Society/Culture Would Pro-Abortionists be ok with this method?

[Mofra]

I have to admit I do find the anti-choice Christian brigade fairly amusing in their desire to preserve and unborn foetus at any stage of development, however by and large anyone living is fair game.

The Anti-choice (they're not pro-life regardless of what they want to label themselves) brigade in the US are part of the conservative Christian right that is overwhelmingly in favour of the war in Iraq - how is support for war consistant with being "pro-life"?

To the OP: No, I would not support any form of abortion that poses unnescessary health risk to the mother. I wonder how much stigmatisation by anti-choice activists contributed to her desperation to abort the pregnancy by herself?

 

[KevinCat07]

Nick and Sportman I was referring to people like George's answer as they still seem confused to the original premise of MY OP.

 

[Nasma]

So one hour before natural birth it is fair game in your eyes?

I don't quite know what you mean by fair game. If, due to medical circumstances (say problems in birth), you had to choose between the baby and the mother, I would choose the mother. I think that I'm in the majority here. I don't know, but I think you'd choose the same.

I don't think the premise of the thread was '8 cells' I think it was up to 24 weeks.

And shooting would result in instant death? I would say that it would only be 100% true if the mother to be took aim whilst undergoing an ultrasound.

The OP was wondering what we thought of shooting as a method. Obviously it's a bad method as it's awful for the mother. If the foetus is capable of feeling pain, then whether the method causes pain is an issue. If it's before the stage where it can feel pain then this doesn't matter.

 

[Richo83]

Equating pro-choice with pro-abortion is like equating not being a pacifist with being a war mongerer. Worst. Argument. Ever.

Of course I oppose such methods which harm the mother, afterall, abortions are legalized to help protect the mother. In this instance, the woman is threatened due to an unstable mind, pro-choice people want the best options available to women so they don't have to go down such routes which not only threaten the baby but the mother. A time article recently (accuse me of lying I don't care) illustrated that in countries where abortion is illegal, rates of abortion are just as common as in countries where it is legal, but obviously much more dangerous. Banning abortion doesn't make it disappear, it makes it more dangerous, way to go, try to save one life and end up killing two.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ I hate the wat the fundies have co-opted 'pro life', as if anyone who opposes them must be anti life or something

 

[Rosstickle]

if a woman was to terminate her pregnancy or seek assistance in doing so, do people on here care what method is used to achieve this?

I couldn't care less prvoding there is no illegel firing of firearms (or similar).
I would prefer them to do it in a safe environment though.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Nick and Sportman I was referring to people like George's answer as they still seem confused to the original premise of MY OP.

Your original premise was to troll the abortion debate by using a ridiculous example, whilst conveniently forgetting that the woman in question was mentally unstable.
Hey, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good ole, sensationalist trolling attempt that is driven by the OP's myopic christian bias.

 

[Sportman1987]

Your original premise was to troll the abortion debate by using a ridiculous example, whilst conveniently forgetting that the woman in question was mentally unstable.
Hey, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good ole, sensationalist trolling attempt that is driven by the OP's myopic christian bias.

From what I gathered his main point was to question whether it matters to those who are pro choice how a fetus is aborted.

When it comes to the welfare of the fetus, no, it doesn't matter. I don't care if a fetus is shot, burnt, falcon punched, coathangered, whatever ... because no, I don't consider it of any more value than my sperm.

I obviously do care about the effect each of these methods has on the mother. So no, I would not approve.

If you're then going to take the angle of "well, it's her body, don't you believe she can do what she wants!!11" Ultimately I do agree, and maybe I'd be better saying I would not advise these methods.

 

[1jasonoz]

I have to admit I do find the anti-choice Christian brigade fairly amusing in their desire to preserve and unborn foetus at any stage of development, however by and large anyone living is fair game.

The Anti-choice (they're not pro-life regardless of what they want to label themselves) brigade in the US are part of the conservative Christian right that is overwhelmingly in favour of the war in Iraq - how is support for war consistant with being "pro-life"?

To the OP: No, I would not support any form of abortion that poses unnescessary health risk to the mother. I wonder how much stigmatisation by anti-choice activists contributed to her desperation to abort the pregnancy by herself?

You should hear their rants on IVF!!!!

 

[Wally Carter]

This thread needs more Doug Stanhope:

[youtube]miQ1vnLInZg[/youtube]

 

[Monniehawk]

Your original premise was to troll the abortion debate by using a ridiculous example, whilst conveniently forgetting that the woman in question was mentally unstable.
Hey, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good ole, sensationalist trolling attempt that is driven by the OP's myopic christian bias.

Definitely trolling! How long is a piece of string?
Another pure problem in an impure world, but it recalls the Gordian Knot or the classic moral quandary: Doing evil to do good!

Would you steal to buy life-saving medicine for a seriously ill friend when you have no other means of getting the cure?

