A woman's right?

[Byrdie714]

We do look at things differently. If you want to say that babies are parasites, then that's your view. You can't say, however, that every human being on the planet isn't a parasite, based on the definition you're using. The difference is that we are bigger parasites, and that we are parasites with certain rights recognized. I just don't think that you can convince me that a baby who happens to be separated from the world by a bit of tissue is any less a baby than if you moved him a few inches out of his mother's womb (whether by natural birth or c-section). When a baby can reach out and grab your finger, a totally natural and living response, I just don't see how you can say it isn't alive.

Because you can't see it. And you said--it's a " bit of tissue "--we get rid of tissues on a daily basis and this is no different.

I'm disappointed in you lsfoster--as a lesbian woman, I think you should be a little more fair towards women's reproductive rights. That includes the right to choose.

Because your stance on this issue concides with the Log Cabin Republican group.

 

[dreama]

You would constantly be reminded of the 'humiliating experience' when you look at this child.

No I wouldn't. Aside from the fact that I'm blind, I'm sure the baby would look nothing like the rapist. At least not at first. By the time the baby grew up I'd love them too much to care what the baby looked like. I said I didn't know if I'd keep the baby past birth but if I did it would mean some sort of bond had already taken place.

Secondly--why bring a baby into the world that is not wanted? Especially if one was raped?

By the time I realise I'm pregnant the baby IS ALREADY IN THE WORLD. She's alive and waiting to come out.

Just because the mother doesn't WANT the baby doesn't make the baby unwanted. The baby has adopted parents who WILL want them. Then she will grow and make friends who will want her. The mother is just one person. So wether or not she wants the baby is irrevelent since their are so many more that would.

Besides sometimes women will start off by wanting the baby. Then the baby grows up differantly to the parent. The parent might not like her and feel she is totally unwanted. So would it be ok to kill her then? Since she or he is no longer wanted?

 

[Jiro]

lalalaaaa lalalaaaa :fruit: beating around the bush.... beating around the bush...

 

[lsfoster]

Because you can't see it. And you said--it's a " bit of tissue "--we get rid of tissues on a daily basis and this is no different.

I'm disappointed in you lsfoster--as a lesbian woman, I think you should be a little more fair towards women's reproductive rights. That includes the right to choose.

Because your stance on this issue concides with the Log Cabin Republican group.

Sorry Byrdie, maybe I should have explained that a little better. By a "bit of tissue", I meant that the only difference between what you consider a "fetus" and a "baby" is the wall of the uterus and the skin on the woman's stomach. That is just a "bit of tissue", and to me, does not justify the different treatments that each one receives. And you can "see" it. That was the reason I posted that link.

And my being a lesbian is actually part of why I feel the way I do. I believe in equal rights. In this case, they aren't.

Take the following situations:

A woman is 26 weeks pregnant, and is stabbed in the stomach by an attacker, killing the baby.

Another woman went into early labor, delivered a healthy baby the week earlier, and suffocates her own child that week.

A third woman is 26 weeks pregnant, goes to see a doctor to have a late-term abortion. The doctor doesn't perform the procedure correctly and delivers a live baby, but throws it in the dumpster with the other "fetuses" anyways rather than tell the mother.

A fourth woman is 26 weeks pregnant and decides to get an abortion.


Look at those situations, and tell me who society considers to have committed a crime. In every case, it's the exact same baby, exact same point in the pregnancy, and yet there is only one time where someone isn't held accountable for their actions. To me, that isn't fair.

I would especially like you to think about the early labor situation. If this is simply a "woman's choice" then what about women who have premature deliveries? If one woman can decide at 26 weeks to kill her baby, then why can't the woman who delivered at 25 weeks? There is absolutely no difference between the babies except the "little bit of tissue" holding one inside the womb. Why would you judge a mother who would kill her newborn but not a woman who gets an abortion at the exact same point?

As far as I am concerned, I am being fair about women's reproductive rights. The fact is, sex isn't fair for women. We run a higher risk, that doesn't mean that we should get something extra as a result. So I'm gay, and I want to have kids. Biologically, my girlfriend and I can't make a baby. Is this fair? No. Should we somehow get some other benefit as a result? No, the laws should still treat us equally. Everyone keeps saying that a man should deal with paying child support because that's the risk that he takes, yet nobody seems to believe that the woman should be responsible for the risk that she takes: pregnancy.

