Yay!! Congratulations!!!
Then you’re not trying hard enough. Read the damn thread, why dontcha.
The consequences for the fetus are not relevant for you. Only the fact that the fetus’s trauma makes him the preferred victim.
Again, you get to decide what issues get debated! I don’t think so. If you can’t see the relevancy of these comparisons when people invoke bodily autonomy as a reason why abortion must be permitted, you need to think a little more over the matter. It’s not that difficult.
You think the possibility of her suffering is a greater concern than the destruction of a human life. I don’t.
Unless I’m misunderstanding, this is a red herring as well. This logic supports the claim that parents can destroy their toddlers, for example. If this is where you repeat that fetuses “have not yet developed brain waves or reached the age of being able to live on its own or feel pain,” then my response would be that the reason for the abortion is irrelevant for you, it seems. The being simply has no rights and can be destroyed for any reason at all. Why invoke the trauma of “forced adoptions”?
BTW, what makes “forced adoption” more traumatic than abortion? I’m curious.
Sarahfeena, congratulations! That’s wonderful news.
Thanks to you and MrDibble for your kind words! Cross your fingers that all goes well…this month is literally my last chance to have another baby before I turn 40 (Baby due in Feb, 40th Bday in March)!
Count me in as someone who doesn’t get how “forced adoption” makes for angry adopted children. I am adopted, and apparently, due to the fact that this took place in 1967, there are a lot of assumptions that my birth mother was “forced” into having me & giving me up for adoption. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn’t, but either way…I am not angry, I am more than grateful, especially if her preferred “choice” would have been to abort me. I pray every day that she is at peace with it, because it sure has been a blessing for me.
Oh, and BTW, through adoptive groups my parents & I have belonged to over the years, I have known a lot of adopted people, and I don’t know any “angry” ones…could this be a myth, or in any case, at least highly exaggerated? Some people are just angry, and if they are adopted, use that to lay the blame on.
I’ll say a prayer for you today at mass. The fix will be in! 
That is JUST WHAT I NEED, thanks! 
Well, yes, of course an early term fetus can be aborted for any reason at all. Have I ever said otherwise? I think you’re the one erecting a strawman here. I support abortion on demand until viability. There it is, plain as day.
I think what you see as “red herrings” I see as “one further reason why we must protect a woman’s right to abortion.” I don’t base my beliefs on this issue on any one reason or line of logic. I agree with many reasons for the right to choose, and not many for no choice, and so arrive at my conclusion.
Reasons I believe a woman and her doctor should be the only people to decide if an early term abortion is appropriate to her:
-
Abortion does no harm to any other sentient being. (See above re: lack of brain development, no pain sensation, etc.)
-
Being forced to medical treatment or condition by an outside force is absolutely causing harm to the woman. This holds whether the decision is pro or anti-abortion, whether the outside for is the gov’t, the church or her parents.
-
The medical choice to remove the life support of a child rests with the parent or guardian. I see no reason why this should be different when the life support system is her breath and body.
-
Legally, the state exists to protect the rights of its citizens. Citizens are people only, not other beings. A pre-viable fetus does not meet any legal definition of a person. While this can be changed, I have seen no good argument why it should.
-
The alternative to allowed abortions: forced parenthood or forced adoption, is abhorrhent and terrifying. One could logically expect abuse and early childhood abandonment and death to increase were this implemented. This is unacceptable to me.
-
The increase in unsafe medical and pharmaceutical abortions performed by non-medical professionals should we outlaw abortion will kill many women, along with their fetuses. At the very least, the number of people practicing medicine without a license will increase.
I’m sure there’s others I’ve raised or agreed with in the thread, but you get the idea. There are lots of reasons, and as this discussion has wandered all over the landscape, I’ve found myself thinking about all of them, agreeing with some and disagreeing with others. (Honestly, I got lost and bored with the drugs and hookers conversation, so I didn’t follow that too closely, but the rest I’ve found fascinating.) My personal reasons range from the purely emotional (#5) to the very clinical (#1) to the logical (#3). None of them are red herrings in my personal decisions, or in a widely roving discussion on abortion rights.
As for the forced adoption may be traumatic to mother and child claim, it’s based on my best friend, adopted, and her support group of adopted children looking to find their birth parents. There are some fucked up bunnies in that group, plauged with depression, anger management and other mental health issues that they believe stems from being “abandoned” by their biological parents. I hate that group, and I hate how they’re tearing apart their real (adoptive) families with their “quest”. On the other side of the equation is another friend who gave up her child for adoption at the demand of her parents, and has spent the last 30 August 5ths in tears and raving drunk. She’s been in therapy for years trying to get past her guilt and anger at her parents for forcing her into that spot. I’ll be the first to admit that this is not universal, and I’d hate to scare people away from adoption, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a negative experience some of the time. (Much like I hope your stories of women who feel terrible after having an abortion doesn’t scare people off of that decision.) Sure, maybe “Some people are just angry, and if they are adopted, use that to lay the blame on.” I can say the same thing about abortion. Some people are just depressed and miserable, and if they had an abortion, use that to lay the blame on. I think we get a null vote out of the potential long term suffering of the mother. Any decision - keeping the baby, adopting the baby, having an abortion - has the potential to lead to suffering. I think only the mother should choose which potential suffering to risk. See also here for an article (pro-adoption site, btw) which mentions several of the negative possibilities of adoption I haven’t, including adopting families who separate or divorce after adopting a child with disabilities they can’t handle and about the rampant fraud and coersion in international adoption.)
