Six Facts About Abortion to Counter March for Life’s Junk Science
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The 46th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., has adopted “Unique from Day One” as its theme, an apparent declaration of the extreme anti-choice position that life begins at conception. The event not only asserts this view as a moral position but also claims that “being pro-life is not in opposition to science.”
This co-opting of science is in line with a strategy and infrastructure that the anti-choice movement has been building for some time.
In 2011, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) , which supports policies and lawmakers who seek to end legal abortion, created what it called a “research” organization called the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI). CLI has since been a prominent voice in promulgating myths about abortion under the pretense that it conducts research and values “science.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
100 visitors
I've noticed pro-lifers do not agree with science when it counters their position. So they're not above twisting science, spreading false and disingenuous information (especially from non-credible sources), or outright lying to support their position. Most pro-life "arguments" tend to collapse into emotional appeals. Fortunately, better educated and rational minds recognize it and do not fall for such tactics.
For now
A proper education and critical thinking can maintain a rational mind.
Who is pro-abortion?
These people:
I am pro-abortion, not just pro-choice: 10 reasons why we must support the procedure and the choice
Plenty of people are pro-abortion
Yes, I'm Pro-Abortion
Who's "pro-abortion?"
Perhaps you should review your sources and try to understand the context in which someone declares they're "pro-abortion."
I don't care why they say it. They say it. The question was "who is pro abortion?" That has been answered. If you want to move the goal posts by claiming that certain contexts don't count, that's your affair, but no such distinction was made. Live with it.
Of course you don't. because it weakens your assertions.
So by your logic, anyone who says abortion is permissible in cases of health threat to the woman's life is by default "pro-abortion." See how important context really is? The meaning of terms matter. But you simply want to ignore those meanings.
Get real. Nobody gets an abortion for shits and giggles. Pro abortion means pro abortion RIGHTS.
What assertions? I literally just link to three articles with "pro-abortion" in the title and authors explaining why they prefer to say they are pro-abortion versus pro-choice. I haven't made any assertions.
I haven't said anything about anyone no matter what they say.
I never said they did. You really need to read before hitting that reply button.
I don't care what you say it means. People say they are pro-abortion. Argue with them about what it means.
Ok, expert, you just keep telling women what they really mean about something they obviously would know nothing about, whereas you have been blessed with a degree from Trump U majoring in female psychology and physiology. Do carry on.
Really?
I NEVER see anyone say that. People who are pro-choice are usually very careful NOT to say "pro-abortion".
Could you give a few examples, or is this pure fiction?
No one is pro-abortion. We are pro-choice.
It's pure fiction.
Your imagination is running away with you. I haven't told any women anything about what they really mean.
Why do you suppose that is?
I gave three examples in @1.1.4.
It's clearly not fiction as I gave examples with links in @1.1.4. Would you care to retract your statement now?
You really expect people to respond to you within 3 hours in the middle of the night? And if you had read the thread, you would have already had your answer.
Do you really think those are examples of what people say? No. Those are "headlines", intended to catch and keep a reader's eye.
Do you have an actual example of someone saying that they are favorable to abortion? As opposed to "favorable to the availability of abortion", which is the real meaning of all three of the headlines you provided.
Tacos... you and I have a problem.
If you offered those three, thinking that they mean "I am in favor of abortion", then I'm not sure I can depend on your analysis being deep enough to be worthwhile... and if you knew perfectly well that their true meaning is "I am in favor of the availability of the procedure", then I'm not sure I can depend on your honesty.
It's now 10AM. I know some rise late, but...
I posted my question before heading out to play nine holes...
Where you live.
Your schedule is not my schedule.
Absolutely.
I apologize.
You can quibble with the authors about what you think they mean. I quoted them. I can't help it if their words make you uncomfortable, but I didn't write them.
No. You have a problem. I am content.
My mistake then. But someone who calls themselves "pro-abortion" does not make it so when they really refer to the necessity or availability of abortion. To refer to oneself as "pro-abortion" under such pretexts is inaccurate and even disingenuous.
I'm one of those few people (apparently) with a lot of ambivalence regarding abortion. I find it fascinating that pro-choice people are so defensive about being pro-abortion versus pro-choice. Why concern yourself with such a distinction?
Because they mean two different things and invoke different perceptions or responses.
Please explain what the difference is and why it matters.
Pro choice is just that: allowing the woman to choose for herself if she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. Such a position holds that abort ion access be available and safe if necessary. "Pro abortion" advocates more towards pusing for abortions with less focus on personal choice. It is the opposite of pro life. But few, if any, are pushing women into having an abortion. Pro abortion also seems to be used as a more derogatory term by pro-lifers, especially when they disingenuously equate pro choice with pro abortion.
So then it doesn't seem like a meaningful distinction.
I think that's an assumption that you're reading into other people. While they might have a derogatory image of abortion supporters, the term is being used in accordance with its typical definition and usage. The prefix "pro" simply means that you favor or support a thing.
Logically, if you're pro-life, you think abortion is a bad thing, to be avoided. We might say such a person is anti-abortion, but they typically call themselves pro-life because that focuses on the reason they are anti-abortion. I think either term would suffice.
Nevertheless, abortion advocates often insist on calling them anti-woman or saying there is a war on women. I would say that is derogatory. That is projecting their own bias onto someone else. A person can support women in myriad ways but simply be opposed to abortion because they believe a human is being murdered. That's about the fetus, not the woman. Hence, the pro-life term.
Conversely, whether you call yourself pro-choice or pro-abortion, you think abortion is just fine and don't concern yourself with avoiding it. In fact, many people see it as the first option to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, not a last resort. Others would prefer adoption as the first option. In short, you're either ok with abortion or you're not. You're pro or you're anti. In that context, I don't see pro-abortion as derogatory, but appropriate.
You are.
Cool. I request that you refer to 2nd ammendment proponents as pro-choice from now on.
Request denied
3 maybe 4 that I can think of
That's a very black-and-white view that doesn't work in a world of grays.
A woman whose life or health are threatened by a pregnancy having an abortion is pro-life. But that's the life of an actual, living, breathing woman, which counts for less than a fetus to some folks (not you).
A child impregnated by rape could probably, depending on her age and size, carry the fetus to term, or close enough to deliver, but her own life will forever be scarred by the trauma of rape and subsequent pregnancy and delivery, however that is accomplished. Is forcing her to go through that, blighting her life even further, really "pro-life"? Or is it pro-birth.
I submit that many people who think the only way to be "pro-life" is to be anti-choice are, in fact, more "pro-birth" than "pro-life".
I agree that much of it is gray, probably for most people anyway. I know a lot of people take the hard line that it's all life and therefore inviolate. I can appreciate that and they might not be wrong. I have no way of determining when there is a person there.
We certainly know through science that there are signs of life earlier than the law has always assumed. Our current "viability" standard is based on the centuries-old "quick fetus" standard, where a woman might feel kicking around 18-20 weeks. I think most people who are pro-choice are still more comfortable aborting earlier rather than later. All of that is very gray, as you say.
