Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2013, 02:18 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2013 02:54 PM by SheilaMercon.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 02:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 01:47 PM)nach_in Wrote:  why does anyone have the right to force a women to carry a baby in her womb for 9 months?

It's not about the consequences of having the baby, is about forcing somebody to do something with her body.

That's a stupid argument.
We force people to do things all the time.
Murder someone? Off to jail with you. Hell, in some places around the world do something bad enough and they'll kill ya. They sterilize repeat sex offenders. Police can legally take blood samples from people in cases such as a car accident.
Everything from jail to blood samples, all things that the state can legally restrict/take on your body.

AND as I said, it is ultimately the women's choice. If she has sex than a potential consequence of that is she can get pregnant. Nobody forced her to get pregnant, and in the case of rape I 100% support abortion.

I use to have the same opinion you have, I would say the same as you just did.
The key factor is recognizing that sex is a choice. Just like drinking is a choice.
Actually speaking of drinking, we inflict punishment on those under the influence of alcohol. Why? Because we recognize alcohol as a choice that a person makes and so we uphold them to the consequences of that action if not done responsibly.

What I'm trying to say is, why do we hold sex in a completely different light to alcohol, murder, streaking across a football game?
We accept that if you do things than there are consequences to those actions.
YET us (or now you) pro-choice people hold sex to a completely different degree of expectations. Suddenly it's "we have no right to say that there are consequences to those actions", suddenly it's completely okay to make absolutely stupid decisions such as have unprotected sex and there be no consequences.

What I'm trying to say is, why do we hold sex in a completely different light to pretty much everything else..?
It's a choice just like everything else. Just like alcohol is a choice. Just like taking drugs is a choice. Letting some dude shove his unprotected dick into your vagina is a choice.
As such I'm saying, just like murder, just like alcohol related offense, just like everything else in life, there should be consequences.

Even if your argument was sound here, and there should be consequences for sex (I don't believe there should be because sex between consenting adults is not a crime. You can't compare a basic biological function of our evolutionary development to murder or theft. Your logic is not sound.) Let's just pretend you're right and it is an act deserving of punishment. Where, I wonder are the consequences for the man stupid enough to shove his unprotected dick into that woman? He made an equally dumb choice. Just because women actually carry the fetus doesn't make it any less true that it takes two people to make a kid. Why should the woman suffer 9 months of discomfort, the agony of childbirth, and the emotional distress of carrying a pregnancy to term only to have to hand that child over while the man gets off free of consequences?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Based on your argument we should also outlaw drinking Gatorade the morning after a long night of drinking. You chose to drink so deal with the consequences. Your other comparison (murder) is not relevant because it is illegal where as having sex is not illegal in most cases.
Also, if you think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term as some sort of punishment for having sex, what about the man she had sex with? Pregnancy is not easy an it changes your body forever. Hell, I nearly died delivering my youngest daughter. Sometimes you don't know there is a risk until it is too late, basically there is always a risk. There is always that chance of some freak complication that causes mother and/or child to die during the pregnancy or in labor. Then smaller things like weight gain muscle displacement, stretch marks, not to mention possible emotional and psychological damage. Why should a woman be punished for doing something that is not illegal while the man who did it with her is not punished?

My personal opinion is if you have a baby in you then you should carry it to full term. BUT 1) it takes a long time to get a baby from a bunch or cells clumped in the uterus and everyone has a different opinion of exactly when those clumped cells become a baby, and 2) my personal opinion is irrelevant if it is anyone else's pregnancy besides my own.

I am pro-choice even though I don't think I could ever have an abortion. It is an extremely sensitive and personal ordeal. It is a decision that should always remain between a woman and her doctor. No government, no churches, no outside people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Although honestly I think once you get to a certain stage in the pregnancy I think the father should have some say, but I can't really think how they could enforce that.

Lastly, I am horrified by the prospect of back-alley abortions. Did you ever read about Dr. Kermit Gosnell? Can you imagine if we had tons of him around the country? I read the article when he was first charged (pictures and all). I was crying and physically ill after reading it. I had nightmares for months. That was while abortion was still legal. I don't even want to imagine the sick and horrifying consequences of outlawing abortion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Losty's post
13-02-2014, 05:18 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 05:22 AM by BeccaBoo.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 01:47 PM)nach_in Wrote:  why does anyone have the right to force a women to carry a baby in her womb for 9 months?

It's not about the consequences of having the baby, is about forcing somebody to do something with her body.

This is kinda where I come in on being pro-life. Admittedly we cannot force a woman to carry a baby to term. However, that doesn't mean she has a right to kill the human being inside her. How to resolve this? Just make it illegal for society to help her have an abortion.

One way to think of it is that within herself, a woman is her own jurisdiction. However, civilisation cannot be civil if it helps women kill innocent human beings. She is therefore stuck outside of civilisation if she choses an elective abortion. I know it certainly can sound callous, but on balance, it makes sense. (To be fair a medical abortion is also calous and even moreso ends the life of a human being.)

Consider this scenario, where many of the arguments of dependence of a fetus are duplicated, but with born people: A man is the only adult caring for a child in a very secluded region. Because of events outside his control, he and the child become stuck in seclusion, having no way to procure help from any other people for weeks or even months. This child is completely dependent on him. (It could also be a very dependent adult.) Without the man's help, the dependent cannot survive, and as this person's helper, the man becomes more drained of all his physical, mental, emotional, and material resources.

Does this man have the right to kill the dependent, either directly or through neglect? The answer must be "no." Days, weeks, or months are required for the man to be civilly released (by virtue of someone else in society assuming care) from the obligation of caring for the dependent. Likewise for a pregnant woman.

