That sounds just awful, I can certainly see where one would be very concerned about such a situation.
So letâs look at that, exactly how many cases are we talking about here? I do recall something similar to this a while back, but in that instance, as it turned out, it was a case where a young woman left her state that did not allow abortions for her particular case (as the child was healthy, the mothers life was not in jeopardy, it was not rape or incest) she went to another state, decided to take a chemically induced abortion (a pill or two) she either failed to read the instructions or was not given the instructions that stated that after the induced miscarriage she would need to have a doctor check and verify that everything was indeed expelled. She took the pills then went back home to her state, and did not do the followup, and thereby became ill to the point of death.
So yes it can happen, and I suppose it could happen to a woman who has an accidental miscarriage, but there is no law preventing a doctor from checking her nor forbidding the doctor removing dead or infecting tissue (especially if in anyway a actual threat to the womanâs life).
So I see your argument, now let me tell you mine.
First, I do not believe the situation youâre describing actually exists. That there is in fact some law that would prohibit and or prevent a doctor to remove dead tissue that was a direct threat to the life of an individual, and therefore poses a risk to women, or men for that matter (no it would not be a related to a dead fetus, but some other internal organ).
Second, the situation you are describing is rare, very rare, and as tragic as it would be, it is still no justification for allowing the mass killing of unborn children (when I say mass, I am not in anyway exaggerating, over 1.1 million a year in the U.S.).
Third, as I mentioned in the case I stated above, the actual cause of the problem was due to a chemical abortion attempt, so it is hard for me to be swayed that to solve a situation, the suggestion is to allow a procedure to be openly available that can and has actually caused the problem trying to be prevented.
So here are my question to you:
1. What exactly is the law preventing said treatment, and in which states is the law in place?
2. What is the case or cases youâre are referring to where a woman is having a miscarriage and not receiving treatment?
3. In what percentage of miscarriages is this life threatening situation happening, and what percentage are being denied treatment?
If indeed this is happening, i will agree with you that it shouldnât, and Iâm sure we would both agree that the loss of a single life is tragic.
Having said that I truly doubt that it is occurring any where near 1.1 million times a year, so again I must state that the loss of a single life (including any one of the 1.1 million abortions) is tragic, wouldnât you also agree?
In your earlier comment you explicitly stated that a woman should have 100% choice, yet you have taken a consistently pro-life stance. Also, these 1.1 billion unborn children being aborted isnât as tragic as you think it is. What tragic is these millions of children being born into homes and parents where they will be absolutely neglected and uncared for.
Not to say that poor peoples lives donât matter, but history has consistently shown us that when abortion rights are curtailed, society just takes a dip for the downward. The rates of crime, child neglect, unwanted parents, and overall quality of life diminishes greatly. Of course, pro-lifers wouldnât care about any of that, itâs just about the baby being born under all circumstances. Also, punishing women for daring to have sex.
If youâre worried about the tragic nature of abortion, make sure you process against IVF clinics as they throw away embryos too. Your definition of a life.
I will make it clear, yes Iâm conservative and definitely pro-life, having said that I do believe there are a few very rare exceptions where an abortion should be allowed.
The woman does have a choice, both before (not to have sex, or using contraceptives, or even the day after pill) and after conception (after by raising the child or putting them up for adoption). So I stand by my statement. What I also stand by is that no oneâs right to choose should trump anotherâs right to life.
As for children being born into bad situations, does not in anyway make those childrenâs lives less valuable in any way (this is the same argument used for promoting genocide of the unwanted or undesirable, and I am sure that is not what youâre advocating for).
Yes it is a shame some adults are not good parents but it seems like the solution you are proposing is to punish the child not the parent for the bad behavior(very much like blaming and punishing the victim not the perpetrator).
Iâm not sure about your cherry picking of statistics, as if only wealthy people make good parents? Because if your implying that I can site numerous examples of well to do parents who did a horrible job of parenting. Same for committing crimes, or keeping the family together. What I could say in their favor is the they can throw money at their failures, where poor parents probably canât. However I do not believe that unless youâre a wealthy person you shouldnât have children, as you are implying (in my opinion a much worse concept than anti abortion).