If abortion means the destruction of a life form, and to not abort causes the destruction of the mother, AND you had to make the choice who lives or dies, what would you do?
Is it only the significance that you attach to the foetal life that will determine your response?
Other determinants will always be present and need to be confronted: i.e. Accidental pregnancy, rape, foetal malformation, possibility of mother's death in childbirth, emotional instability, IVF pregnancy, etc.
Then, what perspective determines your judgment?
Faith, ethics i.e. does the foetus have a soul?, rationality (which life is more valued), prior experiences, cultural background, amorality, etc.
The circumstances vary, the consequences vary, so the perceived outcome will vary.
The question is in danger of becoming largely irrelevant (if not simplistic) if it is framed within such a narrow moral scenario.
I get the impression that the thread has polarised into two sides who just want to win an argument rather explore truths.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

There are no absolute truths in this debate.
There are realities, and how each individual reacts to the circumstances that confronts them.

However, the OP's intention is to deprive the individual of the right to make an informed choice based on the facts and have us all conform to the doctrine of his choice.

The opening premise of the OP was yet another smokescreen for him to devolve the debate back to the pro-choice-no choice never ending merry-go-round.

 

[Monniehawk]

There are no absolute truths in this debate.
There are realities, and how each individual reacts to the circumstances that confronts them.

However, the OP's intention is to deprive the individual of the right to make an informed choice based on the facts and have us all conform to the doctrine of his choice.

The opening premise of the OP was yet another smokescreen for him to devolve the debate back to the pro-choice-no choice never ending merry-go-round.

I think you're right about the motives of the thread. A little too polemical.
BTW, I never mentioned 'absolute truths', I was referring more to exploration of issues implied in the OP, as against a polarised faction war that is more concerned with entrenching and then imposing a point of view.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

I think you're right about the motives of the thread. A little too polemical.
BTW, I never mentioned 'absolute truths', I was referring more to exploration of issues implied in the OP, as against a polarised faction war that is more concerned with entrenching and then imposing a point of view.

He is indeed the master of the polemic OP.
He doesn't want the intricacies of the subject debated at all. (Of which you raised some salient and thought provoking points in your previous post).

Kevin is the internet version of the wild eyed, maniacal bigots who confront you at an abortion clinic with a "dramatic" photo of an aborted fetus and an emotion filled diatribe, of which the only intent is to shame the mother and father into reconsiderinng an extremely difficult and heart wrenching decision which had, in nearly every case, been discussed and scrutinised for a number of tearful and highly emotional days.

I have had personal experience of these idiots. And I can tell you that the decision to abort, (even though our choice was based on medical issues and the potential of death for my wife), was the most difficult and painful of our lives. To be confronted by these misguided and judgemental fanatics was beyond the pale of human decency.

For the very life of me, I am unable to comprehend how they can justify these highly offensive and aggressive tactics as a human being, let alone justify it as working in the name of their particular God.

They are sick. Their methods are perverted in the extreme and, if there is indeed a hell, they should be at the front of the queue with a V.I.P. pass.

 

[Rosstickle]

There are no absolute truths in this debate.
There are realities, and how each individual reacts to the circumstances that confronts them.

However, the OP's intention is to deprive the individual of the right to make an informed choice based on the facts and have us all conform to the doctrine of his choice.

The opening premise of the OP was yet another smokescreen for him to devolve the debate back to the pro-choice-no choice never ending merry-go-round.

You should probably reword that sentence.

 

[Pie eyed]

He is indeed the master of the polemic OP.
He doesn't want the intricacies of the subject debated at all. (Of which you raised some salient and thought provoking points in your previous post).

Kevin is the internet version of the wild eyed, maniacal bigots who confront you at an abortion clinic with a "dramatic" photo of an aborted fetus and an emotion filled diatribe, of which the only intent is to shame the mother and father into reconsiderinng an extremely difficult and heart wrenching decision which had, in nearly every case, been discussed and scrutinised for a number of tearful and highly emotional days.

I have had personal experience of these idiots. And I can tell you that the decision to abort, (even though our choice was based on medical issues and the potential of death for my wife), was the most difficult and painful of our lives. To be confronted by these misguided and judgemental fanatics was beyond the pale of human decency.

For the very life of me, I am unable to comprehend how they can justify these highly offensive and aggressive tactics as a human being, let alone justify it as working in the name of their particular God.

They are sick. Their methods are perverted in the extreme and, if there is indeed a hell, they should be at the front of the queue with a V.I.P. pass.

I don't necessarily agree that every decision to abort a fetus is either a complicated or agonising choice. I also don't see how it matters anyway as I believe, your body your choice, whether talking abortion or euthanasia. The religions and their submissive flock are against the notion of "your choice" in all these matters not the actual event.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

I don't necessarily agree that every decision to abort a fetus is either a complicated or agonising choice. I also don't see how it matters anyway as I believe, your body your choice, whether talking abortion or euthanasia. The religions and their submissive flock are against the notion of "your choice" in all these matters not the actual event.

