Isn’t it interesting that if someone is against whatever YOU are for, name calling is almost the first offensive tool brought to the fore??
Tassey isn’t ‘ANTI’ choice. She probably makes hundreds of them every day. The term would be ‘anti abortion’ because THAT is the topic. NOT choices.
Since I have only * your word * as to your purported ‘intelligence’. I’ll leave that remark alone.
I’m against abortion, not because of the vile pictures, and I’ve already stated that I don’t think they will change anyone’s mind. As Cristi mentioned, I saw films of women giving birth at my Lamaze classes, and if I hadn’t already been pregnant, it might have given ** me ** some serious doubts as to how much I wanted to go through all of that. So, how ever grisly the photos are, and whether they are real becomes moot, because no one knows for certain.
However, Tassey has the right to bring up the subject, whether the photos are real or not, abortions happen, and they happen late in pregnancies. Probably looking quite horrific.
She didn’t curse you, or anyone else that stated their opinions and ‘choices’. You could at the very least, show * her * the same kind of civility.
** Tassey ** I didn’t want to get into this again, because it’s a hot button issue with most people, that a level-headed debate becomes impossible, so what’s the point?
Actually, tracer, THAT is one of the issues that bother me. Words have a great deal of power, they ought to be used as specific as one can. Being ‘pro-life’ would make the opposite ‘anti-life’, and I’m sure anyone who either supports abortion or is against the cessation it being available are most likely glad to be alive.
I don’t believe there will be meaningful dialogue on this subject, because most can’t agree on the premise of 'life’and when it begins. I believe that life starts at the moment of conception. Those favoring/acceptance of abortion believe otherwise.
If people who support the right to an abortion ever simply said, ‘yes, we believe life starts at the moment of conception, however we still want the right to end it, when and how we choose and it’s none of anyone’s business.’ There might be some headway in the debate. If people against abortion would cease and desist with the ‘scare and intimidate’ tactics seen at some clinics, there might actually be a chance for both sides to listen to the other.
Instead it ends up in screaming fights and fits about ‘fetus’ versus ‘baby’. ‘With no one goin’ no place, fast’.*
No one would say that because the argument is not about when life begins–it’s about when personhood begins. A sperm is alive, but nobody complains about the death of millions when guys jack off because a sperm is not a human. The question is: when does a potential human cross over into “human”? An egg is a potential human, so should we try for murder women who don’t get pregnant every period? A fertilized egg is a potential human, so should we outlaw birth control that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg? A fetus is a potential human, so is a miscarriage accidental manslaughter and should be tried in a court of law? No pro-lifer would agree that a human life can be ended whenever they choose; that would allow murder of any child to be acceptable. The question everyone argues is not over the right to end life (we casually end the life of bacteria, insects and animals–our true concern is for human life) , but over when a egg/sperm/zygote/fetus goes from being not-human-but-could-be-later to human.
Pro choice. Always have been, always will be. And proud to be helping groups in the fight to KEEP it legal.
I will agree with Anti Pro on one thing. This debate will never be settled. I think, and hope, and pray for the day where the debate over whether it should be legal has ended, and the pro-life groups work on influencing mothers peacefully. (By that, I mean without scare tactics.) But sadly, I don’t see that day coming for a LONG time.
She succumbed to what pressure? Why would anyone “pressure” a woman to have a second-trimester abortion unless her life was at stake? Also, if she really didn’t wish to have an abortion, she shouldn’t have- no matter who was pressuring her, and no matter if carrying the fetus to term and giving birth would surely kill her.
The concept of being pro-choice is not to encourage women to have abortions. It’s to preserve a woman’s right to do what she wishes with her own body. Until it is born, the fetus does not have a separate body; that is why it is correct to call it a “fetus”, not a “baby”.
A pro-choice person should not “pressure” a woman to have an abortion; forcing a woman to have an abortion is just as anti-choice as forcing her to carry the fetus to term.
tracer:
This reminds me of an incident that happened here in Amarillo a year or so ago. A dead newborn baby, umbilical cord still attached, was found in a trash bag in a dumpster. Police sealed off the scene, took their crime scene photos, and rushed the baby to Lubbock for an autopsy. The entire city was on the lookout for a suspected baby-killer.