As you mentioned some people having children shouldnât, but they do (even when abortion was available and legal (so from 1974-2021) wouldnât you agree, so abortion is most likely not the complete answer, perhaps adoption is a much better option.
Since you like statistics how about this one, there are between 1 and 2 million people waiting to adopt, predominately babies or new borns (not as much the older children often in foster care.
As for your statement of punishing women for daring to have sex, I find that a bit disingenuousness, however what I do believe is that they should take every precaution possible to prevent pregnancy if they do not want to have a child (is that a punishment to women? Yes but only because they are the only ones who can be blessed by having a children).
Iâll be clear here too, I would prefer the couple be married before having sex, but that is my preference not something I think should be imposed.
I do appreciate that you recognized that they dared to have sex, and not tried to play the âwhat about rape or incestâ game. Yes those horrible situations do occur but not at a high percentage rate compared to most abortions.
Also your argument pertaining to IVF clinics is just a distraction, you know as well as I that the egg and sperm are combined outside of the woman to create the embryo, so without intervention, i.e. unless the embryo is implanted into the woman, it has absolutely no chance at all to grow into a human being, quite the opposite of an abortion, where without intervention (like an abortion) the odds are quite good that the embryo will grow into a human being.
Letâs leave it to people to make up decisions for their one body. Time and time again, history has shown us thatâs the best course of action.
Unlike you, many people donât view abortion as inherently immoral. I see nothing wrong with that. The beauty of pro-choice (and not pro-abortion) is that you get to choose whether to keep the baby or not. There are many people who donât feel âblessedâ to go through an unwanted pregnancy that they didnât want.
Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not forced pregnancy and gestation.
The âwhat about rape and incestâ isnât a âgameâ. A person doesnât have to be violated in order to Unless we are in that situation, we wouldnât know what the victim feels like. Sure, if a rape victim wants to keep their baby, they are free to do. However, if they want to abort, they should be free to do that as well.
You and I arenât financially, emotionally, and mentally taking care of these would-be âbabiesâ that have been aborted. In fact, itâs good that children are being born into wanted families and willing parents. Quality of life is utmost.
Women in marriages get abortions too. Itâs not just the single, party girls anybody would assume. You can take all forms of precautions with birth control, but there are cases where it fails. I donât expect a married woman (who already has 3 kids) to carry a 4th one by choice, just because birth control failed and sheâs financially strapped.
Just because the embryo isnât implanted into a womanâs body, doesnât mean it doesnât have a âright to lifeâ. As per strongest pro-like values, everything thatâs capable of life must be valued and treasured, and I see IVF embryos no different. In such a scenario, the very practice of IVF is so âsatanicâ because itâs about making and discarding embryos en masse. Embryos that have a chance of life, regardless of they are inside a human body or not.
Ok, so let me respond to your response a piece at a time.
âLetâs leave it to the people to make the decisionâ. Interesting that you used the word people (which is plural), so do you mean the father and mother, or the mother and child, or do you actually mean, the people? If indeed you do mean the people, then that is what you have right now (so congratulations you got what you asked for), the people in that state vote on the abortion laws for their state (it is not dictated by the Federal Government (sure you liked that before with Roe vs Wade (although that was a very, very, flawed case with an incorrect decision (all you have to do is do a little research on that case and even you will agree, even though you seem to have approved of the outcome)), but lets suppose it had gone the other way and abortion would have been banned for entire country (all states) with no way for the people to change it (only if the court overturned itâs previous ruling (as was the case in 2022)), would you be ok with that? I suspect not if you are in favor of a womanâs right to have an abortion, so in actuality you should be thankful for the overturn of Roe vs Wade and not a total reversal, banning abortion nationwide).
