To all pro-choicers out there, what those who are pro-lifers will

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   
   NEVER, EVER understand about a woman's unmitigated right to choose & control her reproductive destiny?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      An apropos poster child you've selected.  Quintessential reason and compassion conveyed.  So far, so good.
      Note:  "right to choose" = "kill her baby", (just so we are clear).

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Good evening, bBerean.
         
         To be honest with you, I am not convinced your equation contains much clarity at all. Perhaps you are a tad too hasty in your judgement.
         
         Actually, “Kill her baby” = your attempt to demonize a woman you do not know for making a decision you can not possibly comprehend solely because you disagree with her conclusions, beliefs, or ethics. Obviously, it is your view that her conclusions must agree with your conclusions in order for her’s to be valid.
         
         In addition, you have considered her past and current mental and physical health. Right? You have carefully examined the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. You have convinced yourself that her decision is somehow your business. You have established in your own mind that you are better suited than she is to judge how she makes her life decisions. Oh yes! In addition, you have a medical degree that has trained you to interpret and process her history.
         
         Someone we both know and respect once wrote, “Truly believing any conclusion requires you reach it yourself.” {1} I agree with that statement. It is reason enough to allowed a woman to reach conclusions herself without unsolicited and ill-informed opinions.
         
         {1}| http://bberean.hubpages.com/

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Totally agree with you Quilligrapher.  Abortion is a harrowing journey for many women.  Women undergo abortion for many reasons including rape and incest.  Women have the right to wanted and planned pregnancies.  No women should be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy nor unwanted children.  It is better to undergo an abortion in the very, very early stages than to have an unwanted child or to give the child away.   I also would like to inform bBerean  that abortion in its early stages is not murder as there is no viable life.  Quilligrapher, you always add an intelligent and broadminded slant to the discussion.  You are always welcome to participate in my posts anytime!  Have a wonderful weekend!

            replyreport
         2. 66

            A Thousand Wordsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Always well said, Mr. Q.

            replyreport
         3. 60

            bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Greetings Quilligrapher.
            
            
            
            A great deal has gone into my conclusions on this matter, and making an assumption otherwise may have made you a bit hasty in your judgment.  I do believe the equation is that clear, and although the other side will never acquiesce to it, the view is quite defensible.
            
            
            
            Here you have read a lot into very little.  Attempt to demonize?  No, simply clarifying what should be obvious.  The first priority, it seems, in the "pro-choice" side, is to downplay what we are talking about...ending a human life that has been initiated as evidenced by the fact that without intervention they are likely to live for another 80 years or so.
            
            
            
            Your clairvoyance, which to draw so much from the little I said, must be your source, may be failing you.  I was simply stating that ending a life in progress is killing.  Debating when life begins would be an appropriate response to that.  Instead you go on about the circumstances which might lead to a person justifying the killing in question.  It seems a signature of yours to mask your arrogance and assumption in eloquence, and it has served you well.  All that you have assumed and interjected in an attempt to demean me are irrelevant to the equation I posed.  All the conclusions you have drawn about me have nothing to do with my equating abortion to killing.  It is more about your attempting to silence opposition via derision.
            
            
            
            Clever to imply my own words somehow support the idea that nobody else should be allowed to voice an opinion or try to influence the decision to kill an innocent, unborn person.  All I was seeking was the honesty to call abortion what it is...killing, plain and simple.  From there the debate can continue as to when or if society should allow or facilitate it, and if so, how, why and who should be involved in the decision to do that killing, and who should pay for it.
            
            
            As a side note Quilligrapher, allow me to say I have long been a fan of your methodology and execution of it.  I recognize the intellect in play as you weave into your interchanges varied approaches, carefully tailored to undermine and confuse your adversary.  You frequently leave folks uncertain how to respond and the air of superiority inherent, (if not intended), in your discourse may render them reluctant to try.  Bracketing strong opinions and tactfully deployed manipulative techniques between a polite greeting and closing, you in many ways, quantify effective civil, yet spirited, exchanges.  On the surface what appears simple and straight forward can be deceptively influential, with those persuaded largely unaware of how or why.  For wielding these rare abilities, you do have my respect, even if we rarely agree.

            replyreport
2. 95

   wildernessposted 10 years ago

   As a male, standing on the outside and looking in at the argument, I have no more difficulty in understanding the pro-life argument than the pro-choice.  The only real difficulty is in understanding why the other side (either side) finds it necessary to demonize the other.
   