Pretty soon, Lubbock called to inform the police that the baby was actually a lifelike doll, the sort used as a visual aid in prenatal classes.
I’m sure those crime-scene photos were pretty horrifying. I wonder if the police should have gone ahead and prosecuted the person who discarded the doll.
Click here for a neat picture of Gerri Santoro. Taken from a website which has many helpful links, she is seen laying on a Connecticut hotel room, her own blood splattered all over a towel, the victim of an illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade.
From the website:
A few nice stories from another wensite tells us these stories:
You also might want to check out this comprehensive review of When Abortion Was a Crime, which tells of how “In the late 1920s some 15,000 women a year died from abortions,” and how "The year after abortion was legalized in New York State, the maternal-mortality rate there dropped by 45 percent – one reason why legalization can be seen as “a public-health triumph.”
Also, feel free to order the video When Abortion Was Illegal - Untold Stories, which, according to one reviewer, is “Affectingly related stories…etch the climate of fear, pain, reprisal, and sometimes death.”
There is only one graphic picture above, but please take the time to read ALL of the articles, before responding. It’s very well documented and investigated.
Some people like to think the value of some congealing cells and blood is more than that of a breathing, thinking and living human being. I do not happen to agree.
And if the best you can do is post some yucky pictures, guess what? There are a ton of yucky pictures of women who died from back-alley abortions, just like Gerri Santoro.
It’s just that the pro-choice position is not so in the minority (look at any polls for verification of this) that all they have to go on is yucky pictures and ancient words in an unverifiable book to try and get people on their side.
Also, Tassey, what exactly have you done about the abortion problem? Have you adopted a young black child who is floundering in day care? Have you learned about contraceptions and volunteered to teach them to youth in your area? Have you volunteered for Planned Parenthood, who offer pregnant woman meny options to help them make a choice that is right for them? Have you taken in a poor young pregnant woman and helped her eat and raise her child?
Or have you just posted some links to some ugly pictures on a message board?
My very pro-choice fiancee is going to go to law school and become a child advocacy attourney so she can help facilitate adoptions and generally help this sitation by giving wome options.
Seems to me that my pro-choice fiancee is doing a lot more to prevent abortion than most pro-life people. Including yourself too, right?
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four weeks, 11 hours, 6 minutes and 6 seconds.
1138 cigarettes not smoked, saving $142.31.
Life saved: 3 days, 22 hours, 50 minutes.
Yes. And wouldn’t it be great to just take a bunch of them away from her? You know, make choices for her? I’ll bet she would love it if she was forced to do things that she would not otherwise choose. And you would too, I suppose…
**
Compare the number of late-term abortions with the number of ACTUAL HUMANS who have died from complications brought on by illegal abortions.
Then, take out the number of late-term abortions which are done because the woman’s life, her future ability to reproduce, the fetus, or any combination of the three is in serious jeopardy.
Well, actually, you shouldn’t do this, because then you’re stuck with the number ZERO, and that doesn’t help your case much, now does it?
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four weeks, 11 hours, 18 minutes and 31 seconds.
1138 cigarettes not smoked, saving $142.35.
Life saved: 3 days, 22 hours, 50 minutes.
Satan, while I agree with your first post for the most part, I’ll take exception to this:
There is a point where it is right for the law to prevent us from making certain choices. Generally this is when those choices infringe on the rights of others. If you believe that life (or “personhood” if you prefer) begins at conception, taking away the option of having an abortion is as logical as taking away the option of simply killin people you don’t like (not to imply that Anti Pro holds the two to be equivalent in any way).
How very convenient. “Every woman experiences ‘post-abortion trauma’.” “Here’s a woman who did not experience it.” Oh, she will." Oh, by the way, where in the medical literature does the term “post-abortion trauma” appear?
Well, obviously, it doesn’t appear anywhere in the medical literature because the evil pro-abortion Klinton administration is suppressing THE TRUTH! :rolleyes:
And every woman I’ve known who had an abortion experienced only immense relief. This includes me; my abortion was the result of a rape when I was barely 16. I had some posttraumatic stress from the rape itself and the other circumstances surrounding that unfortunate pregnancy, but no regret or guilt about the abortion itself. That was 13 years ago; maybe I’ll suddenly get stressed out about it “someday”.
