- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 6,405
- Reaction score
- 4,811
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, it wouldn't change anything. I'd still be for keeping first trimester abortions legal.
It isn't a tumor...
it isn't a mouse...
... it is a baby.
You do realize that very few abortions are actually performed for a legitimate health reason, right?
Look...if I shoot some dude dead, I will have to satisfy a jury (or at least, the solicitor) that I did so because he was a threat to my life.
Maybe holding abortion to the same standard wouldn't be quite so unreasonable, especially since we're talking about a baby here, not an adult criminal.
(general rant follows, fair warning)
I hate to tell some of you, but we're talking about two lives here, and it isn't all about you and what you want or need. You ought to have to have a pretty good reason before killing a baby.
We (everyone) villify women like Susan Smith, who killed her own children, yet let someone dare say that maybe, just maybe, you ought to have a good reason before being allowed to kill your unborn child and people act as if you are some kind of idiot.
It gets tiresome. It isn't a tumor, it isn't a mouse, it is a baby. So maybe in the first few weeks in doesn't look much like one, so what... should we be allowed to kill newborns for the crime of being deformed or ugly? So for the first few weeks it doesn't have enough brain to be sentient... if you fricking leave it alone for a few months it WILL be sentient!
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to get an abortion for a legitimate risk to your life... I'm just saying that it isn't so damn unreasonable to ask someone to provide a decent reason before allowing them to end the life of the baby in their womb.
It blows my mind that so many of the same people who agonize over the issue of putting a murderer to death, who badmouth the military because once in a while civilians in the middle of a war-zone get killed, don't bat an eye over putting an unborn baby to death with no need for any reason other than "mommy doesn't want me."
It isn't arrogant to expect someone to provide a damn reason why before allowing them to kill their baby. So it's in your womb... location doesn't alter humanity. So it's dependent on your body... a baby will be dependent on someone for their life for many years; a sick person may be dependent on hospital staff until they get better. These are not good arguments.
If it's nobody's business if you have an abortion, or whether you have a good reason for it, then it's nobody's business that Susan Smith decided to kill her children or why. Both events end innocent human life.
A man is held liable for 18 years of child support, whether he wanted a baby or not... "well, you had sex with her, you should have known she could get pregnant!" Yet asking a woman to tolerate a baby depending on her for just 9 months for the same reason, unless she has a good reason why not, is arrogant and tyrannical. What hypocrisy.
One day a spot on a stick turns blue and a woman says "I have an unwanted non-human lump of tissue in my womb, which I will have removed through abortion because I don't want to be pregnant right now. This is not a baby, and it's nobody's business but mine." Some years later another strip turns blue for that same woman, and she says "Oh I'm so happy, I'm having a baby! There's a life growing inside of me! My boyfriend doesn't want a baby though, but screw him, I'll make him pay child support anyway. Isn't everyone so happy for me?"
Honestly, does nobody see just a bit of a contradiction there?? The inconsistent hypocrisy of it makes my blood boil.
(end rant. We now return to your normal, mild-mannered Goshin.)
I do agree with you, it a baby isn't going to be life-threatening in anyway, and the mother doesn't want the baby, she can allow someone to adopt the child. To kill the baby is murder, but sometimes, it quite frankly has to be done: when the mother and/or the baby will die at birth.
Except when it is, as in the case of hydatidiform moles, which are actually far more common, especially among certain ethnic and geographic populations, than one might think.
True; it's far less relevant than a mouse, which is a sentient creature.
Bwahaha. Puh-leeze. :roll:
Exactly. Babies are precious. Zygotes are not. If I started thinking that babies and zygotes were equally precious, it would inevitably reduce the significance I attach to babies.
I don't know. But I do know some of the points where it has not started at all yet: All zygotes.When is the baby a baby? A zygote is a maturing human at an earlier stage of maturity than a baby. Embryo. A toddler is another stage of maturing human. Teenagers. Where does your attachment start?
Should? I said nothing about should. I commented about indulging yourself in absurdity. If you continue to believe that zygotes are as significant as babies, you will inevitably reduce the moral significance of babies. This is because zygotes ARE, by their nature, insignificant. If you make babies and zygotes equivalent, your mind will eventually attempt to reconcile this illogic. It will do so partly by reducing the significance of babies.I care about a what is inside the pregnant tummy of a woman, does that reduce the significance that I should attach to a born baby. C'mon, that's just ridiculous.
