does not change the circumstances.

[PostmodernProphet]

A blastoma is 100 percent part of the woman's body.

so now children are cancer?......no wonder you want to kill them......

[PostmodernProphet]

Forcing her to have a kid, does not change the circumstances.

to be fair, it changes one.....the kid isn't dead.......if she doesn't want the circumstances of raising a child she should put it up for adoption........

[Gonzomin]

so now children are cancer?......no wonder you want to kill them......

Yeah,that is what I said. https://www.babygaga.com/15-situatio...-during-labor/ Wonder why you are treated like a joke?

[PostmodernProphet]

Yeah,that is what I said. https://www.babygaga.com/15-situatio...-during-labor/ Wonder why you are treated like a joke?

yes.....it is what you said.....post #172 in case you have a short memory.......is it any wonder you are treated like a cunt......

[Superfreak]

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.

Bottom line, you are correct. The argument is rarely framed correctly. Genetically speaking, if a human sperm cell fertilizes a human egg cell and that in turn attaches to the uterus, then a unique life is now living and developing. Pretending it isn't human is absurd, which the extreme on the left do.

This issue should come down to the question "at what point in development should the unique human life be granted basic human rights protections?" Obviously if the life of the mother is at stake then it is a life vs. life question. But other than that... do human rights protections begin at conception? At birth? Or somewhere in between. It is predominantly a LEGAL issue.

I think legitimate arguments can be made for rights starting at (1) at conception (2) self aware... ie... can feel pain (3) viable outside of womb. I personally think it should be at conception barring a threat to the woman's life.


We all know how pregnancy occurs. We all know how to make sure that doesn't happen. If we make choices, we have to live with the consequences of those choices.

I do think the case of rape is different. While you are correct to state that it isn't the childs fault, it also isn't the womans choice. That said, I think the RU486 should be available to all rape victims and taken promptly.