Oceanbreeze
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,973
- Reaction score
- 5
Each person is different but I would say that you are correct.
A woman's right?
- Thread starter dreama
- Start date
- Status
Each person is different but I would say that you are correct.
Oceanbreeze
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,973
- Reaction score
- 5
Yes we did.
Oceanbreeze
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,973
- Reaction score
- 5
I do. I also know that the term "partial birth abortion" is misleading. The procedure is actually known as a D & X procedure and is done in the latter stages of pregnancy when a woman's life is endangered.
WARNING: The information contained in the link may be a bit graphic for some. If you're squeamish or easily upset, please don't click link.
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthato...althatoz/Atoz/ency/abortion_partial_birth.jsp
Yes, I think we did, rather a few times because certain people have an obsurd notion that unborn babies are parasites. This it total nonsense. Their really is very little differance between a 22 week old fetus and a 6 month old baby. They BOTH can survive outside the womb. They both need support. Neither of them can express themselves yet. However nobody in their right mind would call a 6 month old baby a parasite. Wheras so many pro abortion pople try to claim that is the case for pre born babies which is strictly speaking obsurd!
Well said! Even with serious health risks for mother, you would have to get the baby out anyway one way or another. so you may as well get the baby out alive.
I'm not a woman hater at all. (In fact, I sure do love me some women.). And I'll say it again, I've never been arguing that a man should be able to make a woman keep a baby. I do think it's strange that you all keep bringing up the fact that the laws can't be fair because "biologically" the situation is different for the man and the woman. Exactly. "Biologically" the woman should have to deal with a pregnancy if she chooses to risk getting pregnant. You say that "biology" is the reason that the man can't remove himself from the baby's life, since he's not carrying it, but I think that to give a woman extra choices at that time, she should be held even more responsible for the baby, not less. A man choosing he doesn't want to be involved with the baby has no effect on that baby's life. The same choice that we've given women takes away the baby's life. The argument that you should be making is this "If women want the same rights as men (in terms of not having direct consequences), then I guess we would need to come up with a way for them not to get pregnant, and we can discuss what's fair and what's not fair". (Shel90, you just happened to be the latest person to post the same argument). The point is, you've already happily thrown the "natural" and "biological" arguments out the window by deciding that women don't have to deal with the consequences, and then you've added extra consequences to men.
Also, I'll say it again, just in case people missed it, I simply do not believe abortions are right after the first 20 or so weeks. If you look at the numbers, a huge majority of people abort before then. At that point, once can make a pretty good argument about the viability of the baby. Past that, especially partial birth abortions are just abhorrent.
So let's conclude: I'm not saying a man should be able to decide for a woman, and I'm not saying that "every sperm is a possible baby and should be protected". Trying to make my arguments seem ridiculous by greatly exaggerating them serves no point except making me type all this out again.
I agree, although I'm against abortion in all cases, I feel so much MORE strongly against abortion after the baby develops a central nervous system and is capable of life outside their mother's womb. Even if they have to be put into incubators for a while. Nothing wrong with being born Premmie. I was a premmie baby myself.
Actually, the term isn't misleading at all. The procedure involves rotating the body so that the physician pulls the feet out first, then "birthing" the baby until only the head remains inside, piercing the base of the skull and removing the brains, causing the skull to collapse, then removing the head. So they "partially birth" the baby, then abort it. Sounds pretty accurate to me.
Also, the reason that they first have to reach in and rotate the baby away from the natural position is that they don't have access to the base of the skull otherwise, and if they "birthed" it naturally then did the exact same procedure, it would be considered murder since the fetus is viable at that point.
Also, this came from the site you provided.
"There also is a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body."
So the "abortion" might actually result in a living, breathing baby if they don't finish it completely. Yeah, it's a lovely practice. :roll:
I'm against abortion in all cases too, dreama, I just don't think that the best answer right now is to simply make them illegal. The fact of the matter is that many women don't have the sexual education, or access to contraceptives that they would need to be able to avoid these situations, and are most likely not financially able to support a child. While I don't think that these are great excuses for what I consider abortion to be, I don't think that the situation would be helped at all right now by just outlawing abortions. I think if our country worked to fix a lot of other things first, they wouldn't be as necessary, and then steps could be taken to limit the time where abortions are allowed to much earlier in the pregnancy.
I apologize Byrdie, I do believe that incest is a legitimate excuse. Other than health risks to the mother, one of the few that I consider a valid reason.
I do have to say that statistically, very few rapes actually result in a pregnancy, and again, I feel that some sort of time frame should be possible. Especially in the case of rape, I think a woman should be able to decide if she wants to have the baby or not within the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy. After that time, if the fetus is viable, I still think it's murder, and our laws do not allow victims to victimize others. If a woman was raped, then went out the next week and killed her rapist, she would be charged with murder, and that would be the person who attacked her. If she doesn't have the right to do that, I don't think she should have the right to kill the baby, who is an innocent in the situation.
Again, we might just disagree. If you don't believe that the baby is anything until it is born, then obviously you'll feel differently.
Few REPORTED rapes result in pregnancy, due to the widespread availability of emergency contraception (the 'morning after' pill)
A woman who does not report the rape is, indeed, far less likely to either get an RX for the pills or (in an area where it's legal) pick it up from a pharmacy. Likewise, for the purposes of abortion statistics, she may not identify herself as a rape victim.
It fits the definition of a parasite. Absurd? No. As the definition certainly describes the behavior of the embryo/fetus.
What is absurd is that people choose the "emotional logic" on this issue which clouds their judgement.
The law doesn't recognize that.
When the fetus is wanted--the laws are applicable especially if a pregnant woman is murdered. The perpretator would be charged with murder of the pregnant woman and the "unborn".
