Interesting. Thanks for the link.
That last line is one of the stupidest, most self-deluded things I have ever read. Protesting at planned parenthood is one of the least civil things one can do. You are putting an enormous amount of stress and pressure on women who are probably going through a very difficult time in their lives. You think it is just horrible that a man would pressure his lover to get an abortion, but you think you have the right to pressure complete strangers to not get one? There are literally millions of people in the world who are both in dire need of charity and are begging for it, yet you focus your efforts where they are completely unwanted. That’s not very Christian or very smart of you.
You are doing so every time you protest at a PP clinic.
Perhaps the baby should’ve thought twice about being located in my fallopian tube rather than in my uterus.
You’re making a LOT of assumptions about women’s reasons for abortion. So, in your “expert” opinion, would it have been more moral for me to choose to die from an ectopic pregnancy (which I had about a 3% chance of surviving), depriving my one-year-old baby and my four-year-old son of a mother and my husband of a wife? Would that have made me a better person? A martyr perhaps? Or would that constitute a stupid decision? If I get pregnant and have to have an abortion for medical reasons, does that mean my other children should pay the price? Please, please tell me - I’m all agog.
It drives me absolutely crazy when people use broad-brush arguments against what they perceive as moral issues with no regard to contingencies.
Obviously, I’m pro-choice. And I strongly believe that a woman’s decision on whether to carry or abort should be between her, her conscience and her doctor.
Thanks so much for saying this. I really appreciate it:)
That is completely different. The pregnancy was ectopic. The baby would not have survived anyways. You had no choice but to have the ectopic pregnancy removed.
I am very sorry for your loss.
Perhaps especially apprehensive given the presence of picketers in between her and a place she was going to get a routine and vital procedure done?
You might, but then you’d have to explain graphic, gory, and often completely fraudulently labeled images routinely carried by pro-life protesters, which are equally callously disregarding the sensitive and, being in a public space, don’t even have the fig leaf of “this is a place where insensitivity is expressly permitted” to hide behind.
OK, if you can handle medically necessary abortions, let’s take it one step further. I personally cannot stand babies and if I’d had been the only caretaker of one, I could easily see me abusing it when it just Won’t. Shut. Up.
So, given that, why should your religious views force me to put up with being pregnant for nine months, possibly risking my life, only to give birth to something I don’t want and potentially something no one wants? If you don’t care about the women, what about that baby? Why is your belief that it’s a baby at conception more important than real live breathing babies?
As previously said: it’s also a surgical technique, which inherently carries risks over and above that of birth control, plan B, etc. Reason enough to want to minimize it in favor of medical remedies.
I take it then that you would never protest at a PP clinic, because you might very well be protesting against a lady going in for this very procedure. Or a lady getting birth control. Or a pap smear. Or a checkup. Or any one of the majority of non-abortion issues that PP deals with every day.
It’s simply not possible to assume that a woman walking into that clinic is being forced into an abortion by her non-child-support-paying-boyfriend, just because that’s what someone wants to imagine.
Wow, thread explosion!
I was going to come back and ask if PP protestors also protest at hospitals, since abortions are performed there too.
Mm, so how about a pregnancy in which the fetus is fatally deformed (as in the case of anencephaly, or virtually no functional brain matter apart from brain stem tissue), where a live fetus could be carried to term with attendant pregnancy risks for the woman carrying it but have no hope of survival?
Is “the baby would not have survived anyways” a permissible justification for abortion in your view if it involves birth defects? If not, why not?
Isn’t this incredibly unrealistic in dealing with real life and societies issues. We can make efforts to educate our kids and teach them self respect and responsibility, but unwanted pregnancies will occur. Not only that, abortions will occur even if they became illegal, and single parents, predominantly mothers, will be in need. We have to find ways of dealing with these issues realistically, with intelligent views on real life consequences rather than our personal view of morality that we can’t impose on others.
You don’t think it’s at all possible that a woman was intimidated by protestors whose *sole purpose in being there *is to discourage women from using the clinic for its presumed (by the protestors) purpose?
So, if you’d seen a wedding ring, how would you have spun your story? Would we be hearing about some poor woman being forced by her brute of a husband to abort the baby she longed for?
In short: You don’t know squat about who goes to PP, or why.
That’s easy Curlcoat - if you’re not prepared to deal with the CONSEQUENCES of your SINFUL LUSTS without resorting to BABY MURDER you are required to live in celibacy for the rest of your life, lest your birth control fail or something else happens that causes a zygote to be formed.
If I may suggest, if you are indeed interested in serious debate on this issue (well, for starters this isn’t the forum for it, you’re better off in Great Debates), I’d suggest just biting the bullet and calling the other side by the labels they prefer, hence “pro-choice” and “pro-life” get traded back and forth, even with a grimace or two, because arguing about labels represents a colossal waste of time.
So don’t call people “pro-abortion” (even if you believe it so) and I’m sure they’ll be less likely to call you things you don’t like.
And of course, this is the BBQ Pit forum, where profane insults are downright commonplace, so there’s no real mileage in using them to claim offense or victory.
As an incidental note, I’m pro-choice and I haven’t seen any statement of yours that would make me reconsider my stance, however briefly.
Hey guys! As one of those terrible pro-aborters I thought I’d drop back in to let you know how my 16 week appointment went today. Turns out the little fellah is developing great! Gosh, I just can’t wait until I get to abort it, since I’m so totally pro-abortion and all that!
Oh wait, that’s completely fucking stupid! I chose to conceive this fetus and and choosing to keep it, which makes me pro-choice.
Also, it’s not a baby, no matter how many times you call it that. And I am not a mother, though hopefully in October I will become a mother, Birdman will become a father and the noob will become a baby. That’s how words work, they have definitions. The noob is no more a baby than I am a senior citizen–someday if all goes well we will become those things, but to label us that way now would be completely not the truth.
Calling them “pro-life” is handing them an edge before the conversation even starts; the term is just a rhetorical ploy to help them portray everyone else as killers and about as honest as “freedom fries”.
Calling them anti-abortion rather than pro-life ignores the fact that the debate is not about what each party is called, but what they do and why.
Only if you choose to invest that much meaning into the label. If they want to be called “pro-life”… who cares? It won’t affect an argument based on civil rights or cost/benefit analysis or consequences or cycles of poverty. If they begin talking about “killers” and such, I just ignore it and stay with my core arguments, which so far have been pretty much unassailable, at least on this board, and since I’m not running for elected office, the stakes are trivially low, anyway.