Baby Killing?
- Thread starter Hani
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
My my. "Hosts or carriers". You must write the comments for the Japanese minister who commented on women and their roles as mothers.
It is never right to force a woman to carry a child for 9 months and then give birth to it, at times to her detriment and possibly even her death. Ask any obstetrician and they will tell you that in a case of an emergency, they will save the mother first and the foetus second. I was told this myself when I begged them to save the baby when we found out that the baby had not died as we had first thought when everything went so wrong.. "No my dear, you are the priority and if we can save the baby, we will"...
You find the concept of arranged marriage to be wrong, but you think women should be forced to carry and birth a child against their will?
What of rape victims? What of a woman whose health is in danger and to carry forward with the pregnancy will result in her death? You cannot say yes to some and no to others. An embryo does not have cognitive thought or recognition or consciousness. Press on a pregnant uterus and the embryo will move due to the pressure of the fluid around it when the uterus is pressed. Pushing a vaccuum into said uterus will disturb the fluid around the embryo and it will look like it is trying to escape. Hell, both my sons looked like they were trying to escape with each ultrasound we had simply because of the pressure put on the uterus by the probe.
The whole notion or image of "the baby" is quite emotive, hence why pro-life supporters use it.
How any human being can support killing a baby is beyond my comprehension.
I especially can't understand how a woman could do that. As for rape, that excuse is old. The chance of getting pregnant during a rape is miniscule. And with all the morning-after drugs out there now, the rape excuse is dead. It still flabbergasts me that people don't care about the 1.5 million babies killed per year, but they freak out about 3,000 killed in war.
I especially can't understand how a woman could do that. As for rape, that excuse is old. The chance of getting pregnant during a rape is miniscule. And with all the morning-after drugs out there now, the rape excuse is dead. It still flabbergasts me that people don't care about the 1.5 million babies killed per year, but they freak out about 3,000 killed in war.
I don't think so. You are just being arbitrary.
Bells
Staff member
I suspect a lot of things are beyond your comprehension sandy.
I especially can't understand how what happens to another woman's womb or happens in it for that matter is really any of your business.
You have scientific data to back this up of course?
Oh good grief.
Do you actually know what the morning after pill does? If you did and are pro-life, you would not be hiding behind it as a reason to not have abortions.
The morning after-pill prevents the pregnancy from taking. So if a woman has unprotected sex (either voluntarily or by being raped) and conception occurs (eg there's a baby on the way), the morning afterpill prevents said conception from going any further. Therefore, the morning afterpill can kind of be seen to be a form of abortion, since it stops the pregnancy from continuing.
And not all women are able to go to a doctor to get the morning after-pill. Some are too traumatised to even be able to leave the house for example. Some cannot bear the thought of going to a hospital or calling the police because they stupidly think it is their fault and some cannot bear the thought of having internal examinations, etc, when they report their rape. So no, you cannot say that rape is an excuse.
When one considers the number of natural abortions that occur each year (miscarriage), I am amazed you are not tearing your hair out in horror.
When a woman has an abortion, she is not killing a cute and cuddly bundle of joy that gurgles and cries as a baby would. Maybe instead of referring to emotive language and argument, you actually read up on abortions (and the morning after-pill) from a scientific standpoint. As in leave the religious text and propaganda behind and actually read what exactly constitutes an abortion before you continue with the debate. Hmm? Educate yourself and broaden your mind a bit.
The point of miscarriage raises an interesting question. If a woman miscarries, are the police and D.A. obliged to investigate her life and habits, and charge her criminally if her actions or omissions are believed to have contributed to the miscarriage?
i worded my post wrong. replace 'alive' with 'human'
Better a fetus aborted than another unwanted child in the world. It's a matter of killing it humanely or letting it live out a life of misery, neglect or abuse.
Not all children will be adopted, not all children can be taken care of or have parents. Ultimately it is unfair to the child.