I agree, there are a very small proportion of people for whom an abortion is a flippant decision. I emphasise "small proportion".
For the rest it is indeed a very difficult time. Holding pro-choice beliefs does not change that.

 

[tesseract]

I agree, there are a very small proportion of people for whom an abortion is a flippant decision. I emphasise "small proportion".
For the rest it is indeed a very difficult time. Holding pro-choice beliefs does not change that.

How can you say "small proportion"? How do you know. Where did you get this from. Or did you make this up because it suits your argument?
I don't think there's a way of knowing this. Even in a poll, the numbers could easily be skewed by false answers, given the sensitivity of the question being asked. I think some people would be embarrassed to say; I don't care what happens to it, as long as it's out of me. Even if this is what they're privately thinking.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

How can you say "small proportion"? How do you know. Where did you get this from. Or did you make this up because it suits your argument?
I don't think there's a way of knowing this. Even in a poll, the numbers could easily be skewed by false answers, given the sensitivity of the question being asked. I think some people would be embarrassed to say; I don't care what happens to it, as long as it's out of me. Even if this is what they're privately thinking.

Because I believe that the vast majority of people are clear thinking, respectful and caring.
A decision that involves the termination of a fetus is one that, for this vast majority, is not a flippant and indiscriminate decision.
I know a few single ladies who are pro-choice and have terminated, and the decision was most certainly not purely based on "oh I am pro-choice I'll just get this ripped out of me".
A myriad of options, circumstances and opinions were taken into account and a decision made after careful consideration.
You, of course, would like to take that option away and impose a theist dictatorship on free will and free thought.
Bad luck!

 

[Sportman1987]

Because I believe that the vast majority of people are clear thinking, respectful and caring.
A decision that involves the termination of a fetus is one that, for this vast majority, is not a flippant and indiscriminate decision.
I know a few single ladies who are pro-choice and have terminated, and the decision was most certainly not purely based on "oh I am pro-choice I'll just get this ripped out of me".
A myriad of options, circumstances and opinions were taken into account and a decision made after careful consideration.
You, of course, would like to take that option away and impose a theist dictatorship on free will and free thought.
Bad luck!

If you truly believe that a fetus is not human, barring the costs & the invasiveness of the procedure for the woman, abortion should be a pretty straight forward decision.

Maybe not emotionally. But logically, provided you genuinely believe the early stages of a fetus to be human, am abortion is just a form of birth control.

I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk, because again I'm sure it is emotionally very taxing. But my point is that if you can become so emotionally attached to something which you, being pro choice I assume don't consider human ... maybe you should reconsider your stance on abortion.

 

[bit_pattern]

How can you say "small proportion"? How do you know. Where did you get this from. Or did you make this up because it suits your argument?
I don't think there's a way of knowing this. Even in a poll, the numbers could easily be skewed by false answers, given the sensitivity of the question being asked. I think some people would be embarrassed to say; I don't care what happens to it, as long as it's out of me. Even if this is what they're privately thinking.

You ever known anyone who's had to suffer through an abortion? Your atitude suggests not.

 

[Sportman1987]

No. Maybe this isn't the best example, but I've suffered through deaths of friends, & emotional thinking takes over. Doesn't mean that those thoughts are in any way rational or consistent with my personal belief system.

Edit - Bit's OP didn't quote Tess & I thought it addressed me, but the point still stands. Tess is right.

 

[tesseract]

Because I believe that the vast majority of people are clear thinking, respectful and caring.
A decision that involves the termination of a fetus is one that, for this vast majority, is not a flippant and indiscriminate decision.
I know a few single ladies who are pro-choice and have terminated, and the decision was most certainly not purely based on "oh I am pro-choice I'll just get this ripped out of me".
A myriad of options, circumstances and opinions were taken into account and a decision made after careful consideration.
You, of course, would like to take that option away and impose a theist dictatorship on free will and free thought.
Bad luck!

Good, I'm glad you've made clear that "small proportion" was only your opinion.

Did you base your small proportion hypothesis on these few ladies?

Those that chose abortion may or may not be clear thinking, especially given the emotional turmoil you say that they're going through with such a decision.
The same people are not respectful of life, considering that their wish is to terminate it.
These same people again are caring for themselves, not that of their unborn child. Selfish is the word that comes to mind when I think of those that put themselves before, in this case, their unborn child.

You have a talent for assumptions, considering that you assumed the "small proportion" thing, and now you assume that I'd do something that I wouldn't. Reason being is that I don't get involved in politics, I'm politically neutral. So I wouldn't impose anything of the sort on anyone.

I'll leave the bad luck to those who believe in it, as I don't believe in superstitions. It's unscriptural.

 

[tesseract]

You ever known anyone who's had to suffer through an abortion? Your atitude suggests not.

Do you want to now turn the debate into one based on emotion, and not one of principle?

 

[bit_pattern]

A simple 'no' would have been sufficient.