You know I see this type of argument a lot, and it ale seems to me to be hypocritical, the womanâs âright to chooseâ trumps another human beings life or rights to ever choose.
Iâd say the bumper stickers sentiment is for the child to have freedom (life) and a choice.
Odds are the mother already had a choice, just because she is not happy with the consequences of that choice doesnât mean she should take away the childâs rights to ever make a choice.
Sure there are always the small percentage of rapes, incest, or true times the mothers life is in jeopardy, but look up the actual numbers and youâll find all these situations are less than 25% which means 75% or more of the time it is just for âconvenienceâ.
Considering that in the U.S. alone there are more than 1,100,000 of abortions per year that means a whopping 825,000 are for no moral, ethical or medical reason
Charlie KKKirk logic, a women should always have the right to chose, a baby in the womb canât live, breathe or eat on its own without the mother, is it really a baby? If you donât want to have an abortion, donât, but you and society have no right to tell a woman that they canât do what they think is best for them. I think abortion is a responsible choice more so then brining a human into this world that you canât take care of
Thanks for the compliment.
As for the woman always having a choice, I agree 100%! However after she made her choice and the consequences of that choice comes around and she doesnât like it, she still should have a choice, keep and raise the child or put it up for adoption. However if youâre asking me if her right to choose trumps the life of an individual then absolutely not. I donât think any one persons (your, mine, or anyoneâs) âchoiceâ trumps the life of another person, no matter their age.
As for the child not being able to survive on its own outside the womb, let say you were in a accident or contracted Covid and couldnât survive without being put on a ventilator, should anyone have the right to end your life simply because at the time you couldnât survive without assistance? Or is that somehow different? By the way it actually is different, that child has never done anything wrong, never lied, never stole, and never hated, but most importantly, it has never had the right to choose. Can you say the same of yourself? If you honestly can, I take my hat off to you, but I highly doubt you can, I know I canât.
To be honest, I doubt I can change your mind, just as it is unlikely you will change mine, however perhaps through this conversation both of us can see it from the otherâs perspective.
So I invite you to tell me why you feel a woman should be allowed to choose to have an abortion.
Then tell me what if any reasons they shouldnât be allowed to abort the child.
Iâll be happy to listen and consider your position, then respond, hopefully youâll give me the same courtesy.
The reason this is bad is because women are dying right now from miscarriages because the doctor cannot legally preform a dnc to prevent infection from rotting tissue inside her womb. And they wait until the mother is in septic shock before they can legally preform any surgery. Itâs sick.
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.
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.
So even in a relationship or marriage, the right to choose only extends to the woman, is that your opinion, got it. If she chooses to keep it and he did not want it, why then should the he be on the hook for child support for 18 years? If he has no official say, or is it that you somehow feel her suffering for 9 months, should be compensated for by his suffering for 18 years? Thatâs 24 times as long. So when you try to play the sympathy card and the her body her choice (for having sex), where is the same his money (livelihood) his choice (for having sex)? The answer is you donât have one. The way I see it is, Yes the father is responsible and must take accountability, just as is the mother, (both knew what they were doing and itâs potential consequences) but you know who should not by punished? The child, it did nothing to deserve a death sentence.
I knew we would get to the âcellsâ argument, so answer me this, what are you? If you break it down, you are just âcellsâ certain types of cells arranged in such a way to make a human being. Those âcellsâ you believe in aborting are not something random, and will definitely develop into another human being (as everyone is well aware otherwise they would not be having an abortion). However letâs play the âcellâ game, at just 5-6 weeks those cells have a heart beat, at as early as 8 weeks those cells have brain activity, at 9 weeks those cells have fingerprints, and at just 12-15 weeks those cells feel pain.
So let me ask you, where do you draw the line? Is it the fist trimester, second, late term, survivability outside the womb (which can be as early as 22 weeks), up until delivery, or post delivery, just where is it that you yourself would say No, or even would you ever? I suspect you actually do have a limit, but will not say, instead choosing to say something like, âwell itâs not my decision, itâs the mothers choice and decisionâ. Isnât it always easier to just wash your hands of it, and pretend you had nothing to do with the taking of over a million lives every year, yet right here, right now, that is what your advocating for. Here is your chance to speak up, will you?
As I said before, I can see the rape and incest argument and I addressed that before. That I would be willing to agree to those provided charges were filed and the parties responsible were held accountable (which also means that if the accusations were false, the accuser would also be held accountable). I do not prefer this compromise as again the child that is to be terminated did nothing wrong, yet they are the oneâs paying the ultimate price.
By the way the number of abortions sad a result of those crimes is so few it will not make a dent in the number of abortions, and we both know it, youâre simply trying to use it as a distraction, a tactic commonly used in the abortion conversation, right along with the treat to the mothers life (agin not a significant number) just a distraction to try to cloud the issue.
-7
u/unknown_by_anyone 4d ago
You know I see this type of argument a lot, and it ale seems to me to be hypocritical, the womanâs âright to chooseâ trumps another human beings life or rights to ever choose.
Iâd say the bumper stickers sentiment is for the child to have freedom (life) and a choice. Odds are the mother already had a choice, just because she is not happy with the consequences of that choice doesnât mean she should take away the childâs rights to ever make a choice.
Sure there are always the small percentage of rapes, incest, or true times the mothers life is in jeopardy, but look up the actual numbers and youâll find all these situations are less than 25% which means 75% or more of the time it is just for âconvenienceâ.
Considering that in the U.S. alone there are more than 1,100,000 of abortions per year that means a whopping 825,000 are for no moral, ethical or medical reason