Realistically, sex produces offspring regardless of whether they are ready to be parents. Humans have sex recreationally and without responsibility and since you can't regulate it, it would be detrimental to the child not the parent who is not prepared or fit to take care of that offspring.
Abortion is actually humane in the long run.
Not all children will be adopted, not all children can be taken care of or have parents. Ultimately it is unfair to the child.
Realistically, sex produces offspring regardless of whether they are ready to be parents. Humans have sex recreationally and without responsibility and since you can't regulate it, it would be detrimental to the child not the parent who is not prepared or fit to take care of that offspring.
Abortion is actually humane in the long run.
Ha! I knew that one would provoke a Bellsian response.
Anyway: no, I didn't say anything about either of those cases. At risk of the two lives, the mother's is...all right, how to put this. Preferred? More valued? I'll let you pick the term as you choose. I agree that the mother should be saved above the child, however; or at her preference.
Oh, but I can. I'm a social Darwinist. Danger is one thing, rape another; I have no interest in promoting the proliferation of the genes of rapists or endangering the lives of women.
Well, you must admit there's probably a reason baby humans have such appeal. But I think the moral case against abortion for other reasons is quite strong; or at least abortion on such terms is indefensible. But others may engage in it or not as they will.
Bells
Staff member
Yes yes, and I took your bait.
She is rarely given the preference.
Then you support abortion. There are no 'if's and but's' on this issue. You are either pro-life or pro-choice. You cannot support abortion for one or two instances and not for others.
Surely you jest!
I find no appeal in a newborn. I find no appeal in getting up in the middle of the night to be confronted by a screaming child, only to feed said child and then have him screaming for another couple of hours because of wind. I find no appeal in dirty nappies or the copius amount of washing I need to do on a daily basis.
I find appeal in babies when they sleep through the night and are toilet trained.
Don't get me wrong, I adore my 6 week old to my very core and would kill and die for him (and my toddlerfor that matter) without batting an eyelid. But I find no "appeal" in him at the present moment.
Yes it is. But you cannot apply your moral beliefs upon others in such a fashion.
That is not for you or anyone else to say. A woman gets an abortion for a reason that is justified to her. Abortion is a personal issue. Ergo, you or I cannot tell others how to believe or act in regards to said issue.
So you are pro-choice.
well this is what they teach in med schools.
Why not? Why can't one support abortion for, say, rape victims, yet not support abortion as a late form of contraception? Or why can't one support aborting a "medical freak of nature", yet not support other forms of abortion?
I don't get it, Bells, why do you think abortion is an "all or nothing" issue?
Sounds kinda' like you're talking about a cute little puppy!
Baron Max
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Again, How I hate it when good sense, common sense, rationality, logic, morality, ethics and general decency force me to agree with Baron Max.
The transition from gametes, to zygote, to fetus, to newborn, to child, adult has no clear demarcations that allow us to say "this is human, this is not'. I have no trouble with contraception, morning-after pills, or (probably) first trimester abortion, but beyond that my unease steadily increases.
I find wholly abhorrent Bell's postion that I especially can't understand how what happens to another woman's womb or happens in it for that matter is really any of your business.
It is not what is happening to the other person's womb that is in question, it is what is happening to this nascent human being. Certainly there is a balance of rights to be discussed and evaluated, but to paint it as a one sided issue revolving solely around the female strikes me as unbalanced, unjust and self serving.
My dearest Bells, I most certainly can. I have no such label, specifically; I think abortion (when I think about it) is morally correct in some instances and not others.
Oh, come on. Don't you think he has cute chubby cheeks and don't you like his big round eyes? I appreciate the little bugger's running you mad, but isn't he adorable, really?
Not for me, sure: I'm male.
But I like them when they can walk around and laugh.But people do, and it's called law.
I abortion would be even more personal for the aborted. But you are imagining that women do nothing for selfish reasons, or that anyone does. This is not true. For example, people still refuse to donate to Myuu. This is selfish.
So you are pro-choice.
Bells
Staff member
Because I don't think there is a middle ground with the issue of abortion. You are either for or against it. To say you support abortion for some circumstances but not others does not mean you are pro-life.