From my point of view, women are better served by viewing their femaleness as power, and by also acknowledging that with power, comes responsibility. Women are not alone in bearing such heavy responsibility, we still reserve the right to conscript soldiers, for example, and there are countless other people who serve to maintain civilised society despite risks to their own body, health, or mental and emotional states. Civilisation--the basis for claiming the right to anything at all--would crumble without these people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
earmuffs wrote:
"We're all bound by the law. If we break the law, there are consequences. If I drink 1 too many there's a consequence the next morning. If I kill a man the consequence is I go to jail. Action and re-action."

Half the worlds population would not fit into a law that states "a woman must carry her pregnancy to term and delivery unless she . . . ." We would have to include the man also as the donating party to the pregnancy. What should he pay; what legal recourse for him?

Also, what restrictions should we impose on her to make sure she follows through? What if she spontaneously aborts? Whose to judge she did nothing to cause it to happen? How long will it be before we judge her morals? Sounds like a totalitarian war on women's bodies. Back to the dark ages, the Victorian age, measuring women's heads, clitorectomies in developed countries.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 06:49 AM by Dee.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Beccaboo Wrote:
"From my point of view, women are better served by viewing their femaleness as power, and by also acknowledging that with power, comes responsibility. Women are not alone in bearing such heavy responsibility, we still reserve the right to conscript soldiers, for example, and there are countless other people who serve to maintain civilised society despite risks to their own body, health, or mental and emotional states. Civilisation--the basis for claiming the right to anything at all--would crumble without these people."


Women have been made prisoners of their body's for all of written History, under the guise of control. I question that the societies that kept them so, again half the world's population, were and are civilized. Why should women be forced to go back just when we are recognized as worthy of voting, less than 100 years ago? Not so long ago, really.

History proves that a woman's power lies in laws that protect her rights to herself. When those laws are taken away, her "power" then is reduced to "power" in sexual relations only--far less than nothing. That is women's historic record.

Read The Handmaid's Tale or watch the movie.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 07:30 AM by BeccaBoo.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-02-2014 06:32 AM)Dee Wrote:  Beccaboo Wrote:
"From my point of view, women are better served by viewing their femaleness as power, and by also acknowledging that with power, comes responsibility. Women are not alone in bearing such heavy responsibility, we still reserve the right to conscript soldiers, for example, and there are countless other people who serve to maintain civilised society despite risks to their own body, health, or mental and emotional states. Civilisation--the basis for claiming the right to anything at all--would crumble without these people."


Women have been made prisoners of their body's for all of written History, under the guise of control. I question that the societies that kept them so, again half the world's population, were and are civilized. Why should women be forced to go back just when we are recognized as worthy of voting, less than 100 years ago? Not so long ago, really.

History proves that a woman's power lies in laws that protect her rights to herself. When those laws are taken away, her "power" then is reduced to "power" in sexual relations only--far less than nothing. That is women's historic record.

Read The Handmaid's Tale or watch the movie.

I do understand that civilisation usually refers to organisation, and the standard usage is pretty cut and dry. However I think of it more as a state of being, like looking at a weather map and seeing mostly blue, but with pockets of red, where the formation changes and the shades also change. In other words, incivility still exists within a civilization, and a society can be more or less civilized. Civilization can break down in pockets while remaining otherwise intact.

The "ownership" of women may have made human society more civilised than before, but equal rights for women makes society more civilized than when ownership of women was or is practiced. By the same token, a society who helps a woman kill the human being inside her is less civilised than when it doesn't. A woman who by choice kills the human being inside her is less civilised than when she doesn't.

I concede that we cannot civilly force a woman to carry the unborn to term, but we also cannot civilly help her to carry out an elective abortion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Of course they should be forced to carry to term.

Atheists need a food supply, right?

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 07:59 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
DLJ
My children are food to no one! I beget only Atheists.

I will help her to carry out the abortion she needs.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dee's post
13-02-2014, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 08:23 AM by Adrianime.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
pro-life = pro-forced-birth = eww.

Why can't a woman carry a "baby" to term? Because it's dangerous, emotionally traumatic, expensive, feeds the overpopulation problem, changes her body, but most of all because she may just damn well not want to.

Saying actions are inescapably subject to their natural consequences despite solutions and medical progress made to fight those consequences is silly.
Next time I break a bone should I just let it heal on its own without seeing a doctor?
If a venomous snake bites me should I not seek antivenom, but instead blame myself for wandering in an area that had snakes?
...eh screw more example. Why should medical science exist if we are going to accept the natural consequences of life's activities???

Your arguments (maybe) would make sense to me if we were an endangered species instead of the freaking overpopulated virus of a species that we are.

P.S.
abortion is awesome.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2014 12:04 PM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
I think this would be a relevant thread to continue my conversation with @Stevil on abortion.
Quote:it's that I don't hold the beliefs that a fetus is not a person and the beliefs that it is wrong to harm persons
Why is it not wrong to harm a person?
Quote:The reason why it is not murder to abort a fetus is because the government don't make it illegal
No.. its not "murder" its manually terminating a pregnancy a fetus is not a different entity it is created by the mother and belongs to the mother.
Quote:A human being has 46 chromosomes A sperm or egg only has 23 chromosomes
that's bullshit.. chimps have 48 chromosomes are they human too?
Quote:The woman's body has to change in order to accommodate the fetus
That's because female gender has evolved specifically for that purpose.
Quote:Natural abortion is an integral part of that process, yes. But elective abortion is something entirely different.
Just as natural death is an integral part of the cycle of life, elective murder is something entirely different
Your analogies make no goddamn sense,selective abortion is not murder,its merely women taking control of their own bodies.
Quote:Great the "personhood" of a fetus is irrelevant then and so your own moral beliefs on this matter are also irrelevant
Well the moral beliefs are relevant to me! and secondly what about the personhood of the Sperm&the menstrual eggs?

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: