When does pro-choice become pro-abortion?

[Dexter Sinister]

I vote with Kreskin's last post on this. The very names of the opposing camps, pro-choice and pro-life, are pure political spin, and I don't think they represent the issue at all. The old pro-choice argument about a woman having a right to control her own body is a fraud; if she really could, the issue wouldn't arise, Unwanted pregnancies happen simply because people can't control their bodies. The old pro-life argument about the sanctity of a human life is purely religious; I've never heard an argument against abortion that isn't fundamentally religiously based, and as an unrepentant old atheist I just can't buy any of them.

The real issue is this: under what circumstances is it permissible to kill another human being? There is no right to life when life can be taken from you by an act of random violence, all the bills of rights in the world can't do anything but provide redress for your heirs and survivors, it won't give a life back. If you really had a right to life in any legally meaningful sense, you could sue to get it back. But you can't; once you're gone, you're gone forever. Your successors can obtain legal redress, but you're not coming back.

But to address the OP's question specifically, pro-choice becomes pro-abortion when the people promoting pro-choice decide abortion is the only option for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. It's not, they'll always be wrong about that, it's never the only option, but I don't think even Planned Parenthood counsels women to have an abortion; as I understand their program, they lay out the options with some sort of cost-benefit analysis and the decision is up to the pregnant woman.

Personally, I don't think this is an issue the law should be involved in at all. The law doesn't mandate what my physician should do if I have a particular medical condition, that's a judgment arrived at between me and my physician, and abortion should be the same, a decision arrived at between a woman and her physician.

Ah, but what the Hell do I know, I'm a man, I'm never going to face that decision with the same immediacy a woman will. I'm not even sure I'm entitled to have an opinion, but I have one anyway, and it's this: it's not really my business. Not even if I were the father would it really be my business. I'll never be the one to carry the child for 9 months, or nurse it; I may have some feelings about it, but the woman's preferences trump mine every time.

So if we all raise our sons right, they won't be knocking up anybody who doesn't want to be knocked up, and the issue will maybe go away...

 

[Kreskin]

At this point, Kreskin, I am the only one taking the "pro-life" stance. Who else were you talking to? Or are you in the habit of babbling into the wind?


I am not talking about "enslaving" anyone. Those "20 celled embryos" grow into beuatiful little boys and girls. Or is that the problem? I have noticed that most people, if not all, when talking about abortions refer to unborn children as "embryos", "zygots", or even "masses of tissue". Yet they refer to their own children, even when they are at the same stage as these "zygots", as children. What would be the difference between YOUR kids when they were a mere 8 to 12 weeks gestation and these others? Did you not consider them "human" before they were born? Did you not start planning, loving, and caring for their being and future?

Yes, I certainly did. In fact I knew some of mine by way of microscope. We obviously tried to have children and were successful. I probably followed my wife's pregnancy closer than most anyone would. Karyotyping/genetic reproductive analysis, ICSI, ultrasound embryo transfer, numerous ultrasounds, amniocentisis, gentitic analysis of the unborn...there wasn't much we didn't know. We obviously cared and were very pro pregnancy.

We also had 6 unused cryopreserved embryos. We had three choices with them:

1) Implant them with serious risks of abnormalities. We couldn't donate them to another couple because of the potential legal issues arising from the high risk embryos.
2) We could discard them.
3) We could donate them to science.

Ironically the pro-life camp will support #2 but not #3. We chose #3. It took us almost 2 years to make that decision. While the process was highly regulated there was too much going to be arguing semantics with philosophers. That entire period in my life gave me considerable respect for the people in the field of reproductive science and for reproductive rights in general. It was way too complicated to have some cookie-cutter approach forced down by way of someone else's belief system.

While we would probably never have an abortion (although #3 would hit someone's list of murderous action) I support the premise that those involved in reproductive dilemmas need the wiggle room to make choices that are right for them and the potential people they would be bringing into the world.

 

[talloola]

We all don't mind blasting jellies or other substances at sperm to kill it, or putting up blockades to prevent sperm from finding their target, they swim so hard, try so hard to reach their goal, and we attack them from all sides to 'kill' them, and we also prevent the egg from even getting to it's place where it awaits the arrival of it's other half, don't give a damn for the two halves of a future human who are trying their hardest to reach each
other,BUT, if all of that fails and they become 'joined', then holy hell breaks out, and we
do everything in our power to stop anyone from further steps to stop the event of a
full term pregnancy.

