Protests are all very well, but they achieve very little. If they want to actively prevent abortions they should be working to provide free child-care so that single and impoverished mothers can work. The cost of childcare is so exorbitant that for many women the choice is having a baby and living on the bread line, or not having a baby.
The protesters obviously have plenty of free time, I humbly suggest they use it to become trained childminders and offer their services free of charge.
They’re not just asking women to give birth, in many cases they’re asking us to give up careers and educational prospects and depend on the state for sustenance. Being a mother can be wonderful, some people make the understandable decision that, for them, it requires sacrifices they cannot make.
If abortion for “social” reasons is unacceptable, change society so that those abortions don’t take place, not by outlawing the procedure, but by making the alternative choices more attractive.
The estimate is that half of all those fertilized eggs fail to ever implant in the uterine wall. It’s by no means a foregone conclusion that a fertilized egg will be a baby.
You don’t see how that hurts your statement that a fertilized egg is a ‘creature that will eventually gain consciousness’? Are you stupid or just dishonest?
It already is legal. Thankfully people like you don’t run my life.
Half of them, for no reason at all, never do. The word ‘may’ is completely appropriate, unless you are being deliberately dishonest.
You will keep your agenda out of my life whether you like it or not.
I see a problem with your argument right there - unborn babies are not independent entities. Removing preterm foetus from the mother will kill it. If it was "separate and distinct ", there’d be no problem with removing it, and letting it live by itself, would there?
Free child-care will likely not do anything to reduce the number of abortions. Sweden (25.7% of all pregnancies aborted) with the world’s largest welfare state and free or heavily subsidised stat child-care has a higher abortion rate than the US (24.4% aborted).
People like Muad’Dib see women as half-people who shouldn’t enjoy sex and just are a sort of test-tube for popping out babies.
People do and will have sex for other reasons than procreation.
We are not the only ones, dolphins and certain types of monkeys (bonobo’s) also have recreational sex.
Apparently it is more important to preserve life, than to make sure a baby is born into a family that actually wants it.
I also think it is quite disturbing that some people think a fetus has more rights to live than an adult, because of this so-called “innocence”-thing.
That is just the biggest load of bull-crap.
I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what they mean with such a nonsensical statement : of course a fetus is innocent, but innocent of what?
You need a biology class. You do realize that not every fertilized egg completely matures - sometimes the body (gasp!) aborts naturally. If it’s early enough, a woman may not even notice. What legislation do you propose we enact about that?
Oh, and to elaborate: Since the topic of conversation was pregnancy, abortion, and issues related thereto, it was patently obvious that “sex” in this connection was shorthand for “sexual intercourse entailing contact between a penis and a vagina such that transfer of sperm ensued and fertilisation was a possibility”, and the reader knew it, and so did you, Otto.
catsix, is it truly your assertion that whatever the law presently permits is a right and must forever remain a right? There goes the entirety of criminal legislation then - no sense banning a legal activity, is there?
Yes. Normally Thomas would have arrived with the Breakdown Train by now. You could start a thread titled “Should the word ‘Abortion’ be capitalized?” and we’d have wound up in much the same place as we actually have. You’re at liberty to ask the mods to intervene if you like.
You know, I’ve been kind of on a kick lately about civility in public, and it seems only right and fair that this sentiment be applied all around.
I think, first of all, that freedom of speech is pretty absolute here, and that you cannot expect to go around in public without seeing things that at times cause offense. So yes, an anti-abortion protest is right and proper, and even the location is fine. You speak where the people are.
Graphic imagery would be best left for another place and time.
I said in another thread (where someone refused to stand for the national anthem) that they had that right, but I thought it unwise and deeply wrong. I said in yet another that protesters that interrupted speeches with heckling and thrown food were doing their side no good.
I’ll say the same thing here. Putting people off their lunch is rude, and not an acceptable form of protest, in my very humble opinion.
In the context of THIS damn thread, it’s obvious that “sex” (as used by both pro choice and pro life folks) is referring to sexual intercourse, not oral sex, not anal sex, not handjobs or any other acts that might fall under the category of “sex”’ in a different thread.
You keep saying “In my view” or “I feel” or “I believe” or “In my opinion” etc… This shows me that you realize the weakness of your argument-it’s not based upon undisputed facts, but unsubstantiated opinions-yet you still insist upon using said opinions as a basis for determining policy for another human being, one who may not share those same opinions. How can you justify this? Also, how is it any different at all from my saying, say, that I firmly believe that Jesus is God, and if you don’t follow the same sect I do, you will burn in Hell, so laws requiring you to go to my church every Sunday would be a necessary and moral thing because I am saving your life from an eternity of hellfire. Somehow I don’t think you’d be on board with that plan, yet it’s the exact same argument you’re making: “I know better than you because my opinion is correct and yours is wrong, therefore it is OK for me to force it upon you”.
Not true. The mother is a foreign influence, and a big one, yet you’re vehement against her voluntarily removing herself from the equation. If these zygotes and fetuses are truly alive, they should be able to survive on their own, independently, right? After all, that is an integral part of the definition of what constitutes life.
And you’re saying that the “rights” of that fetus supersede the rights of the mother, much the same way that, oh, I dunno, the “rights” of slave owners superseded the rights of their slaves 150 years ago. Your argument is not very logically consistent, I must say. If the slavery analogy is to hold true, than it’s very much a pro-choice argument.
And the same can be said of your argument (our argument, actually). Pro-lifers believe that it’s important to give legal protection to human life at Point A, you and I believe that the rights of the mother are more important up until Point B (or C or D, such as the case may be). These are matters or judgement and opinion, not fact.
And the Pro-lifers would (and do) say exactly the same thing about us (the “fetus,” “unborn baby,” or whatever you want to call it being the other human being).
I see your point, but I am fairly comfortable that my definition of when a fetus becomes a person with all of the rights thereof (viable on it’s own, including massive medical support) is more in line with a factual scientific position (you take the baby and observe it. It exists on it’s own, ergo it’s alive) than someone who is gung ho to give full rights and personhood to a collection of cells with a lot of ambition. If you set a zygote on the table and observe it, it doesn’t do anything.
Only if the woman voluntarily goes through with the pregnancy.
If a man is that concerned about having children all he has to do is put on a condom.
Compare that with a woman who can either use pills (and face an increased risk of certain diseases) or struggle with an IUD that may or may not be safe or a diaphram that can be both uncomfortable and difficult to position properly. Compare that with nine months of discomfort and potentially life threatening complications should she chose to continue the pregancy.
The woman has every right to decide what to do once a egg is fertilized because she is the one who faces the physical consequences of carrying any potential baby to term.