When it's not wanted--the fetus doesn't exist so to speak.
Secondly--the statistics of pregnancy followed by rape are misleading as the statistics are usually taken right after a woman was raped--not 6-8 months down the road to see if she ends up pregnant or not.
Dreama and LSFoster--if you were raped and ended up pregnant--would you relive your experience by giving birth to a rapist's child?
For me--it's not a baby until it's born.
This site has a lot of information, and a whole section on how they interpret rape statistics, and why their numbers should still be a good approximation. But even just common sense should explain why rape doesn't often result in pregnancy. First of all, there are certain odds that the timing are right. If a woman is not ovulating, she won't get pregnant, leaving a certain window. Secondly, the stress and physical response of such an attack can cause her body to respond in a way that doesn't allow a pregnancy, reducing that number even more. I know that it's a hard thing to "poll" correctly, but the statistics are probably not very far off.
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States
Also, that whole reasoning is one of the things that bothers me the most with abortion laws. If some guy kills a pregnant woman, he is considered responsible for taking the life of her unborn child, yet a woman has no repercussions for doing the same thing to the child. That's just a total break of logic. What if the woman had been secretly planning on having an abortion the next day? The man would still be charged with the death of the baby, even though it wasn't wanted. There's no way to reconcile the two views.
And yes, if I was raped and happened to get pregnant, I would keep the child. What happened to me would not be the baby's fault, and I would actually think that it would help to know that something innocent and wonderful could come out of something so awful. I would already have to live the rest of my life with the memory of what happened to me, I wouldn't also want to have to deal with the knowledge that I created another victim in the situation.
And I'm curious, Byrdie, what is it about the birth that is so important? Is a child delivered by c-section still a child? After about 20 weeks, the only difference between that fetus and a born baby is a little bit of flesh and tissue.
I just don't think I can make myself believe that this baby isn't alive. That he's just a glorified parasite, and that if you reached in, carved a whole in the back of his head and sucked out his brains, that it wouldn't be murder. Sorry.
Samuel's Spina Bifida Surgery In Utero
This site has a lot of information, and a whole section on how they interpret rape statistics, and why their numbers should still be a good approximation. But even just common sense should explain why rape doesn't often result in pregnancy. First of all, there are certain odds that the timing are right. If a woman is not ovulating, she won't get pregnant, leaving a certain window. Secondly, the stress and physical response of such an attack can cause her body to respond in a way that doesn't allow a pregnancy, reducing that number even more. I know that it's a hard thing to "poll" correctly, but the statistics are probably not very far off.
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States
As with any statistics, especially with rape--there are unreported rapes in this country that leads to pregnancy that aren't factored in the statistics.
Also, that whole reasoning is one of the things that bothers me the most with abortion laws. If some guy kills a pregnant woman, he is considered responsible for taking the life of her unborn child, yet a woman has no repercussions for doing the same thing to the child. That's just a total break of logic. What if the woman had been secretly planning on having an abortion the next day? The man would still be charged with the death of the baby, even though it wasn't wanted. There's no way to reconcile the two views.
You would never know because the pregnant woman is already dead if she was secretly planning an abortion or not.
And yes, if I was raped and happened to get pregnant, I would keep the child. What happened to me would not be the baby's fault, and I would actually think that it would help to know that something innocent and wonderful could come out of something so awful. I would already have to live the rest of my life with the memory of what happened to me, I wouldn't also want to have to deal with the knowledge that I created another victim in the situation.
You would also continue to be playing the "victimization sympathy card" by looking at this particular child that is a by product of a rape. That is not mentally and emotionally healthly for one's self being especially if they are trying to get over the act of rape itself. you would continue to relive it.
And I'm curious, Byrdie, what is it about the birth that is so important? Is a child delivered by c-section still a child? After about 20 weeks, the only difference between that fetus and a born baby is a little bit of flesh and tissue.
C-section and rape are two different topics. I can go on about c-sections as I think they are an unnecessary procedure. There are plenty of women that are capable of delivering naturally. C-sections are, in my opinion, a way to get more money in doctor's pockets. Especially when the c-section isn't necessary.
I just don't think I can make myself believe that this baby isn't alive. That he's just a glorified parasite, and that if you reached in, carved a whole in the back of his head and sucked out his brains, that it wouldn't be murder. Sorry.
Samuel's Spina Bifida Surgery In Utero
No different than a lice living on one's hair. It's part of the host/parasite relationship.
And don't be sorry--we just look at things differently. Afterall isn't that what diversity is about?
My answers are in blue.
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.
Yes, I definately WOULD give birth to the baby. Abortion is similar to rape. It's a horrible humilating experience. So one horrible humilating experience right after another would send me right over the edge.
Secondly, I really wouldn't want the babies death on my concience. As a previous rape victim I know first hand how much guilt one can feel after being raped so an abortion right on top of that would be the last thing I'd want.
Wether I'd keep the baby or not, or put the baby up for adoption would depend on a few things. Since able bodies newly born babies are mostly successfully adopted I'd be more inclined to let the baby go if they were able bodied. If they were disabled I'd keep the baby rather then risk them ending up in care. Sorry if it sounds selective. It's just how I feel. Although maybe I'd get attached to baby and keep them anyway.
Who knows. I just know I could never murder a baby and live with myself afterwards whatever the babies father did. After all we can't hold babies responsible for their fathers behavior.
Exactly!
You would constantly be reminded of the 'humiliating experience' when you look at this child.
Secondly--why bring a baby into the world that is not wanted? Especially if one was raped?
Third--this discussion has served its purpose. If and when the vote comes up to make abortion legal--I'm voting pro-choice. I'm not convinced by the arguments of the pro-life.
Just because several of you don't like it--doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs.
For now--I'm leaving this discussion because it's a waste of time.
- Status