I think if rape, incest, or saving a woman's life were the primary reasons women got abortions, we would have way less abortions (maybe 1/10th of what we have now) and the topic would be far less controversial.
It's very hard (or it should be) to suggest a woman should suffer or die for the unborn. The studies I have seen indicate that s omething like 85-90% of abortions boil down to an abortion of convenience . A very small amount of abortions are in response to those more urgent issues.
I'm not sure I get that distinction.
So as long as people support abortions and they don't care about the reason, I have no trouble with the "pro-abortion" description. I think "pro-choice" is an attempt to dilute the perceived callousness of that position while simultaneously shaming the other side by accusing them of being "anti-choice." After all, what right-thinking, freedom-loving American could ever oppose the right to make a choice?
But the facts are that the pro-life position is only anti-choice on that one issue and there are actually many things in life that none of us are allowed to choose. That's why people get traffic tickets or go to jail. And it's not all crimes with victims.
To my knowledge, nobody is really considering an 18 or even 20-week fetus viable.
Would it? Such cases have been under discussion here and on other forums. There are always those who will defend forcing a tween child to carry a fetus to term, or long enough for it to survive following a c-section (forced major surgery, and damned painful, I can tell you from experience).
Anti-choice denies the right to abortion even to women whose pregnancies endanger their lives, and who fetuses cannot survive. It even happens here in the US. Endangering life to deny choice is pro-birth, but it is not pro-life. In such cases, one could say anti-choice is occasionally even pro-death.
Even forcing women to carry to term, while not providing basic life necessities, including medical care, for her and the resulting baby, is not pro-life, but it is pro-birth.
I think that's far from the majority view, though. Many conservatives who want abortion bans are fine with making exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, or health of the woman. I n this Gallup poll , for example, in the first three months of pregnancy, 83% of respondents think abortion should be legal if the woman's life is endangered, and 77% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.
That's pretty good when you consider that in this poll , 16% of people polled aren't quite sure the Earth is round. (btw, that poll found that Democrats are less likely than Republicans to believe the Earth is round. That would make for a lively seed!)
I think you're talking about a relatively small number of people. As we see in the poll, more than 8 in 10 people would not force a woman to continue a pregnancy if it threatened her life. I think the number of people who want to compel a woman to carry. As for a fetus that won't survive, I think people like hold out hope for survival whether it's grandma or a fetus. Even so, in the first three months, 67% of respondents thought abortion should be a legal option in that case. That number shrinks to 48% for the final three months - understandably, I think, because that is a lot of development to give up on.
I don't know what "basic life necessities" means. If a woman (or man) - pregnant or not - had to go to an emergency room, they would be treated. That's the law. But if you're talking about food or rent or something, no one has a right to have those things paid for by someone else. And we're not going to start doing it for all pregnant women.
Yes, there is a distinction, regardless of how many fall on a particular side of it.
But pro-choice and "pro-abortion" support 2 different things.
Another term that would apply is "anti-choice," since they do not want women to have a choice to abort.
No one is "advocating" abortion. Some advocate to let the decision to abort or not lie with the woman in question, as it should.
Their beliefs does not equal fact. There is no human being, being murdered in an abortion. Neither is abortion considered murder. Someone can be opposed to abortion all they want. But they do not get to make that determination of push their "beliefs" onto someone else!
Yeah, they ignore the woman's wishes and her personal choices, especially if she decides to abort. Some even try to legislate that.
That comes down to individual choice.
It's still inaccurate.
Wrong! Viability is based on medical standards, when the fetus I capable of surviving outside the womb-approximately 23 weeks gestation.
If one side wants to equate pro-choice with pro-abortion, then it's only fair, and accurate that pro-life is equated with "anti-choice."
Many pro-lifers apparently.
Claims or defense of people being labeled "pro-abortion."
Because it's a disingenuous, and inaccurate term.
What makes you think that?
Whatever the woman chooses.
So, still, 23% of people think a rape victim should be re-traumatized (if she can even get the justice of a rape conviction in the courts in time, good luck) by being forced to give birth, and over half think a woman should be forced to carry a nonviable fetus in the third trimester. Calling that "pro-life" is
It's also playing with the life of another living, breathing, human being.
Basic necessities generally include food, adequate shelter, clothing, medical care. If you think you have the right to tell a woman she has to remain pregnant, then she has the right to expect that you will support that. Medical care, including prenatal, which is NOT best obtained in the ER. A basic income to support the mouth you insist be brought into the world, and to shelter, feed, and clothe the mother, so that she can recover from childbirth, and care for the child that you insisted be brought into the world. Childcare for that child you insisted be brought into the world.
Basically, anti-choicers want to make choices for women, but they don't want the responsibility of paying for, caring for, or living with the health risks of the results of those decisions, themselves. Making decisions for other people is where their "responsibility" ends - they leave the cleanup to others.
[deleted/taunting]
Abortion is murder, the willful taking of innocent human life
Fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/
noun
noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
synonyms:embryo, unborn baby/child
"an ultrasonic photo of the fetus"
Hearing the Fetal Heartbeat
Doctors use several different methods to listen to the fetal heartbeat. About 3 weeks, one day after fertilization, when the heart first begins to beat, the sound of the little heart is too soft to hear. Very soon thereafter, they can see the motion using ultrasound technology.
1 F. Gary Cunningham, Paul C. MacDonald, Norman F. Grant, et al., Williams Obstetrics, 20th ed. (Stamford: Appleton and Lange, 1997), 30.
BS...
At around six weeks, when a pregnancy is still an embryo , doctors can detect cardiac activity with an ultrasound. This is far before the point of fetal viability and before a heart has fully formed. As Dr. Rebecca Cohen, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado, told HuffPost in early 2017, “It’s not a fully formed heart like you would understand from looking at an adult or even a young child …. It’s a very early structure. We can see it on the ultrasound, but it’s not a heart, a fully developed organ, by any means.’”
NO one is pro abortion, that's another bs lie
Specify where science says abortion is murder! Even the law doesn't define it as such.
Here's the medical definition of a fetus: Fetus: An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth.
Note how "human baby" is not specified, as the term fetus correlates to any mammal species. Also note how neither your definition nor mine states the termination of a fetus is murder.
So? That's common to all mammal species.
Abortion isn't based on heartbeats. Neither does a heartbeat automatically makes something "special/unique" or human. Trying to focus on a heartbeat only shows you have no valid argument to present outside of some attempt at an appeal to emotion, just as I mentioned earlier. BTW, early in the embryonic phase, there is no heart yet fully developed. Individual cardiac cells can "beat" with an impulse.
The fact that you have to use a disingenuous term like "pro-abortion" only proves my point! Your arguments regarding abortion is the gold-standard of emotional appeals, misinformation, and disingenuousness that I have come to both see and expect from the pro-life side.
And another lie/myth is the correlation between having an abortion and getting breast cancer. There was an article this month claiming 151% increased risk....of course it was a prolife group who did the "study".