I've also stated many times that I do believe there is a compromise. If a woman is going to get the extra choice of deciding to deal with her actions, why can't she do it before the fetus is viable? I just don't see how 20 weeks is not enough time to decide that. The fact is, you can try to dehumanize the "fetus" as much as you want, but if you took that baby exactly as it is, and simply moved it up a few inches into it's mother's arms, it would be a totally different story. It's still the same baby, and it's still killing it.

 

[dreama]

I'm disappointed in you lsfoster--as a lesbian woman, I think you should be a little more fair towards women's reproductive rights... Because your stance on this issue concides with the Log Cabin Republican group.

Who's using emotional arguments now?

What has being a lesbian got to do with anything.

We're not the only ones either. Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians

I'm bisexual and as strongly pro life as you can get. And I support Pro life republicans/conservatives too. Shocking isn't it.

The truth of the matter is I'm all for a person's right to do whatthey want with their own body. Such as removing body parts, sleeping with whoever whenever etc... But NOBODY has ANY right to dispose of SOMEBODY ELSES BODY

And it's common for those who harm others to dehumanize them first. It doesn't change anything. A fetus is a pre baby. A parasite is NOTHING like a baby.

 

[dreama]

Sorry Byrdie, maybe I should have explained that a little better. By a "bit of tissue", I meant that the only difference between what you consider a "fetus" and a "baby" is the wall of the uterus and the skin on the woman's stomach. That is just a "bit of tissue", and to me, does not justify the different treatments that each one receives. And you can "see" it. That was the reason I posted that link.

And my being a lesbian is actually part of why I feel the way I do. I believe in equal rights. In this case, they aren't.

Take the following situations:

A woman is 26 weeks pregnant, and is stabbed in the stomach by an attacker, killing the baby.

Another woman went into early labor, delivered a healthy baby the week earlier, and suffocates her own child that week.

A third woman is 26 weeks pregnant, goes to see a doctor to have a late-term abortion. The doctor doesn't perform the procedure correctly and delivers a live baby, but throws it in the dumpster with the other "fetuses" anyways rather than tell the mother.

A fourth woman is 26 weeks pregnant and decides to get an abortion.


Look at those situations, and tell me who society considers to have committed a crime. In every case, it's the exact same baby, exact same point in the pregnancy, and yet there is only one time where someone isn't held accountable for their actions. To me, that isn't fair.

Good point.

 

[Byrdie714]

Sorry Byrdie, maybe I should have explained that a little better. By a "bit of tissue", I meant that the only difference between what you consider a "fetus" and a "baby" is the wall of the uterus and the skin on the woman's stomach. That is just a "bit of tissue", and to me, does not justify the different treatments that each one receives. And you can "see" it. That was the reason I posted that link.

And my being a lesbian is actually part of why I feel the way I do. I believe in equal rights. In this case, they aren't.

Take the following situations:

A woman is 26 weeks pregnant, and is stabbed in the stomach by an attacker, killing the baby.

Another woman went into early labor, delivered a healthy baby the week earlier, and suffocates her own child that week.

A third woman is 26 weeks pregnant, goes to see a doctor to have a late-term abortion. The doctor doesn't perform the procedure correctly and delivers a live baby, but throws it in the dumpster with the other "fetuses" anyways rather than tell the mother.

A fourth woman is 26 weeks pregnant and decides to get an abortion.


Look at those situations, and tell me who society considers to have committed a crime. In every case, it's the exact same baby, exact same point in the pregnancy, and yet there is only one time where someone isn't held accountable for their actions. To me, that isn't fair.

I would especially like you to think about the early labor situation. If this is simply a "woman's choice" then what about women who have premature deliveries? If one woman can decide at 26 weeks to kill her baby, then why can't the woman who delivered at 25 weeks? There is absolutely no difference between the babies except the "little bit of tissue" holding one inside the womb. Why would you judge a mother who would kill her newborn but not a woman who gets an abortion at the exact same point?

As far as I am concerned, I am being fair about women's reproductive rights. The fact is, sex isn't fair for women. We run a higher risk, that doesn't mean that we should get something extra as a result. So I'm gay, and I want to have kids. Biologically, my girlfriend and I can't make a baby. Is this fair? No. Should we somehow get some other benefit as a result? No, the laws should still treat us equally. Everyone keeps saying that a man should deal with paying child support because that's the risk that he takes, yet nobody seems to believe that the woman should be responsible for the risk that she takes: pregnancy.