Sarahfeena, congratulations! You know the rule about Doper Baby Pics, right? When the time comes, of course. I’ll offer to light a candle during meditation today, but if that’s not in line with your religious beliefs, I won’t intrude.
I have found this discussion fascinating & educational, as well. Thank you all for it.
Please do light that candle…I respect all religious tradtion, and believe that all good thoughts make a contribution. And thank you!
Cute. I’ve read the damn thread, I don’t see anywhere where you unambiguously state “The woman should have no right to choose”
Not “not relevant”, non-existant. There are no continued consequences for a dead foetus.
Excuse me for wanting to stick to the point in a thread that’s about, you know, abortion.
Not when I’ve already stated that I don’t agree with either of the laws you mentioned, yet you bring them up again. You bring up “oh, but we have laws against prostitution and drug use”, and I say “I don’t agree with those laws either” - where, exactly, does that leave you standing?
I know this. But instead of giving me the reasons you think you’re right (you believe in a soul, you think the foetus suffers more than the woman, whatever), you make these bullshit analogies that don’t argue the point at all.
It’s not just about bodily autonomy, it’s about consequent suffering for the woman too. You clearly think the life of the foetus outweighs this. Tell me why, don’t beat around the bush.
What the hell are you talking about? scotandrsn and I had an ongoing exchange regarding how the law deals with bodily autonomy, since that notion was introduced in this thread as a kind of sacred boundary that could not / should not be crossed. Since you had already expressed your opinion, that meant the rest of the world needed to move on? That’s pretty funny.
Instead of giving you reasons? Hey, I’ll say again, read the damn thread. If you’re looking for an example, here, let me help you:
Feel free to disagree or to debate this. But please stop pretending that I haven’t offered a position or a rationale. It’s, well, dishonest at worst and sloppy at best.
Naah, I want you to stop bringing it up when you’re addressing me. You can have multiple conversations coming out the wazoo, but do try and keep track of who’s argued what.
I didn’t say you hadn’t offered a rationale. I said you’d failed to address mine, instead bringing up “bodily autonomy” like it was some kind of gotcha - and I quote:
I’ve several times addressed why I believe the foetus doesn’t partake of the “right to live” because it falls outside of “Society” as I see it, and my belief that rights are not inherent, but derived. Haven’t seen you address that, you carry on arguing like rights are inherent - and I quote:
Whose the one trying to specify how the other party argues there, wiseguy?
Oh, and this:
isn’t a clear argument for why you believe the right to life is fundamental, just a statement that you think it is. That last sentence needs a lot more expansion before it’s a meaningful argument.
Gee, that’s might white of ya.
See, this is what’s so great about communicating in a written medium. You can assert whatever nonsense you want, but you can’t change history. Here, let me help you again. You seem like you need it. You said this:
That indeed more than suggests that I haven’t offered a rationale for my position. Come now, say, “I overstated my position.” You can do it.
You’re a riot! Asking a question of clarification is not the same as saying, “Stop that line of argument! I forbid it by the power invested in me as MrDibble!” Not the same at all. Weak, brother. Just weak.
It absolutely is! It states an unassailable point: no right can exist if the right to live does not. No right can be superior to the right to live. You can disagree with it, but it’s an argument.
Come on, a big man would admit he was wrong. Give it a try. When you said I hadn’t offered an argument for my position, I showed you I did. Now you try the, “Well, it really isn’t much of an argument” bullshit counter. Again, weak, my brother. You’re desperately flailing to score a point that just not that important. Say, “Oh! My bad,” and move on.
Not even close…
Cute, but that quote doesn’t say you didn’t offer any reasons, it says that the attempted reasons you offered were bullshit. Not the same thing at all. AndI think my next post adresses why I don’t think you’re giving your reasons for belief, but just amking statements of that belief.
Oh, sure, you were just “asking a question of clarification” -and telling me what terms to answer it in. When I don’t play along, I’m the weak one? Real smooth, sister.
No, it isn’t. It’s a statement of one little premise, and it’s certainly not an “unassailable” one, either. One premise does not an argument make.
I notice you still haven’t made the case for inherent rights, either.
I apologize for my (blunt?/sharp?) words in outlining our conflicting positions. As I said “WE hold these truths…” It is also a truth that tyrants and bullies do not; it is also clear that you do not.
It is my understanding that it is the spirit of liberty and justice and equality for all (as described in the declaration of independence) that divides liberty from tyranny and gives legitimacy to government; especially to ours. Do you wish me to believe it does not simply because you say so?
The question remains: On what should we base abortion law?
I hold that legitimate governments and laws are based on the understanding that all are equal in peaceful pursuit. It is not a peaceful pursuit to take and use or even threaten another’s body. No one has just right to take from another’s body or health or liberty. Please show proof beyond reasonable doubt that inalienable rights are justly forfeit by reason of pregnancy. I expect it more likely that this denial of rights is just another given in your criminal code of law.
Also please tell US where denial of peaceful pursuit by law finally does become crime and tyranny by your criminal code.
r~