Yeah, no confirmation bias there, right? Lol
If those March For Life protesters really wanted to reduce the demand for legal termination services they would strongly advocate for the three things proven to practically eliminate that demand...
1. Require comprehensive sex education for all prior to puberty.
2. Make all forms of birth control affordable and easily available.
3. Provide easy access for all to women's health services and family planning such as that provided by... Wait For It... Planned Parenthood!
BUT, of course they absolutely oppose all of that. So, I say, "Eff'em"...
But, but, what about abstinence only? It works, right? Lol
I'm thinking birth control pills, the morning after pill, condoms, ect. available in vending machines. At high school and colleges and anywhere else.
That would mean providing funding for PP. And you know they don't want that.
Nope, those wrong headed March For Life protesters would all rather finance shipping a big bunch of angry Catholic schoolboys half way across the country to Washington DC to protest against American women's hard earned reproductive rights and to mock peaceful Native Americans performing a sacred religious ceremony. Does that makes any sense? No...
You get it...
Of course you are. One is either pro or anti. There is no possible middle position
and you state nothing to refute science that it is taking the life of an unborn child.
If you ever have any evidene of anyone killing children then you are legally required to immediately report it to legal authorities...
Sex education in high school has been in place for more than 50 years and accomplishes nothing positive
nearly everyone in the pro life movement apart from some Catholics and a few fringe Protestants support people using birth control. What leftists want is free birth control paid for by tax payers
and abstinence should be the ONLY birth control method for teenagers and single adults (not legislated, but promoting a return to moral values)
sexual immorality is one of the devils favorite lures to degenerate the soul
Unfortunately a leftist Supreme Court issued an opinion in Roe v Wade that made abortion effectively a legal form of murder.
abortions will end when women once again treasure the life in their womb more than salicious lifestyle choices
Again, no one is pro abortion
There are 3 choices
Birth and keep
Birth and adopt out
Abortion
Each individual woman determines which of these 3 choices is best for her.
That is what pro choice is
[deleted] They were there to participate in the annual March for Life rally
A fetus is aborted, there is no child in an abortion
The Bible says life does not begin until a born baby takes its first breath...
No, March For Life is a protest against women's reproductive freedom...
[deleted]
Keep dreaming, abortion has been around since the dawn of man in one form or another, the bible even shows how to bring on an abortion to an unfaithful wife Numbers 5:11-31
What's it like with such a black and white view? Pro-choice does not equate to "pro-abortion."
"Unborn child" is an oxymoron and "taking life" is not really the determination if abortion is (or should/should not be) permissible or not.
Really? So you don't consider educating kids on sex, safe sex, STD's, resources, ect., using evidence based information and practice is "nothing positive" to you? According to the Guttmacher Institute :
" Strong evidence suggests that approaches to sex education that include information about both contraception and abstinence help young people to delay sex, and also to have healthy relationships and avoid STDs and unintended pregnancies when they do become sexually active. Many of these programs have resulted in delayed sexual debut, reduced frequency of sex and number of sexual partners, increased condom or contraceptive use, or reduced sexual risk-taking (Para. 3). "
That looks quite positive to me. I thought you were all about what the science says? Also from the Guttmacher institute:
“ Abstinence education” programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage—now termed “sexual risk avoidance” by proponents—have been described as “scientifically and ethically problematic.” They systematically ignore or stigmatize many young people and do not meet their health needs (para. 5)."
Then there's this (para. 6-7): " Proponents of “sexual risk avoidance” programs have appropriated the terms “medically accurate” and “evidence-based,” though experts in the field agree that such programs are neither complete in their medical accuracy nor based on the widely accepted body of scientific evidence. Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs threaten fundamental human rights by withholding information about human sexuality and potentially providing medically inaccurate and stigmatizing information ."
Looks like ACTUAL science proves you wrong yet again!
That's far more cost effective than tax payers supporting struggling parents and children.
Merely your biased (and rather naïve) opinion, and not supported by the SCIENCE which you (transparently) try to flaunt to your own advantage.
Your religious BS has no place in sociopolitical issues, especially where public health is concerned. Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. Sorry, but we're not going back 2000 years just to appease your idea of "morality!"
That's a contradiction in terms. Murder is illegal, and therefore cannot be legal. Neither is abortion considered murder. And the opinion of the SCOTUS establishes legal precedent. So you're clearly and demonstrably WRONG on all points!
It's not for you to make that determination for anyone else. Abortions are not going to end just because you want it too. So far, every single one of your points has either been inaccurate, disingenuous (and potentially harmful), and/or emotionally/religiously based rhetoric! I and others here have called you out on it too!
Dang right!
Again, who is pro-abortion?
And if the fetus has a major defect or the life of the mother is at risk then the decision to abort is up to her IMO. It is none of my business.
You shouldn't do that, all you do is embarrass yourself.
so are you pro or anti ? i guess it would depend on the situation, you don't seem to like female humans having medical control over their bodies so you would take an anti position in that case, but you surely seem to love, condone and wholeheartedly enthusiastically support abortion if your God is the cause, right ?
Yes.
Late term abortions are only performed in cases of medical necessity. Regardless, such a decision (regardless of when abortion is considered) lies purely with the woman in question, and is no one else's business.
No. Why should they?
Of course. it's better than risking or having young girls become pregnant teenagers.
One need not be religious to quote the bible to make ones point...
Sexually active youth need easy access to effective, safe and legal birth control if you ever want to reduce the incidence of and demand for termination services...
In most states sex education is neither comprehensive nor mandatory...
Which is a problem.
Wrong. Where DO you get your information? If one truly wants fewer abortions, try learning what works. Otherwise we might just think all you care about is slut shaming and controlling women.
Source?
'and abstinence should be the ONLY birth control method for teenagers and single adults (not legislated, but promoting a return to moral values)'
People enjoy having sex and they will continue to do so while using birth control. SINGLE PEOPLE AND TEENAGERS. Not abstinence only. What's immoral about sex?
Do you have sex for pleasure only?
'sexual immorality is one of the devils favorite lures to degenerate the soul'
What's sexual immorality?
What bullshit. It has greatly reduced teen pregnancies and STDs. If you're so against abortion, you should be promoting birth control. It's been proven that abstinence only "sex ed" does not increase teen sex, but does increase their getting pregnant or getting an STD.
There is nothing immoral about any sex act between consenting adults, whether it's 2 people or 12. This type of religious brainwashing to convince people that sex is somehow evil is pathetic. Now your biblical marriages - young girls being sold to old men, men obeying biblical commands to rape, enslave and marry young virgins ... that's what is truly immoral. Your attempt to force single women to have babies if they want to have sex is immoral. Sex is awesome. Women have orgasms and don't have heat cycles where we're only horny when we can get pregnant - so unless your god is a major screwup, it obviously intended sex to be for purposes other than just procreation. Sex is merely a biological urge. A very strong one, which is why abstinence only doesn't work. Why would a god give a crap about what consenting adults do in bed, anyway? Would you care about the sex life of an ant?