I've also stated many times that I do believe there is a compromise. If a woman is going to get the extra choice of deciding to deal with her actions, why can't she do it before the fetus is viable? I just don't see how 20 weeks is not enough time to decide that. The fact is, you can try to dehumanize the "fetus" as much as you want, but if you took that baby exactly as it is, and simply moved it up a few inches into it's mother's arms, it would be a totally different story. It's still the same baby, and it's still killing it.

Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus detaches itself from the host.

 

[Byrdie714]

A parasite is NOTHING like a baby.

The embryo/fetus that attaches itself to the host definately fits the definition of a parasite.

Parasite definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

This coming from an individual that stated this on another thread:

I am ok about giving terminally ill people high doses of pain releaf to reduce suffering, but which often ends up kiling them which is how my grandmother died. But the person in this case is near the end anyway and the aim would be to eliviate suffering, not to cause death. Even if that is likely to happen as a result.

Doesn't sound like a pro-lifer to me.....

 

[dreama]

You are twisting my words entirely out of context and you know it.

I'm against Euthanasia. The quote is only designed to apply to someone very near to death who is in a lot of pain. The pain releaf is to stop the pain. It is not to kill them. So I don't see it as going against my values.

Some pro lifers are against abortion but allow it under certain cercumstances such as rape or if the mothers life is in danger. They are still pro lifers.

Some pro lifers are for the death penilty. Although I am not for the death penalty myself I would still consider that person as Pro life if they are against abortion.

 

[dreama]

The embryo/fetus that attaches itself to the host definately fits the definition of a parasite.

Parasite definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

A fetus over the age of 22 weeks can live outside the womb.
A child is not able to live independantly of their parents so under your definition they too can be described as parasites.
Most western adults require supermarket brought food and services provided by others so very few adults are totally independant.

So by this defination we are all parasites.

 

[faire_jour]

"Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently."

If this is the defination of parasite, than babies are parasites too. They feed off their mothers via breastmilk.

 

[Maria]

Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus detaches itself from the host.

:jaw: And, you don't think it is murder when the abortion is performed ?

 

[lsfoster]

Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus detaches itself from the host.

Not based on the definition you gave. A baby still depends on its mother to survive. Independently, it cannot provide food and shelter for itself. If you consider abortion not to be murder because the fetus is in a "parasitic" stage, then babies are also, and killing them should not be considered murder.

For that matter, neither should killing anybody. Do you provide your own food independently? My guess is you buy it, but even if you grew it yourself, you are a parasite on the earth, and a parasite to any animals you eat. Plants, maybe are less parasitic, but even they require sunlight and nutrients from the earth.

If your argument is that killing a parasite isn't murder, I'd be very careful how you argue that.

Also, I believe that the symbiotic relationship between mother and baby is much more an example of this: Commensalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia than parasitism.

 

[webexplorer]

There are so many reasons that a woman should have an abortion.

A 13 years old girl is a pregnancy, and she is not allowed to have an abortion. Suppose if her child has a mental health problem. Later, that girl would have another baby with the same health problem for many generations.

If you do not believe in abortion, then you don't abort your baby. That's it.

I believe in spirits. If a baby were aborted, then the baby's soul is never destroyed. The soul would go into another woman's womb (or, the next life).

 

[dreama]

I believe in spirits. If a baby were aborted, then the baby's soul is never destroyed. The soul would go into another woman's womb (or, the next life).

I believe this too. Which is one of the reasons I'm against abortion. I know it's a selfish reason for being against abortion but in my next life I don't particularly fancy being dragged out of my mother's womb by my feet and having sharp instruments stuck in my head. The whole concept of that gives me the jitters. I might just come out alive anyway to spend 45 minutes left to die in agony.

Yes I might then go into another womans body and the same thing might just happen again, and again, and again...

When I finally do get born just think how damaged I would be by all those traumatic experiences.

 

[Byrdie714]

You are twisting my words entirely out of context and you know it. .

....no I'm not. I just pointed out the inconsistencies in your post from one thread to another.

"Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently."

If this is the defination of parasite, than babies are parasites too. They feed off their mothers via breastmilk.

Good definition.

:jaw: And, you don't think it is murder when the abortion is performed ?

No.

Not based on the definition you gave. A baby still depends on its mother to survive. Independently, it cannot provide food and shelter for itself. If you consider abortion not to be murder because the fetus is in a "parasitic" stage, then babies are also, and killing them should not be considered murder.

For that matter, neither should killing anybody. Do you provide your own food independently? My guess is you buy it, but even if you grew it yourself, you are a parasite on the earth, and a parasite to any animals you eat. Plants, maybe are less parasitic, but even they require sunlight and nutrients from the earth.

If your argument is that killing a parasite isn't murder, I'd be very careful how you argue that.

Also, I believe that the symbiotic relationship between mother and baby is much more an example of this: Commensalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia than parasitism.

We are the dominant parasite of the earth although we are stewards of this planet whereas everything else is under our control. Remember that we have the control over the sea, the land, and the sky.

Again, abortion isn't murder when it is performed legally within the bounds of the law.

Abortion is legal in this country--has been since 1973 and always will be.

If you don't like abortions--then don't have one. But it's not your right to tell women what they should do with their bodies.

 

[lsfoster]

We are the dominant parasite of the earth although we are stewards of this planet whereas everything else is under our control. Remember that we have the control over the sea, the land, and the sky.

Again, abortion isn't murder when it is performed legally within the bounds of the law.

Abortion is legal in this country--has been since 1973 and always will be.

If you don't like abortions--then don't have one. But it's not your right to tell women what they should do with their bodies.

As far as us being stewards, the amount of natural disasters that we have absolutely no way to stop or control would beg to differ. I live in New England, do you know how many car accidents are caused by snow and ice every year? Cold water is still too much for us to handle. I wouldn't really consider that a lot of "control". Floods, earthquakes, blizzards, tornadoes... we don't really control much.

And please stop arguing that abortion is right because that is the current law. That is also a logical fallacy, known as "circular reasoning".
Fallacy: Begging the Question
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

Something being legal does not necessarily make it right. Interracial marriages were illegal for a whole lot longer. Gay marriages are still illegal in most places. Should we just say, "they have been, and always will be..."? Just because in 1973 they decided that abortion wasn't murder doesn't mean that we should ignore anything we have learned since then. Today we know much more about the developmental process of the baby, and can say that after 20 weeks, a fetus should be considered viable. Also, if we don't consider abortion to be murder, then we should immediately stop charging murderers for any harm they commit to "unborn children" since it is a hugely hypocritical thing to do.

And I never said it was my right to tell anyone anything. But the courts do have that right, and many laws restrict those choices. Also, this is not a woman doing something to herself, it is a doctor doing something to a woman and a baby, and that is even more restricted. You cannot ask your doctor to cut off limbs unnecessarily, even though it's your body, nor can you ask them to help kill you, even if that is what you desire.

 

[lsfoster]

There are so many reasons that a woman should have an abortion.

A 13 years old girl is a pregnancy, and she is not allowed to have an abortion. Suppose if her child has a mental health problem. Later, that girl would have another baby with the same health problem for many generations.

If you do not believe in abortion, then you don't abort your baby. That's it.

I believe in spirits. If a baby were aborted, then the baby's soul is never destroyed. The soul would go into another woman's womb (or, the next life).

Again, a logical fallacy. Fallacy: Misleading Vividness

The fact is, pregnancies for girls age 15 or less make up less than 1% of all abortions in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm
Also, at that age, the pregnancy would likely constitute a huge health risk for the girl, which is a totally different story. You cannot take one hypothetical extreme and use it as a justification for completely different situations.

 

[Byrdie714]

As far as us being stewards, the amount of natural disasters that we have absolutely no way to stop or control would beg to differ. I live in New England, do you know how many car accidents are caused by snow and ice every year? Cold water is still too much for us to handle. I wouldn't really consider that a lot of "control". Floods, earthquakes, blizzards, tornadoes... we don't really control much.