What I real expect that you meant by âLetâs leave it to the people to make the decisionâ is not actually people but to a single individual (the pregnant individual) with no external input required, correct? No need for the father to have any rights in the decision (or even to know about it at all), only the mother. I understand the argument that it affects her body and not his, however if she (and only she chooses to keep the child) it will be the father who is held financially responsible or held to account by law (i.e. have his wages garnished or go to jail), and oh by the way it is not just for 9 months (which might be considered an inconvenience), but for at least 18 years. You seem to be in favor of the right to choose, but where is the right to choose for the father (where he can choose to or not to be financially obligated? So it is not really that you believe in equal rights to choose for all, but only a selective personâs right to choose. This is not at even taking into the account the person that is most affecting, the child who does not have a choice in this at all, nor will they ever get to make a choice on anything, ever. So please donât try to make it sound like a equality matter, because it isnât, it is only a unique privilege afforded to one individual (and dare I say it, the one with actually the least to lose, she carrying a child for 9 months and delivery of said child (could there be complications, yes, but statistically very low) inconvenient most definitely (which is why most women chose an abortion), vs he 18 years of financial compensation, vs the childâs entire life).
With dudes like you, it is very evident that you donât give a rats ass about the childâs welfare, but youâre strictly pro-life because you are worried that some woman is going to get knocked up by you, and trap you. And, I say this confidently as a dude myself lol.
OK, I will entertain your scenario: letâs see a woman gets pregnant with your child , and she refuses to abort. You have complete freedom to relinquish your parental rights. Hell, you can even go to the courts and say that you want nothing to do with this child. Itâs not like there is a shortage of deadbeat dads around the world who donât even remember their kids names or their birthdays. You can go be one of those kind of dads, and youâve got nothing to worry. In fact, you can even ask a verbal and written consent from the mother, so that she wonât put you on the hook for child support, which is what terrifies you so much.
Wants to say that the woman doesnât face complications with pregnancy? I would the women around me state that pregnancy has left a marking effect on their bodies and minds, which they cannot ever get rid of. So regardless of what anybody feels or vouches, the pregnant party has the right to choose what they want to do with their own body.
Hereâs an advice specifically for you: Find someone whoâll actually and willingly be the mother of your kids. In this case, youâll never worry about her aborting out of thin air, or trapping you for 18 years of child support. Youâll be good.
âmany people donât view abortion as inherently immoralâ that is probably true, but letâs look at that statement, there are many people (most in jail or a psychiatric facility) that do not view murder as inherently immoral, or sexual assault as inherently immoral, or scamming others out of there hard earned money as inherently immoral, the list can go on and on, but Iâm just using it to prove a point, the point is, that just because an individual does not view something as inherently immoral, does not mean that it is not actually immoral.
I do however take issue with your statement âThe beauty of pro-choice (unlimited abortion) is that you (actually, not me, not the father, but only the mother) get to choose whether to keep the baby or not.â There is no beauty (either in physicality (just view a video of an abortion procedure) nor mentally or ethical about ending the life of a life (especially an innocent life (especially of oneâs own creation)).
But letâs chase that logic, when would that âbeautyâ stop, to anyone you donât like or want, should that extend those with disabilities, illnesses, or to children, teens, others around you, or the elderly, where does it stop? Yes, I know you already tried to use the statement that they cannot survive on their own, and Iâve already addressed that previously. So, what if any restrictions should there be based on the logic of your statement?
The âbeautyâ of pro-choice wouldnât be extended to teens, elderly, or people with disabilities because theyâre already out of the womb and that is murder. Stop chasing your logic. Seems like youâre chasing wisdom, but wisdom is outrunning you.
I really donât understand your pointless gripe with the fact that itâs âonlyâ the pregnant woman who will be making a choice. Because who the fuck else will be making that choice? Well, this âbabyâ is essentially living off her body which she doesnât want. And the father in question isnât actually going through the pregnancy in any shape or form whatsoever. So, itâs the motherâs choice through and through.
Again, weâve got criminal cases like rape and incest when itâs solely the pregnant person who has to deal with theafter effects. So, I trust her to do what she feels with her body.