"sexual immorality is one of the devils favorite lures to degenerate the soul"
Religious fanatics are hilarious - but it's so sad how they've been brainwashed into thinking sex is bad. There is no devil, and sex is not evil. Sex outside of marriage does not "degenerate the soul."
You really need help with comprehension per comments, geezzzzz
As one NV/NT member was fond of saying: "From the encyclopedia of his @ss!"
And some wonder why they are mocked.
When I see some old man on here preaching about "sexual immorality" I just giggle
I wonder if those religious fanatics understand that getting a blow job is sodomy?
No, they don't
Agreed. But they aren't zero, either. This is also not the chief concern for pro-life activists, so it's odd that this story would lead with this point, much less use it at all.
Similar response. Also, these methods are widely used because they're safe, but that seems unrelated to why pro-life activists object to them. I'm pretty sure their concern is weighted more for the fetus, not the mother.
That sort of depends on what you consider a problem. "Problem" isn't exactly a scientific term. Are women who have abortions suddenly developing bipolar disorder or committing suicide in big numbers? No, of course not. But many women are conflicted about the choice they made for many years. If they weren't there would be no need for organizations like Exhale , which offer counseling. Some people would call that a mental health problem, and clearly others would disregard it.
I think there is good science supporting this idea, but I don't see evidence in the article or in the links from the article that this is the reason for a 20 week abortion ban. I suspect that as a general matter, people become more and more uncomfortable with idea of abortion as the developing fetus comes to look more and more like a baby.
Second one first. Constitutionality is not an argument about science. First one now. It seems like objecting to any particular heartbeat ban would be arbitrary as well. Anyway, a heartbeat is a sign of life - at least it usually is. Therefore, the objection to ending what seems like a life should be fairly obvious.
Why should that matter? People are born every day with underdeveloped parts and we do what we can to save them. We don't discard a full term baby with an underdeveloped heart, brain, or any other part. So the state of heart development in a fetus shouldn't give us license to end it.
Here! Here! But why is this a thing in support of abortion? Do we want women getting pregnant and having abortions just to advance medical science? I don't think any sensible person would support that. It's understandable that people might fear that something like this could develop but I'm not aware of anything close to it in actual practice. It's brought up here because one company had its contract temporarily canceled over concerns about its conformity with federal requirements. According to the report, the situation is under review.
None of these address the major, core, fundamental concern of pro-choice activists, which is simply that the embryo or fetus is a developing human life. Using the tools of science, we cannot know for certain when it becomes a human life we should all care about and strive to protect. For women who want a baby, the life inside them gains that status immediately.
Modern science has illuminated a great deal about what goes on in pregnancy and we can identify characteristics in utero that we normally associate with an living individual human being. For example, we know that at the moment of fertilization a unique DNA identity is created. We know there is some kind of heartbeat around 4 weeks. We know that electrical brain activity begins at around 5 or 6 weeks. That's science, but the question of whether or not a person is living who has a right to life cannot be answered by science. It's a moral question.
It would be cute you care so much about women's health if you really did. But your ill conceived, sanctimonious babbling about a subject you know absolutely nothing about is damn insulting and annoying. You actually telling us you are suddenly concerned with science? Start with climate science and let women handle their own body. I just posted how to reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions in a previous post. Read up and stop pretending you have the slightest idea about this subject.
And FFS, no way I want any part of your morality. Conservatives have lost all credibility and respect when it comes to their morals, no thanks.
That's clearly not true. You just want to dismiss my opinion because I'm male. Sorry, I have no respect for you bigotry.
That would be off-topic.
I would agree that is very important.
What is it you think I need to read and why?
Your generalities are irrelevant to me. They're just more bigotry.
Multiple times you have accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, but you haven't taken issue with a single thing I wrote.
Proof of the many women needing counseling for years after abortions?
Already answered. Read the thread.
That was no answer. No citation. No proof.
You got nothing.
A link was provided @2.
Like I said. Read the thread. Follow the links. Pretty simple.
Again, you got nothing.
Not everyone can click a link.
It is hard.
Like reading.
Or following.
All it did was take me to a page for their site. Said nothing about the mental health 'consequences' women experience for years after an abortion. Just a phone number to call.
Then I would encourage you to explore a little more. Try reading some selections from the Community Submissions page. There is obviously a lot of stress, guilt, shame, anxiety that women suffer both before and after abortion. They describe themselves thus:
They've been at this for 18+ years so either they have nothing to do or there are very real mental health consequences related to abortion. I'm not suggesting women suddenly go insane and shoot up a shopping mall. There are many varying types and degrees of mental health issues. Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why this is even a controversial thing to say.
Ever hear of post-partum depression?
I happen to think that is way more serious than abortion depression
And you're entitled to think that. It's not a contest. I don't know why you would think one form of depression is more serious than another.
How to cope with depression after abortion
No one was saying these emotional or mental health issues are more serious than some other one. The claim in the article was that abortion does not cause mental health problems . . . at all. That is simply not true and that is what I have been trying to demonstrate. I'm not trying to compare it to any other issue.
I don't believe that abortion causes mental health problems. Women who suffer from mental health problems who had abortions were prone to depression anyway.
Having children leads to mental health problems. That I can attest to.
That sort of depends on what you consider a problem. "Problem" isn't exactly a scientific term. Are women who have abortions suddenly developing bipolar disorder or committing suicide in big numbers? No, of course not. But many women are conflicted about the choice they made for many years. If they weren't there would be no need for organizations like Exhale , which offer counseling. Some people would call that a mental health problem, and clearly others would disregard it.'
I checked out the site Exhale a bit further and they appear to be neutral.
I believe TG is correct - women who have mental issues after an abortion had them to begin with
I imagine the women who are conflicted about the choice they made for many years - should seek serious counseling or a social worker or psychiatrist. Exhale offers counseling and an ear - they sound like a good group.
I'm not disregarding a women being conflicted after an abortion. The group Exhale also claims that many women have no regrets.
'The claim in the article was that abortion does not cause mental health problems . . . at all. That is simply not true and that is what I have been trying to demonstrate.'
I apologize for jumping all over you on this issue Tacos. We rarely agree but I don't to be so vehement all the time and just completely dismiss everything you say. I'll work on it.
Peace
Same can be said for women continuing pregnancies. So your point is??? You do realize mental health issues can arise for many many reasons?
That's it's clearly not free of mental health consequences.
That doesn't matter. We aren't talking about those things. Furthermore, the fact that those reasons exist doesn't mean we shouldn't care about this reason.
What mental health consequences?
[deleted]
Good Lord!!
These arguments are s-o-o-o-o stereotyped. What's the point of repeating, ad nauseum, the same arguments to people who have already heard them a thousand times?
It seems to me that a much richer vein would be to explore the inevitable consequences of the "person at conception" position.
The zygote would be a person, even before the mother is aware that she's pregnant. That has all sorts of consequences.
Every non-implantation would be the death of a person, even if the mother is unaware. That's something like ten times as many dead as via abortion. We should have a national program, an urgent program, of research towards saving these millions. Abortion is peanuts compared to non-implantation.
The mother would be criminally liable for any problem with the unborn baby. All active behavior would have to be excluded: no sports... no work... maybe not getting out of bed for the length of the pregnancy. In case of miscarriage, the mother's behavior would have to be investigated with murder/manslaughter charges if it has been anything less than perfect.
The unborn baby would be an heir.
The mother would have to be investigated if the baby's health is less than ideal at birth.
... and so on...
I agree. That is the core issue and it's one science is probably not equipped to answer.
Criminality generally requires some level of intent and action/omission of a legally required action. In the law, these are called the mens rea and the actus rea. Every crime has these as elements. Most problems with an unborn baby are natural processes divorced from either the mother's intentions or control, so she wouldn't be criminally liable unless she did something intentional (taking dangerous drugs, for example, that could damage the fetus).
Unborn children can already inherit.
Exactly.
The key words here are
Not "divorced" at all. Everything the mother does, everything she eats or drinks, all her movements... affect the baby. Everything she does is under her intentions and control, and everything she does may affect the baby.
Not quite true. Her "misdeed" needn't be "intentional". It need only be "insufficiently careful". Horseback riding, for example, would be an obvious risk. I'd guess that stable would be required to obtain a sworn statement of non-pregnancy before renting a horse to any woman.
Many jobs carry some risk for the baby, and therefore would open the mother to prosecution for negligent homicide. Employers, too, could be prosecuted for negligence.
Either society declares the ZEF to be a person, and draws the inevitable conclusions, or it becomes even more blatant that something else is going on.....
There's a very big difference between "would be" and "can". The baby would be an heir as soon as it is conceived, perhaps the primary heir... even before its existence is known. The courts will be crowded.....
Like I said, that's already a thing.
Have we really had court cases involving blastocysts?
Yeah, the world of wills, trusts, inheritance, etc can be a crazy place.
For examples of the results of draconian pro life laws look at Guatemala and Nicaragua where women can and sometimes do go to prison when their bodies naturally abort the fetus.
What bothers me, here, is that the anti-abortion camp simply refuses to discuss this...
Considering a two-cell blastocyst to be a person has huge consequences, legally, morally, and every which way. And the anti-abortion people refuse to even talk about it!
This silence leads me to believe that the anti-abortion people haven't really thought about the subject. Their leaders, above all their church leaders, have given them a few bullet-points, and sent them off to battle.
It's very troubling that so many of these foot-soldiers are tricked, fooled, used and abused... and keep asking for more!
In most states, evidence of drug abuse during pregnancy is grounds for terminating parental and/or welfare rights on a theory of child neglect/abuse. It's not a criminal issue, but it is a civil law matter.
That's silly. If the mother is endangering the baby she must be stopped.
I have seen stories of courts ordering women to undergo drug treatment, but I don't know how common it is or how many (if any) women have been locked up for disobeying.
Her fetus, her choice, right?
Is it legal to force someone to be a blood donner?
Or an organ donor. People being forced to give up part of their livers or a kidney so another can live.
Why do people keep arguing about abortion?
There have always been abortions, there always will be abortions, and no one can do anything about it.
Some women will not have the baby, for various reasons.
Current abortion policy is generally a compromise - abortions are legal but should be dome within a certain stage of the pregnancy. I don't think this arrangement will be improved upon.
Those of us who oppose abortion can do so in our own lives and within our own private spheres of influence. But you can't prevent abortion in those who are sure it is their right and their choice.
It is a compromise, and a generally reasonable one. The problem is, some pro-lifers want very little to no compromise. In their view, Once a woman becomes pregnant, she must continue the pregnancy until she gives birth. And the law should reflect that too.
[deleted]
Whaaaat …… a "Tree and it's Seeds" really are worth more than "Humans and their seeds" ?
Being "pro-life/anti-abortion" ceases to be a reasonable, moral, logical, non-hypocritical, self-contradictory ideology, if/when the "pro-lifer" is simultaneously anti-contraception, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-torture, anti-health care for all (particularly for children), anti-environment (anti-"The Earth is the Lord's and the Fullness Thereof" -- Psalm 24), xenophobic and/or racist!
But I'm willing to listen to arguments that specifically address the exact points I've made.
If being "pro-life" implies, or, overtly justifies being ultimately respectful for the "Creator," consequently, there can be no justification for any action that denigrates any/all of that which has been "created"!
When I was a Legislative Representative for the largest AFL-CIO affiliate in Pennsylvania, I asked a Legislator who was known for his intractable pro-life positions, "Since you believe that 'life begins at conception,' would you support a bill that allowed a family to claim as a tax-deductible dependent, an embryo or fetus in the tax year prior to its birth?"
He turned and walked away.
The hypocrisy of the anti-abortion crowd is spotlighted by non-implantation. Ten times more human lives are ended by non-implantation than by abortion... but these people don't care. They do not care about the dead "babies".
Pure hypocrisy..........
To quote George Carlin …
"If you're pre-birth you're good, if you're pre-school, you're fucked!"
Pro-birth and pro-life are not necessarily synonymous to many.
I agree with that part of it.
This might be the dumbest line of argument yet , and that's saying something.
Think Bob. Which is an intentional act, and which is natural? Maybe, if you think real hard, you can figure out why some people are more bothered by intentional taking of innocent life than a natural ending.
Every time I look at these abortion threads, I leave shaking my head at the asinine arguments made by pro abortionists. I refuse to believe people can make these claims in good faith.
Cool, Sean!
You've proven my argument.
You don't care about the dead babies.
You care about limiting people's freedom.
Cool, Sean!
No one is proabortion, and once again, it's not your business what a woman does with an unplanned pregnancy
I guess I'm an optimist, because I still refuse to believe a literate person can make this argument in good faith.
Be honest Bob. Admit you are joking and that you are capable of understanding the difference human agency makes between the two situations .
I'd hate to believe you take this point seriously. It would be sad. Like seeing a man on the corner ranting about UFOS.
Of course it sounds that way....when one doesn't think an "Individual" is or should be "Responsible" for their own screwups !
"In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility." Eleanor Roosevelt
"Women will only have true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation."
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I am happy that you and I have found some common ground.
Peace.
I have no argument with personal responsibility … but I see that as a separate issue entirely from holding hypocritical, self-contradictory views while attributing parts of such views to "devotion to God".
There's half the countries "Sign".
It's not a separate issue, even if one tells themselves 5 bazillion times it is !
That's like saying...… "I only did it because Suzy did it" !
Half of a whole.....is still only half !
I like the "Whole" myself.
Terminating a pregnancy is taking responsibility fro a "screw-up". It's just not one you like.
Responsibility means you don't get yourself to a point you have to have something sucked out of your body because you used "Feelings" as your first go to !
That would be YOUR definition of responsibility. Taking responsibility means to take ownership of your actions & that is exactly what terminating an unwanted pregnancy is. It is dealing with the consequences of the action. Just because you do not like it does not mean it is not taking responsibility.
No....that IS responsibility !
Would you get a puppy because it made you "Feel" good at the time, and then starve it because you actually didn't want it later ?
I know....it's crazy NOT taking real responsibility !
Just for shits-and-giggles......look at this quote:
"Abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children, because part of caring for children is knowing when it's not a good idea to bring them into the world."
Katha Pollitt
Now wouldn't you think that not getting yourself to a point where someone had to SUCK IT OUT of your body, would be much better at "Mothering" and more "Caring" of "Children" ?
Part of truly caring about children is knowing when it's not a good idea to get pregnant in the first place ! It would save you, and probably tax payers, bunches of money if "Responsible?" folks thought that way.
Weird huh !
No But I wouldn't have much sex if I was a guaranteed baby every time either so...
O lets not go there...LOL
Jungle Love ? LOL !
Responsibility is exactly what I said it was. Starving a puppy is not taking responsibility for getting the puppy & your example has nothing to do with a woman taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy by terminating that pregnancy.
Let me ask you this:
Is it still considered "something sucked out of your body" if a rape or incest victim terminate. Is it still considered "something sucked out of your body" if the mother could suffer complications causing severe pain or death?
If you took offense to "Suck it out", you really do have something moral inside you, although "I" didn't specify that "Suck it out" was an "Immoral" thing. You "Perceived" it to be. (Smiley Face)
a baby every time ? Worse
.................. "think about it !" lol
I never would have had sex if I was guaranteed a baby every time I did.
There are people amongst us who think women should keep their legs closed until they are ready to give birth. They think women should get pregnant every time they have sex, that way they will only have sex when they are married.
LOL.. Just kill me now !
Apparently. Over 332,000 destroyed from just one place last year.
Oooooooh....the lose of Tax payers is horrendous every year ! (Scratching head Face)
and They probably dont get laid much and really can't enjoy it when they do. Hangups come with a price, usually negative ones.
I am a very moral person. My use of the word suck was copied from you, since you wanted to be as offensive as possible. Terminating a pregnancy is not immoral to me. It is a decision best made by the "people" it affects and their medical professions & thank you for proving my point by not answering my question.
out of 327,000,000 citizens ?
I'll bet a lot more sex was had than 332.000 times that year.
the lose of Tax payers is horrendous every year !
somewhat, But the loss of babies we'd end up supporting some of which probably for a lifetime helps compensate for it.
Remember as well, the more people, the more problems, the more laws, the more government.
IMO: If a mother (and preferably it's father) doesn't want can't afford or has no desire to have a baby, its an option that should not be taken away by the government, unless the government is ready, willing and able to raise those children.
Yes as cruel as it is.
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me," doesn't mean "Screw the working poor … it's there own fault if they need food stamps … let 'em look for another job!"
I could go on … but the point is made.
You don't care about the dead babies. Therefore, your anti-abortion stance has nothing to do with dead babies.
What, then?
Tell us, Sean. What are you hiding behind the anti-abortion stance that obviously isn't really of any importance to you?
"Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it."
Andrew Jackson
We fight for OUR country all the time. Time to make "ILLEGALS" do the same in their OWN country !
But...…...
Some think this way:
"Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what's for lunch."
Orson Welles
I could go on.....but the point was made.
I know, but was it you and I discussing the "Tax Base is Dwindling" thingy ?
"somewhat, But the loss of babies we'd end up supporting some of which probably for a lifetime helps compensate for it."
It's a "Catch 22" for sure !
I did ?
Seems to me, that's what happens. "Hook and pull" woulda fit truthfully too !
Should I have said ….."gently removed" instead ?
Perhaps a little , I really dont remember that being something I was very involved with though.
It's a "Catch 22" for sure !
True but I dont see the answer being to force people to have unwanted children though.
Many of which would likely end up not being a support to but a burden on society. Some how I just dont see near as many responsible good mothers having abortions as irresponsible bad mothers do. ....
One way or another it will be dealt with.
No I think it's stupid that you compared an abortion to buying a puppy and then letting it starve to death. Really stupid
Oh FFS it's useless talking to you. Birth control fails. Women don't go happily to have it 'sucked out'. It's an agonizing decision for most.
What point?
Andrew Jackson … American Hypocrite … murderer of Native Americans while becoming President of a nation of immigrants who stole land, enslaved a native population and created ex post facto law to make its inhumanity retroactively "legal"!
Bad choice of role models my friend.
Some think this way:
"Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what's for lunch."
And some thought it their God-given right as the "superior" white race, to enslave black people and murder "red" ones, put "yellow" ones in de facto prison, try to wall out other non-whites, and, build portions of an economy on cheap, exploited, illegal labor … then blame the illegal labor for being … illegal labor!
Some think that way.
'Course, the generous white slave owners did give their affectionately-referred to "niggers" … lunch … when they weren't whipping their asses for not picking their daily quota of cotton!
American ideology is built literally and figuratively upon a Trail of Tears and immoral, un-Christian crimes against humanity! And while we could certainly do something idealistic and humane to repent by actually creating the "American Ideal," instead we create "law" to continue to disenfranchise and discriminate against those who have been, and in many ways still are, victims of organized wealth and a government run to a great extent by the "Criminal Rich" (as Teddy Roosevelt so named them).
Platitudes like the ones you posted are the metaphorical equivalent of "pissing in one's face then telling him 'it's raining'"!
We disagree … but it makes for lively debate!
Look up what a [D&C involves and Deleted]
And lest we forget … the intentional blocking of legal entry points for human beings attempting to petition, under the law, for asylum or temporary protected status … only to take away and incarcerate their children …
… for entering "illegally."
Let's have a real conversation and call the "900 pound gorilla" in the room … the big, fuckin' ape it is!
It's so sad that you have to resort to that.
Feel free to correct any inaccuracy in my comment … and, if you cannot or will not, you simply leave us with a dismissive, ad hominem, shoot-the-messenger response.
But not unexpected.
No one is pro-gun! We are pro-choice.
See, she's right. You go out of your way to be offensive
Resort to the truth?
So you have had an abortion?
There ya go again. When it fits the narrative of today...the founding fathers of this country...… SUCK NOW !
Unbelievable !
Pencil !
Maybe "Force" folks to get off their rears and get to work ? Folks like Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are pushing for "Get something for nothing". Gosh, Where will the bucks to pay for that come from, if "working" actually becomes a losing proposition !
We aren't even close to the "Star Trek" fantasy yet !
Simply pull out any of the indiscretions I cited, one-by-one, and counter with what you believe to be their corrections.
What "sucks" are the specifics I cited … some of the realities of our history.
He was mocking me regarding my response about being pro-abortion
I said:
No one is pro-abortion! We are pro-choice.
Which is why I personally dont give Any radical much attention and hardley any credence.
Maybe "Force" folks to get off their rears and get to work ?
Although I 'm against forced labor (or forcing anyone to do what they choose not to) I am in favor of better oversight of all safety net programs. I 'm with you, If you can work, you should work.
We aren't even close to the "Star Trek" fantasy yet !