You can say that you support for some circumstances but not others. But doing so means that you do not take a pro-life stance. Pro-lifers think it is all or nothing. There is no middle ground. Women whose children are deemed to be a "medical freak of nature" are abused and harrassed when visiting clinics that perform abortions, because to pro-lifers, they are committing murder. Pro-choice recognises that a woman has a right to choose to terminate in instances of rape or for medical reasons. Pro-lifers do not.
Only without a tail.
But would you deny women the right to have an abortion, even though you found it morally repugnant?GeoffP said:
That's what the whole argument comes down to. Not what you or I think about "baby killing". But about the right of the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
I appreciate those cute chubby cheeks and big round eyes when said big round eyes are fastly closed as he sleeps. Don't get me wrong. I kiss those little chubby cheeks every chance I get. But at 3am when those "big round eyes" are wide open and looking at me with this little glint of "what is this sleep of which you speak".. I am not so appreciative.
And yes he is adorable. He's been smiling back at us for 2 weeks now and did his first little gurgle back at us a couple of nights ago.. at 2:30am. *Sigh*.. Hard to be cranky when he did the gurgle.. but sleep.. oh glorius sleep.. how I miss thee.
My husband is the same. Same for me actually. Although my 19 month old has gotten to the "why?" stage.:bawl:
And in this instance, the law has prevented people doing so by allowing for women to legally have an abortion.
Funny that huh?
Oh I am well aware that women have abortions for purely selfish reasons. The law allows them to be selfish. It is their body and we cannot dictate or force them to carry forward with the pregnancy. Doing so is equally repugnant and selfish.
I donate by allowing my weary eyes to peruse through what is written of Myuu. What could be better than donating one's time.
No, because I don't care if other women terminate their pregnancies, ultimately. I'm only concerned about the fitness of my own progeny.
Well...in honesty what about the right of the baby not be terminated? What makes it different than us, or "not alive"?
I'm not looking forward to the no sleep part. I already get none.
And in this instance, the law has prevented people doing so by allowing for women to legally have an abortion.
Funny that huh?[/quote]
Yes, but what I'm saying is that the law is malleable.
But why? We dictate that people can't do lots of things that would be considered selfish. Why not this?
I donate by allowing my weary eyes to peruse through what is written of Myuu. What could be better than donating one's time.
Donating one's hard cash. Small bills preferred.
People don't consider who is going to take care of the unwanted children if abortion were illegal. It's not so much about abortion but the ramifications of offspring that are unwanted which is far more inhumane. Also, if you think this planet is crowded now, it would be devastating if every conceived child were born. It would be far worse for society in the long run.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
If this is what you believe you are mistaken. You have created a dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice. This simplistic approach produces great sounds bites, but has little merit when considering complex ethcial issues.
Unknown said:
No no : shakes head : you don't understand, babies are meaningless to people, they have no rewards only take. Adults killed in a war are equally useless but to society they have value because they're not babies... thus we see niether should really be of concern to us. Let the babies never be born, those children would likely grow to become evil and kill someone anyways.. as for the mindless drones in the army, let them die they deserve it for joining.
We must recall here that it is an easier prospect to just make something illegal than work after the source of the problem.
Sex ed., birth control, and a major shift of cultural attitudes about sex are what are needed. Sadly, though, anti-choice, "pro-life" misogynists get in the way.
General education and economic empowerment cannot be overlooked here, either, but political allies of the pro-life misogynists tend to work against that.
How convenient. Create a problem, blame someone else, and then complain, complain, complain. How about doing something useful for once?
Sex ed., birth control, and a major shift of cultural attitudes about sex are what are needed. Sadly, though, anti-choice, "pro-life" misogynists get in the way.
General education and economic empowerment cannot be overlooked here, either, but political allies of the pro-life misogynists tend to work against that.
How convenient. Create a problem, blame someone else, and then complain, complain, complain. How about doing something useful for once?