IIRC, wasn’t there a major study done by the Bush or Reagan administration that intended to prove that women who have abortions suffer severe emotional problems afterwards? The results of the study were an embarrassment, because it was found that the only women who are likely to feel posttraumatic stress after an abortion were those who believed abortion to be morally wrong. (Helpful hint: if you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one.) I can find a cite if necessary.
Ok, I think that everyone can agree that back-alley abortions are bad. How does this imply that clinical ones are good? And as Gaudere points out, the issue is, when does a potential person become a person? At conception? When cell differentiation begins? When the heart starts beating? When neural activity starts? When they get their driver’s license? Suppose that a mother decides to kill her ten-year old son, and justifies it on the basis that he’s still wholly dependent on her, and hence not a person? Obviously, we don’t allow mothers to make this choice. At what point ought we to draw the line? It seems to me that drawing it when the fetus/baby happens to leave the womb is awfully arbitrary… How much real difference is there between an 9-month fetus and a newborn baby? I think that the logical dividing line is that a collection of human cells becomes a person when that collection of cells is capable of independent neural activity. If that collection of cells is, in fact, a person, then a woman no more has the right to choose to kill it than she has the right to kill her mother.
I’ll cut you off right there. You prove my point when you say “if you believe.”
Obviously laws take ethics and morality into consideration. But this is PERSONAL morality here, and if you DON’T believe “that life (or ‘personhood’ if you prefer) begins at conception,” then your right to do with your own body is being taken away.
Turn it around. Let’s say that someone tells you that you HAVE to get an abortion. You like that? I’ll bet they’d change their tune to become pro-choice if something like that were to happen, say as a draconian population control attept.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four weeks, 17 hours, 44 minutes and 43 seconds.
1149 cigarettes not smoked, saving $143.69.
Life saved: 3 days, 23 hours, 45 minutes.
I guess not the folks who want to outlaw all abortion, even in cases where health of the prospective mother is a major issue.
**
Well… Gee… How about people aren’t dying, except very, very rarely, as opposed to the mass slaughter when it was illegal?
**
At birth.
**
I really love that silly stawman argument.
[ul]
[li]A 10 year old is breathing on its own. A fetus never does.[/li][li]A 10 year old has a fully functioning brain. A fetus during the first trimester does not.[/li][li]A 10 year old has a fully functional nervous system. A etus during the first trimester, does not.[/li][li]A 10 year old is not physically attatched and owing it’s existance to its mother. A fetus - until well into the second trimester, is.[/li][/ul]
You want I should bring up any more obvious differences here?
**
First of all, there ain’t many abortions of nine-minth frtuses, and unless a major complication is found at that point, here are none.
Second of all, how much real difference is there between a live person and a newly deceased corpse? Why doesn’t the corpse have the same rights?
**
Are you aware of when that is, exactly? And are you aware of how many abortions not done because of complications and threats to the woman’s health take place after this moment?
I believe we took that particular strawman on elsewhere in his post.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four weeks, 18 hours, 1 minute and 14 seconds.
1150 cigarettes not smoked, saving $143.75.
Life saved: 3 days, 23 hours, 50 minutes.
No, but in ancient Rome, they did allow fathers to make that choice. Under ancient Roman law, a man’s child was considered his property until he reached the age of majority, and he could do anything he liked with his property, up to and including “disposing” of it.
Because women are going to have abortions whether they are legal or not, whether their husbands and clergy tell them to or not, whether they are administered by a well-scrubbed and doctor with the appropriate instruments, or by a money-grubbing butcher with a coat hanger.
Women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies for centuries using instruments of various types and herbs. Many have died (See Satan’s post re: stats on maternal mortality rates).
Unless the anti-abortionists convert everyone to their way of thinking, abortions will still take place. No matter what I think about when a fetus becomes a person or whether I would make the choice to abort, I would rather see my best friend/sister/mother live past reproductive age, than haemorrage to death in a hotel room.
So-called “pro-lifers” need to realize that when they try to make abortion illegal, their fight to “save babies” would result in a death sentence for the most desperate women.
So whose life do they value - that of a ghost of a being whom nobody loves, wants or has the ability to nurture; or that of a person who has had years to forge bonds with others, love and be loved and contribute to her community?