True, But each day we do make human labor more obsolete.
[deleted]
So true !
That's gonna be interesting and fun to watch, at least for the time I have left on this planet.
Robots are upon us now !
What does one do NOW !
[deleted]
[deleted]
If I was younger I'd be building or maintaining robots.
lol
Unfortunately It seems to have spread beyond the "stations" seems more like a widespread epidemic these days.
sad
2 thumps up !
lol
[deleted]
LOL
I love this stupid song.
It brings a smile to my stupid face.
LOL
Politicians are "Playa's" !
Playa:
"The skill of a playa is measured by the extent of his or her "game." The more "game" a playa has, the more respect they command in their community."
Since when hasn't there been hoops to jump thru ?
Sometimes that includes learning.
I went thru a community college not long ago to get my certified nursing licence so I could be a better and more knowledgeable assistance to my very sick and dying mother.
I was glad I did.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think that's the thing about reality, sooner or later it does rear its head and most of the time sanity slowly rises to the top.
Good usually does seem to win out in the long run.
Thankfully
That's why I really to try to avoid the radicals and stay in the "sane" zone. (If that's such a place) LOL
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[Deleted]
[deleted]
[Deleted]
I had time to read your post , but I'm running late so I'll need to get back to you with a repsoponce.
sorry
later
STAY SAFE !
[deleted]
I must have participated in hundreds of conversations about abortion over the last decade. My own thinking on the topic has changed radically, thanks to listening to others.
I would very much like to have a serious conversation with an anti-abortion person, but none has ever been able to present a coherent set of ideas.
Science is not involved. Science is a bystander.
Whether to allow or forbid abortion, and whether to put time limits on it, are purely questions of local morality. The number of different answers to these questions, across history and geography, demonstrates that we as a species have not found a "truth" for everyone.
Much, much too often, the abortion debate gets derailed onto a personhood debate. These are two very different topics. Anti-abortion people love this derail, because it make things easy for them. They can just throw out a few words about gestation, and let the conversation sink slowly into the quagmire.
And pro-choice people let themselves be bamboozled, not noticing that they are NOT talking about abortion at all...
IMNAAHO, the anti-abortion position can be resumed in one sentence: "My preacher told me that abortion is baby-killing!" That's it! That's all. The preacher said so. Sometimes it's a bit more sophisticated: "The Bible says so. I know the Bible says so, because my preacher told me so."
You get the idea: Sheep following their leader, never understanding anything.
Pro-choice people aren't a whole lot better. They allow themselves to be derailed onto gestation, and then split hairs about what is "the" moment of personhood. Even after disagreeing long and vehemently, they never ask themselves if maybe, just maybe, abortion has nothing to do with gestation.
And we repeat the same thing, and repeat the same thing, and repeat the same thing, and repeat the same thing, and repeat the same thing............................
Repeating the same actions, and expecting different results... is a sign of insanity...,
I've seen that happen, too, Bob. At least some anti-choicers are consistent. Those anti-choicers will tell you that abortion is wrong in all cases including rape, incest, and health/life of the mother. I can respect that position. I don't agree with it but they're at least consistent.
The anti-choicers I have problems with are those that are what I call "conditional pro-choicers". They'll allow abortion if there is rape or incest involved. They will also allow abortion if the health/life of the mother is in danger. Then, I ask them, why do you think abortion for anyone else is absolutely verboten? If one thinks that abortion is baby-killing, then why aren't you against killing a baby that is a product of rape or incest? And if it's baby-killing, then one is actually making a value judgement when an at-risk woman has an abortion...one is saying that in this case the woman is more valued than the fetus.
I wonder if any of these people think that a mandatory organ donor list should be created so that if necessary people with a need for a liver, kidney, blood etc can go there & make the person donate - AFTER all it would be saving a life & isn't that what it is all about?
And I do not want to hear about "innocent" lives, because then the question is who determines if a "person" is innocent? How old does one have to be to lose "innocent" status?
Rape is the significant case. No one's health is in jeopardy. The woman doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, and doesn't want to raise the child. We all sympathize with her position (I hope).
And yet... the thing growing in its mother's womb is innocent, too.
Could there be a "reasonable solution"? Could the mother receive a (comfortable) stipend, with the assurance that the child be taken off her hands, and receive a home and an "inheritance" in turn?
I'm not a woman. I don't know what might be acceptable.
In 32 states the "father" (rapist) is allowed visitation rights & must sign off on adoption proceedings. Not to mention a woman would be expected to give up months of her life that may include complications from pregnancy, loss of a job, loss of relationships and peace of mind.
If a family member of yours was raped, became pregnant would all that I mentioned (enforced contact with her rapist, health concerns, mental concerns, financial concerns) seem an OK event for her?
How does one measure innocence & who decides how innocent is enough?
I personally go with whatever makes you whole again
That's crazy. That's incitement to abort!
If a rape victim doesn't want the child, her position is decisive, IMNAAHO.
I was wondering if there's a path for not terminating the pregnancy, with minimum harm (physical, psychological, economic, ...) to the mother.
In most cases, I wouldn't know... but a being not yet born is probably a safe bet.
That sounds like a pretty good rule!
What about a newborn? What about a mentally challenged teen? Are they less innocent than a fetus?
It may be crazy, but it is the law in those states.
Dunno. I wouldn't try to establish a "scale of innocence form 1 to 10".
The unborn probably are fairly innocent.
From then on, things happen. "Innocence" gets some scrapes and bumps at a pretty young age, and teenagers...
Correction - it is now less than 32 states. Only 8 still give them rights, however - a rape conviction is needed in 20 states to terminate parental rights of the rapist (and we all know how difficult it is to get a rape conviction). Recent changes in state's laws (2016) for 8 states have granted the survivors of rape at least some protection.
So who do we rely on to determine innocence? Do you see where I am going with this? How can someone arbitrarily decide who is innocent & who is more innocent? Something that is not even a person yet is more innocent than someone that is alive & breathing? How is that determined - of course a fetus hasn't committed any "sin" - it isn't born yet.
How can a non-entity (embryo, fetus etc) be more innocent than a rape victim? Just saying - if we rely on innocence to determine anything it will be one hell of mess.
There are lots of crazy laws, particularly around social topics, and particularly-particularly around abortion.
Better... but still crazy.
I think most women have a problem with abortion. Their genes push them to have babies. "Maternal instinct" is a real thing.
They come to abortion when it is the least bad option for them.
So... I was wondering if there's any way to avoid it. Clearly, the first requirement is to offer the mother a better option, covering the futures of both mother and child.
(I don't imagine anything like this being politically possible. I'm just wondering what people think.)
Teenagers are an automatic 11
What "better" option for a woman that does not want to be pregnant?
You think "most women", so you know what we think? I do not have a "problem" with abortion. How many women here have a "problem" with abortion?
Not in all women. That is a falsehood made by men & brainwashed into women from an early age.
I agree with you Veronica. I never had that maternal instinct myself.