   A woman's right to control her womb does NOT mean she has a right to murder, and the pro-lifers find abortion to be murder.  To demonize that lifer as hateful and freedom-destroying doesn't make sense in that light - we all protect children whether ours or someone else's.  Claiming that it is not murder is simply an empty claim to the lifer as abortion most obviously IS murder - it is just a rationalization to make murder of helpless infants OK - and there is no reason to assign evil motives to the lifer.
   
   Likewise, the pro-choice decision is based to a large degree on the idea that abortion is NOT murder, that it is no more than destruction of a handful of unwanted cells.  There is no reason to demonize the pro-choice woman, either, then.  The lifer that assigns evil motives to anyone having an abortion (or supporting choice) has made the decision that their opinion as to the the beginning of human life overrides the opinion of the choicer and that is just as bad as demonizing the lifer for preventing murder. 
   
   The implied question in the OP, then, is very easily answered; the choicers simply don't want to see that it is only opinion any more than the lifers do.  Both sides of this argument desperately need to back off the rhetoric and really try to understand the other side.  Whether they accept the opinion or not they need to understand the reasoning behind it and accept that their opponents are not devils in disguise.  Maybe shift the entire argument to one of defining human life.
   
   The only place where I see real irony or rationalization is the lifer that somehow decides that rape or incest produces the same bundle of cells that is now not alive and human.  Or maybe an infant that is OK to murder because it has Down's Syndrome or other malady.  At that point they've lost me, too.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you, Wilderness. I'm content to let women decide what's right for their bodies and their lives.
      
      The only thing I'd like to add is that men should have an equal - but opposite - ability to control their lives. Like women, sometimes it's "not the right time in a man's life to become a father." Maybe the man is just a teen, maybe he can't even support himself right now. Maybe the man "just made a mistake" and he shouldn't be punished for that for years.
      
      If it's not the right time for a woman to become a mother - I understand that. But men should get the same consideration.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         The flip side of mens rights is the right to raise their baby rather than have it murdered because Mom doesn't want 9 months of discomfort and 18 years of child support.  It is very seldom mentioned and I've never seen a real debate on the issue, but it is real and will have to be addressed one day.
         
         When it comes to mens rights to their children, it doesn't simply stop with a womans rights to control her womb.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed.  Man up Gents!  Sadly, if more did, less abortions would even be considered.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               At this point I don't see it as that simple.  Given the tens of thousands of dollars at stake, the months of pregnancy, the health risks however small, potential job loss and all the other negatives of an unwanted pregnancy, a quick backstreet "miscarriage" is going to be the primary result of supporting mens rights.  Probably before the man even knows of his father status.
               
               I haven't a clue how such things could ever be handled, but do not believe that this is the time to do it.  Sad, but the demonization of anyone suggesting a woman isn't in complete control, legally, of her own body isn't going to allow it.  One has only to look at the OP to see that.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I was only eluding to there being a degree of influence that would be fathers, stepping up and taking responsibility, would have in reducing the number of abortions.  Willingness by men, to commit to participation in and support of raising a child is frequently a factor, particularly with unwed moms who have no reliable commitment from dad.

                  replyreport
         2. 81

            HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            You're focusing on the issue as a "woman's rights to control her womb" and although the womens' movement placed great emphasis on a woman's reproductive rights, there was always a much bigger issue. Many women who do not plan a pregnancy will be thinking about the *life* of a child- the *quality of life* of a child. Can they afford housing, food, healthcare? Are they stable enough themselves to offer all the emotional support that a child needs to develop in a healthy way? The considerations ARE about the life of a child. Women in this situation are  thinking about what they have to offer and whether it's enough, adequate.   
            
            I know that there are men who would willingly stand by that child for the rest of their lives, but the reality is that in unstable relationships women are the ones who raise those children alone. The figures say it all. Nine out of ten lone families are headed by a woman, this is the case in the UK- it is also the case in the US- I'll qualify this statement if you need me to. There's only a one in ten chance that women who chose to go ahead with the pregnancy will be able to depend on the father to raise the child if she just can't. If men want an equal say, they equally have to be prepared to stick around and be willing to raise that child alone. Sadly, the stats tell us that once a child is born, this is not the case.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I understand that and agree.  I'm speaking, though, of a man that wants his child while the mother just wants an abortion.  Rare, but it does happen, and whose rights are being violated then, whichever choice is made?
               