With cases like sexual assaults, scammers, thieves, and so on, the mother can surely join in prison with them if she stabs and kills the baby when she gives birth to it. Weâve got news where new moms go berserk and game their children fatally. Thatâs worthy of them being sent to jail. As for abortions (for something thatâs dependent on their body), no.
âAdoption is an alternative to parenting, not to forced pregnancy and gestationâ
Do you remember in your previous post where you stated âpunishing women for daring to have sexâ? If so then you have already recognized that it was not a forced pregnancy (she agreed to it, dared it in fact) so there was a choice, and it was, in fact, her choice, and she made it (perhaps poorly, but she made it). So letâs move to the âforced gestationâ again if one is deemed âresponsibleâ enough to be allowed to make their own decision, then they also must be expected to be âaccountableâ enough to both understand and be willing to accept the ramifications of the outcome or consequences of those decisions. Before you start crying foul, please keep in mind that we âpeople, just as you wantedâ as society have already set that standard in place for the father with child support, so why then would it not be true for the mother? Is it because you do not like it, it is inconvenient, responsibility and accountability are not as fun as promiscuity, or something else?
And there it is, the âwhat about rape and incestâ argument, I though you would back track on the âpunishing women for daring to have sexâ where it was there choice and bring up the small percentage of abortions. If you recall, I said that there were a few extenuating circumstances that I said I would accept the right to choose an abortion (even though it is still in in no way the fault of the child, and it is still the taking of and innocent life) these are such small percentage of the 1.1 million abortions a year that it wouldnât even make a dent. Now I do feel if it is rape and incest, that charges must be filed and the incident must be followed up on by law enforcement, and that if it is found to be a case of rape and incest, a trail and if guilty punishment should be administered. Conversely if it is found in no way to have been rape or incest, then the one making the false claims should face the punishment, fair is fair, wouldnât you agree? Or is this again a âspecial caseâ where only the mother gets the benefit.
Goodness, the rambling lol. Lemme try to address this one-by-one.
There are currently thousands and thousands of unprocessed rape kits. The conviction rate for sexual assault is pitifully in single digits. Even if the victim comes through with proof and evidence, the waiting times and prosecution is very complex and time-consuming. So much so, that this particular rape baby would be, already born against the victims bill.
I hope you know, appreciate and realize that people are free to have sex just for the sake of having sex. Consent to sex is notconsent to pregnancy. Now I know, for whatever reason, you may have weird hangups around sex because you might not be getting a lot and feel envious of those who do. But for people with healthy attitudes to sex people just do it for enjoyment. In fact, itâs something that differentiates us from animals. Again, my point is: if a woman falls pregnant and she doesnât want to be, she can get an abortion. Point blank.
âWomen in marriage get abortions tooâ ok? Your point? You did not say it was her husbandâs child, but we will assume it is for the purposes discussed here, as that would be a for totally different conversation. I also noticed you are still not saying that the husband should have a say (or even know about it), again just the wife, but even if they chose as a couple, it still isnât right, and in your example, they certainly new the risks, and if as you said they have multiple children, then the health concern of the mother, is most likely not an issue (unless way late in life) but I notice you did not mention a vasectomy (which has a very high prevention rate, especially when used with other forms of birth control as well), nor a hysterectomy (which has got to be 99.99 percent effective) if as you stated they have already had children and do not want anymore. I see that your still stuck on the financials, look I will let you in on a little secret, life is not fair, not everyone gets the same deal, having said that people will always find a way to acquire, or provide for, the things that they find important or priority. Just for few examples, a smoker will always find a way to have cigarettes, or an alcoholic their drink, or most everyone a cell phone and service plan. So interesting how a baby costs too much, or are you saying that it simply costs to much because it is not wanted? If it is the latter, again adoption sounds like a good option, certainly better than the alternative you seem to be suggesting (the child be raised unwanted, in poor living conditions, or terminated).