And please stop arguing that abortion is right because that is the current law. That is also a logical fallacy, known as "circular reasoning".
Fallacy: Begging the Question
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

Something being legal does not necessarily make it right. Interracial marriages were illegal for a whole lot longer. Gay marriages are still illegal in most places. Should we just say, "they have been, and always will be..."? Just because in 1973 they decided that abortion wasn't murder doesn't mean that we should ignore anything we have learned since then. Today we know much more about the developmental process of the baby, and can say that after 20 weeks, a fetus should be considered viable. Also, if we don't consider abortion to be murder, then we should immediately stop charging murderers for any harm they commit to "unborn children" since it is a hugely hypocritical thing to do.

And I never said it was my right to tell anyone anything. But the courts do have that right, and many laws restrict those choices. Also, this is not a woman doing something to herself, it is a doctor doing something to a woman and a baby, and that is even more restricted. You cannot ask your doctor to cut off limbs unnecessarily, even though it's your body, nor can you ask them to help kill you, even if that is what you desire.

As for the comment about controlling nature--that's par for the course. Remember that you have the choice to live in New England and dealing with the Nor'easters just like me living on the ocean--I run the risk of tsunami's. Again, its about choices where one desires to live. If you don't like the snow--move somewhere where it doesn't snow.

Secondly in regards to "Logic"--sometimes logic applies--sometimes it doesn't

Thirdly--I live in a state where one can ask the doctor to terminate their life when they have less than 6 months to live. Again--choices. I choose to vote, "yes" for legal euthansia, right to die,--doesn't mean that I will partake in it. I believe if one is terminally ill--they should have the right to end their suffering. Also--7 out of 10 Washingtonians agreed with legal euthansia as it passed by 70%.

And what you are missing is that abortion is a legal medical procedure. It isn't murder.

BTW--cute quote, "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law." Unfortunately for pro-lifers--abortion is legal and isn't prohibited by law.

You can argue until you are blue--but the fact remains--it's legal and many women appreciate the fact that they have choices to either keep it, aborted it, or give it up for adoption.

By taking that choice away--you would also be hurting yourself because the next question will be: what other choices will be taken away? Deny women the right to vote? Deny people from buying guns? Deny the disabled a right to live in a mainstream society?

 

[lsfoster]

As for the comment about controlling nature--that's par for the course. Remember that you have the choice to live in New England and dealing with the Nor'easters just like me living on the ocean--I run the risk of tsunami's. Again, its about choices where one desires to live. If you don't like the snow--move somewhere where it doesn't snow.

Secondly in regards to "Logic"--sometimes logic applies--sometimes it doesn't

Thirdly--I live in a state where one can ask the doctor to terminate their life when they have less than 6 months to live. Again--choices. I choose to vote, "yes" for legal euthansia, right to die,--doesn't mean that I will partake in it. I believe if one is terminally ill--they should have the right to end their suffering. Also--7 out of 10 Washingtonians agreed with legal euthansia as it passed by 70%.

And what you are missing is that abortion is a legal medical procedure. It isn't murder.

BTW--cute quote, "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law." Unfortunately for pro-lifers--abortion is legal and isn't prohibited by law.

You can argue until you are blue--but the fact remains--it's legal and many women appreciate the fact that they have choices to either keep it, aborted it, or give it up for adoption.

By taking that choice away--you would also be hurting yourself because the next question will be: what other choices will be taken away? Deny women the right to vote? Deny people from buying guns? Deny the disabled a right to live in a mainstream society?

You seem to be missing the point. I know I choose to live in a place with snow, but that doesn't mean that mankind has "control" over the earth, land, and sky. In every area of the earth, there are natural events which man has absolutely no way to stop or control. Snow is just the example for me.

And to me, logic always applies. If you are trying to argue that your beliefs are correct and are doing so through illogical means, I am very unlikely to agree with you.

You also seem to miss the point with the quote. (I'm starting to wonder if you click on any of the links I post ) That is an example of that type of fallacy. It just happens to be the quote from the site. It is just as flawed an argument if I were to say "If such actions were not right, then they would not be allowed by the law." It still gives no basis for saying that because it is a "legal medical procedure" it isn't wrong. That would be like saying that black people shouldn't be upset about slavery. At the time, it was a "legally recognize status", and buying and selling people was a "legally contractual agreement". Why get upset about it? It was totally legal.

And my argument is not about taking away choices. Again, you're missing the point. All of the things you mentioned as examples were to make situations unequal. I've explained many times that I believe in fairness and consistency. You have yet to explain how abortion is in any way consistent with all the other laws and situations that I brought up.