I just really hate that generalization about women. I love being a mother. My mother hated children & she told us in words in actions everyday. My daughter does not like children at all. I don't think she has ever held her cousins' children when they were infants. My father's mother had 11 children and left quite a few of them with other people to live. My cousin never wanted children & didn't have them, but she teaches the hearing impaired Her two sisters have a boatload of kids between them.
Where is the "mother gene" in those women that abuse, sell or kill their children?
The "mother gene" is a fairy tale told to little girls through baby dolls so that when they grow up they realize their place in society.
I dislike that generalization, also. I had children because my husband wanted them. Don't get me wrong, I love them but my life would have been just fine if I had never children.
I never wanted or had children, and I'd say about a third of my younger childless female friends don't want them either. I love other people's children once they're toddlers or older, just never wanted any myself. And I know some people who had children who wouldn't make that same decision if they had it to do over.
Being a mom just wasn't in the cards for me but I do love my nieces and nephews dearly.
I did not say "all". I made a generalization, the kind of phrase that the speaker thinks is globally true, but not in every case.
Do you not think that most women want babies?
I don't even think there's such a thing as "we", as you use the word. Generalizations about a group as diverse as "women" are of course going to have a lot of exceptions. I certainly would not take your own personal word as representing all women.
Would you pretend to speak for all women?
So... let's leave the histrionics aside.
I said, "I think most women have a problem with abortion." I meant that for most women, the idea of putting an end to a pregnancy is unpleasant. Do you disagree?
If you mean 51% is "most" then yeah, ok, I'll agree with you.
Tho in 2019, I'm not sure that even 51% of women still want to be mothers
I have to agree with you here. With over population and the mess the world is in now, no need to just keep having babies just for the sake of having babies.
Do you mean that seriously?
Being a guy, I'm kinda incompetent on the topic, but then I'm incompetent on a bunch of others, too. I only know what I read.
I've never seen any indication of such a massive rejection of motherhood. It would be quite a revolution....
Perrie had a seed on it last week? or was it the week before? Anyway, it got a lot of comments. Young women are putting off having children later and later and some aren't having any at all.I see my own daughter and DIL and they are 26 years old. Neither one of them seem to be in any hurry to have babies, my DIL acts like she doesn't want any at all.And I know quite a few women my age who never had children by choice
Very interesting...
I wonder if anyone has done a study of these changing attitudes. I know that the birth rate has dropped like a stone all over the developed world...
Exactly what I thought. A man pretending to care what women want & when we disagree he gets nasty.
You seem to think you are better at speaking for women than I am so have at it - but it appears by others comments you would be wrong.
I don't pretend. I say what I think.
I was not "nasty". If you don't know what "histrionics" means, look it up, rather than presume I mean ill.
... and you seem to be a mind-reader, knowing what I think... except that you're totally wrong.
I don't know why you decided to attack me. I am in fact an ally. But I don't take this kind of personal attack lightly.
But you want to tell people what women think & want. Gotcha.
What personal attack? Pointing out how you don't speak for women and that your generalization that:
was not an indictment that all women feel this?
You are not an ally.
Well, good for you. Since the comments weren't directed at you of course you wouldn't see anything wrong with them. However, if the word "histrionics" was used at you regarding your posts, I would think (and have seen you) think otherwise.
So you think that all women want to be mothers because it is in their genes? Really?
Nobody asked you, did they?
Do all men have a fatherly gene?
No, it was not.
And is that because it is in their genes or simply because that is how they were raised to behave? Men don't cry so little boys shouldn't cry so they can grow up to be strong. Women are weaker than men so little girls should be timid. It is all about rearing, not "genes".
This woman felt it was & that is a legitimate "feeling". A few others here also felt that way as I am sure you read. Or should I have swooned and said "Oh Bob, you big strong man. You agree that women should have autonomy over their bodies - unless a better option comes around."
Seriously?
I'm afraid I must desist here. Perrie is deleting, and I don't want the hassle.
Mr Giggles was the one the kids always ran to. He was the nurturer, I was the enforcer
I think people think women are supposed to be more nurturing only because of tradition
Try me. Taking Plan B immediately after conception is clearly not contraindicated by science or morality. Performing a late term abortion 10 minutes before birth (except to save the life of the mother) is supported by neither science or morality. The line is crossed sometime during those 9 months. The exact point should by determined by science and morality but not by religion.
OK.
So... is conception not a significant milestone, in your opinion?
Whose science? Whose morality?
How?
Conception is not a significant milestone.
The red line should be defined by consensus science and morality. If you think killing a viable baby moments before natural birth is supported by any morality or science, you cannot be reasoned with.
I'm afraid that your statements are too peremptory, and insufficiently substantiated, for further conversation.
Thanks, anyway.
Thanks. I've tried to have discussions with pro-abortion proponents before, but none has ever been able to present a coherent set of ideas.
That never happens, a baby being aborted at the time of birth. Why lie?
You're talking about coherence and claim babies are aborted 10 minutes before natural birth? That's just fucking crazy. Can't be reasoned with?
There is no reasoning with some, it's sad...like a pregnant woman in her 9th month wakes up one day and says I think i'll have an abortion today
I know, right? Just what the hell is in these people's heads that think that kind of shit?
If the fetus won't be viable at birth a doctor may prescribe a late-term abortion if the mother agrees to it. However, I have seen religious (Roman Catholic) women who know that their fetus will not be viable (the fetus was already dead) at birth and choose to go thru labor and delivery. I personally think that's crazy because a dead fetus cannot be good for the reproductive system.
That reminds me of my older sister - she was ready to deliver and the baby died in her womb. She had to go through delivery (C-section). How traumatic. The baby had some kind of syndrome.
It sickens me that some state that women would kill their own children just before delivery.
The Hill is very conservative and very seldom provides truthiness. It would be nice if you could actually stick to actual content
Not just the reproductive system. It can cause septicemia, especially if the mother's water has broken.
Savita Halappanavar died because she wasn't allowed to abort a nonvital fetus (it still had a very weak heartbeat), even though her membranes had ruptured. Her death, in part, led to Catholic Ireland repealing its anti-abortion laws.
Two lives were lost. One needn't have been. I don't see how that's pro-life.
That's what I thought.
Iowa's fetal heartbeat law was struck down.
I just seeded an article here about it. That was a good call by the Judge. Fetal heartbeat laws are almost as asinine as "personhood" laws.
Pencils have erasers for a reason
I never thought of it that way, but that's good
I haven't seen any "lifers" here complain about the continual closing of rural clinics and hospital obstetric departments? Some women in my home state have to travel as far as 3 hours to get care of give birth. Why isn't that an issue with the narrow focus religious wack jobs?
There is no obstetrics department in our county's hospital. If you have a baby in this hospital, it's because it was already crowning, or you're having an emergency c-section in the ER with nurses and doctors who don't care for either emergency c-section patients or newborns with problems that lead to emergency c-sections on anything like a regular basis. My c-section was with an experienced Ob/Gyn in a good maternity ward, and there was no rush, and it wasn't fun. Good luck with medical personnel who do them only on rare occasions.