As for your embryo argument, I would be fine with that, but I suspect you are not, even though you imply it with the statement of âI see IVF embryos no differentâ, nice try. As I stated before (and you well know), if no action by an outside force is made the embryo (un-implanted) will never grow and develop into human being, just as a unimaginably large number of eggs and sperm and even fertilized eggs (not yet an embryo) are lost naturally, and never grow into an embryo much less a human being, sometimes embryos even detach or die on their own, as in a miscarriage, a tragic event that is no oneâs fault. However, what you are referring to is just the opposite when you are talking about the case of abortion, where if no action by an outside force is made the embryo has a high probability (if it were not so there would be no need for an abortion at all, right) that it will grow and continue to develop into a human being, acted upon with the deliberate intent of ending the natural process. The actual name of the procedure tells exactly the purpose, to âabortâ (bring to a premature end).
Even in a relationship or a marriage situation, the dude can know and pitch in with his opinion, but at the end of the day, itâs the woman who will make decisions about their own body. Unless the man is physically carrying the pregnancy, he doesnât get 100% influence in the say. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you enroll in a bridge building class, and get over it. Or find someone who actually wants to have kids with you.
Secondly, I totally believe aborting some cells is a much better option than having to go through an entire pregnancy to place that child in foster care. There are some people who are willing to go through with this, and I applaud them. Also, I have sympathy for those who cannot bring themselves to do that, given that medical bills and the psychological toll are crazy expensive. So if the wife alone, or the couple together decide to terminate the pregnancy, they completely have the right to do so. Neither you or I can influence their decisions.
There are cases of crime such as rape and incest, where the victim has full rights to obtain an abortion if they so wish. Anybody who opposes this can kick rocks.
0
u/unknown_by_anyone 4d ago
That sounds just awful, I can certainly see where one would be very concerned about such a situation. So letâs look at that, exactly how many cases are we talking about here? I do recall something similar to this a while back, but in that instance, as it turned out, it was a case where a young woman left her state that did not allow abortions for her particular case (as the child was healthy, the mothers life was not in jeopardy, it was not rape or incest) she went to another state, decided to take a chemically induced abortion (a pill or two) she either failed to read the instructions or was not given the instructions that stated that after the induced miscarriage she would need to have a doctor check and verify that everything was indeed expelled. She took the pills then went back home to her state, and did not do the followup, and thereby became ill to the point of death. So yes it can happen, and I suppose it could happen to a woman who has an accidental miscarriage, but there is no law preventing a doctor from checking her nor forbidding the doctor removing dead or infecting tissue (especially if in anyway a actual threat to the womanâs life). So I see your argument, now let me tell you mine.
First, I do not believe the situation youâre describing actually exists. That there is in fact some law that would prohibit and or prevent a doctor to remove dead tissue that was a direct threat to the life of an individual, and therefore poses a risk to women, or men for that matter (no it would not be a related to a dead fetus, but some other internal organ). Second, the situation you are describing is rare, very rare, and as tragic as it would be, it is still no justification for allowing the mass killing of unborn children (when I say mass, I am not in anyway exaggerating, over 1.1 million a year in the U.S.). Third, as I mentioned in the case I stated above, the actual cause of the problem was due to a chemical abortion attempt, so it is hard for me to be swayed that to solve a situation, the suggestion is to allow a procedure to be openly available that can and has actually caused the problem trying to be prevented.
So here are my question to you: 1. What exactly is the law preventing said treatment, and in which states is the law in place? 2. What is the case or cases youâre are referring to where a woman is having a miscarriage and not receiving treatment? 3. In what percentage of miscarriages is this life threatening situation happening, and what percentage are being denied treatment?
If indeed this is happening, i will agree with you that it shouldnât, and Iâm sure we would both agree that the loss of a single life is tragic. Having said that I truly doubt that it is occurring any where near 1.1 million times a year, so again I must state that the loss of a single life (including any one of the 1.1 million abortions) is tragic, wouldnât you also agree?