I don't know. But I do know some of the points where it has not started at all yet: All zygotes.
Should? I said nothing about should. I commented about indulging yourself in absurdity. If you continue to believe that zygotes are as significant as babies, you will inevitably reduce the moral significance of babies. This is because zygotes ARE, by their nature, insignificant. If you make babies and zygotes equivalent, your mind will eventually attempt to reconcile this illogic. It will do so partly by reducing the significance of babies.
I hear that. Well said. I was seeking clarification and you provided it. Thanks.
I agree that zygotes and babies, even embryos, are not comparable. I do feel that an unborn baby after three months is certainly as endearing as a born baby.
I can say I think they look endearing, but since I have never interacted with one, I can't say whether or not they in fact are.
My current stance is simple, but also complex. The (human) organism transforms in a steady manner from human zygote to human baby. It steadily becomes more significant as it matures into babyhood. I am uncertain when it actually does become a baby. The later the abortion (as simple contraception), the more it is like murder. At some point, morally, it is simply that: Murder.
I think this position is completely dissatisfying to many people because it isn't black and white enough.
Tiresome? Tiresome is having to listening to males that have no clue! The day you can CARRY that around for 9 Months? I may take you serious. Til then? Nope!
You wanna try your hand at carrying around a something that was the result of incest or rape? I bet you would not be so frigging pro-life Then! I know your temper based on your post and then and only then would you get an understanding. But that is never gonna happen.
Tiresome is having to "explain" what I may do to MY body to anybody! Again: once you can carry around that something? Get back to me. Til then? You have no clue!
Nope. Still trying to tell a woman what she should or should not do or have to take in reguards to HER BODY
hmmm when is abortion murder? when the fetus is viable outside the womb, I believe that happens at about 28 weeks, which is about 7 months of pregnancy
hmmm when is abortion murder? when the fetus is viable outside the womb, I believe that happens at about 28 weeks, which is about 7 months of pregnancy
Honestly, does nobody see just a bit of a contradiction there?? The inconsistent hypocrisy of it makes my blood boil.
Do you understand that, to me, the difference between aborting an unborn, and deciding to kill one's 2 year old, is more a matter of degree than kind? And that I have a problem with killing children without a very good reason?
Do you understand that the reason I have a problem with legalized anytime-anywhere-any reason abortion is much the same as why I would oppose the legalization of infanticide?
It's because I think human life, most especially that most innocent form of human life (babies), should not be taken without an awfully good reason why.
Nope. Still trying to tell a woman what she should or should not do or have to take in reguards to HER CHILD'S BODY
Fixed it for you :2wave:
Tiresome? Tiresome is having to listening to males that have no clue! The day you can CARRY that around for 9 Months? I may take you serious. Til then? Nope!
You wanna try your hand at carrying around a something that was the result of incest or rape? I bet you would not be so frigging pro-life Then! I know your temper based on your post and then and only then would you get an understanding. But that is never gonna happen.
Tiresome is having to "explain" what I may do to MY body to anybody! Again: once you can carry around that something? Get back to me. Til then? You have no clue!
Kali, I'm male, and if you've paid any attention at all you'd know I have a lot more than just a clue.
1. My wife got pregnant against my wishes... she asked me if I wanted her to abort. I said no, even though at the time I was thinking that I'd made a terrible mistake in marrying her a few months earlier. (turns out, I had.)
2. When our son was 2, she went off to do her own "free spirit" thing and left us alone. I've spent the past dozen years raising a child from babyhood alone, making that my top priority, sacrificing everything else in life that got in the way. I paid my ****ing dues.
3. I may not have carried my child inside my body for nine months, but by gosh I've carried him on my back for 12 years, with damnall help from his mother, so bite me.
I've paid my dues and earned the right to a gall-damn opinion!
You haven't done anything that any normal parent of either sex wouldn't do; nor have you done anything that gives you any special credibility when it comes to telling women what they ought to do with their bodies.
Originally Posted by 1069
You haven't done anything that any normal parent of either sex wouldn't do; nor have you done anything that gives you any special credibility when it comes to telling women what they ought to do with their bodies.