               If the UK is like the US, the man has no voice in what happens to a fetus that is 1/2 his.  It is completely up to the woman whether that fetus grows into the mans child or is destroyed.

               replyreport
   2. 60

      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Wilderness, I didn't see a reason to repost all of what you have above, in my response, as I primarily agree and find it to be the reasoned response we can typically expect and appreciate from you.  I do think it boils down to the debate of defining human life.  From my perspective those exploiting this for profit, (and I do believe that is largely what this huge industry does), benefit from marketing a human in early stages of development as not being human or alive.  Obviously, if you are not killing a person, the guilt doing so would bring, is assuaged and a much more cavalier perspective can be employed in addressing the now minimized decision.  This is very good for their business, and promoting certain political agendas.  It really comes down to marketing and semantics to sell the idea that this is okay.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         While I agree that the real issue is what is human life, I don't see the monetary gains from abortions playing a large part.  Certainly there are doctors out there that earn a living doing it, but the other 350 million people in the nation all seem to have an opinion as well, and it is THOSE opinions that are being heard.  Not those of the abortion clinics.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, but the issue is driven by dollars from the industry and political groups who have a decided stake in abortion being legal.  I know the same could be said of many issues, as they fight for the hearts and minds of those folks who vote.  Propaganda, of course, plays a large part, and the industry is largely where that comes from.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               It is no more driven by dollars from industry than it is by organized religion (and probably far less).  And the (false) propaganda that a 30 day old fetus is a human being is coming 100% from religion - it is the mainstay of the pro-lifer's argument.
               
               Question: reading between the lines here and assigning a stance to you, did the "false" comment concerning humanity raise your ire?  If so, why?  Do YOU accept that your opinion is only that, and that other opinions and definitions are just as valid?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I consider your statement to primarily be nonsense, but have no interest in seeking the stats to say otherwise at this point so I will let it stand on whatever merit the reader may feel it has.
                  
                  Raising my ire is a very tall order.  It certainly is possible to illicit an impassioned response from me, and people can perceive those as they will.  Perhaps you have noticed, folks are frequently wrong, (I know, to many I am perceived as one of those folks ).  Although disappointing and perhaps frustrating, it hardly angers me.  Even when faced with some of the unreasonable, aggressive rants we see in the forums from time to time, it isn't anger they invoke within me.
                   
                  For a brief answer, what do you mean by "valid".  Do they have a right to have them?  Yes.  Are we all "equally right"?  How ridiculous is that?  Only in a world of subjective truth could that be considered, and no, I don't live in that world.  Views are subjective, truth is not.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, I'm glad I didn't severely irritate you, but I trust you see the point.
                     
                     Views are indeed subjective and truth is not, but when it comes to a definition rather than an observable, testable fact, views are all we have.  And whether a young fetus is a human life is a matter of definition, not natural fact.  I'm sure, that just like me, you've heard all the observable facts and you know the various stages of development - when that single cell becomes a human life is a function of language, the semantics you don't want to argue (and neither do I) and definition.  Opinion, in other words, and opinions such as this are always equally valid.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        You agree that truth is not subjective.  There is a truth, and we may not agree or realize what that truth is, so we may not be able to conclude which opinion or view is most valid.  Nevertheless, the validity is based on which is closest to the truth.  They are not equally valid.  Our quandary is in discerning the truth.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           No.  Not in the matter of defining human life.
                           
                           For truth is based on what nature does.  "Human" and even "life" are defined words and quantities, not something that nature puts out there, and our definitions are unraveling with increasing knowledge of biology and anthropology.  They don't always work anymore.

                           replyreport
            2. 81

               HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Abortions existed long before *profit* was derived from the procedure. Mostly women attempting their own- so that's a bit of a non argument in terms of why women might opt for a termination.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I wasn't saying this was the only driving force, but I do believe it is a large source of the funding to promote it both politically and in general.

                  replyreport
3. 58

   noein baylorposted 10 years ago

   in the ad above, she seems as though she could be really hot, its generally this "hotness" that gets two people in trouble in the first place. screw pro-anything!, nature = hormones, an invincable driving force of nature, take proper care before turning said hormones lose & alot of this nonsense will cure itself-yes? be it as it may, there will be certainty that there are those who under great emotional duress will need to further explore the landscape of alternate possibilities when an unplanned, un invited pregnancy occurs. this is now their choice, should be available to those of such awful extremes. this is not rocket science, use protective measures if this is not what you want-geez. come on ppl.
   (noein baylor)

   replyreport