Seems very hypocritical to me, I don't mind any the use of birth control, and also I don't
mind a use of a procedure to prevent a pregnancy of continuing 'up until 12 weeks' of
a pregnancy.

I would never insist a pregnant woman be forced to carry a baby she doesn't want, to
full term, then give it away, that is absurd, as, when the baby is finally delivered at
full term, hardly any women would give it away, it is then a live baby, not a embryo at
about 10 to 12 weeks, and as Dexter explains, only a woman who has to carry a baby to
full term and give birth can be in charge of that process, not anyone outside. It amazes me how many people completely overlook, (as though it is 'nothing' special or complex) the nine months a woman carries a baby.
"Oh, just give it away.' I have four children, (probably two more than I should have had), and if I had have become pregnant with the fifth, I would have had a "early" abortion, as it would have been a mistake, and we used birth control all the time, as, we just could not afford another child. If I had carried my fifth child to term, I would have given birth to it, and brought it home, 'not given it away to someone', a mother/father doesn't just give away their children, once they are born, doesn't anyone understand that?, BUT in my opinion and belief, an early abortion is not immoral or wrong, and babies should not be bought into the world unless they are WANTED, and then be subjected to a unhappy life or poverty or other serious problems.
When a woman doesn't mind giving her baby away after a full term birth, then go for it, but not many would or could do that, it would be very difficult for most woman.

 

[warrior_won]

Just read your attitude then tell me if your first impression would be poor you ... or screw you.

Woof!

Is this directed at me or Kreskin? From context I would guess that it's directed at me. However, your reply contains no quote of mine, and it immediately follows Kreskins post. So I dunno who you're talking to here.

I'll assume that you're talking to me as Kreskin is not making an argument for being a "poor him"... If I'm wrong in my assumption, then just disregard the remainder of this post.

The question would be then, about my attitude. Is it poor me or screw you?

Obviously, I don't need to read my attitude. I know my life inside and out. My attitude, at this point, is very much in the "screw you" (Non-sexual! Strong emphasis! Non-sexual!) realm. I am absolutely fed up! I'm tired of being told what I want. I'm tired of being told how I feel. I'm tired of being told that I'm wrong for not feeling the way I'm told to feel.

Someone wants me to feel lonely. I do not feel lonely! I'm not going to apologise for not feeling lonely. I don't care if other people feel lonely. Loneliness is not my problem!

Someone wants me to feel left out. I do not feel left out! I'm not going to apologise for not feeling left out. I don't care if other people feel left out. It's not my problem.

Someone wants me to feel desperate. I do not feel desperate! I'm not going to apologise for not feeling desperate. I don't care if other people feel desperate. It's not my problem!

Someone wants me to feel isolated. I do not feel isolated. I'm not going to apologise for not feeling isolated. I don't care if other people feel isolated. It's not my problem.

Someone wants me to feel guilty. I do not feel guilty. I did nothing to feel guilty about. I'm not going to apologise for not feeling guilty. I'm not going to comment on other people, as the people I'm up against don't have a conscience.

So do I look at the world and say, "Screw you"? Damn right I do!

When people deny me my rights and expect me to forget about it and pretend it's not happening... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people commit crimes against me and expect me to walk away... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people invade my privacy and expect me to apologise to them for the things I said... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people track me through town like a wild animal, and expect me to enjoy it... My response is SCREW YOU!

When the police service dismisses my complaints and sends me a load of bullcrap as their explanation... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people ask me to look at the big picture and accept the crimes committed against me as part of a greater good... My response is SCREW YOU!

When the bank screws up on my account and they want me to accept responsibility for their mistakes... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people look at me and expect that I somehow owe them something... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people say that the crimes committed against me were self-inflicted... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people tell me that I can't always get what I want and that I can't even have what I'm legally entitled to... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people watch me under surveillance and somehow muster the arrogance to call me a creep... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people tell me that I suffer from delusions and paranoia, and that the evidence I've accumulated isn't real... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people tell me that I have an attitude that needs to be adjusted... My attitude is SCREW YOU!

When people try to intimidate me by telling me things that I know to be untrue... My attitude is SCREW YOU!

I could go on forever... But I'm going to stop right about --------------------> Here. (Arrow inspired by Nuggler.)

 

[warrior_won]

We all don't mind blasting jellies or other substances at sperm to kill it, or putting up blockades to prevent sperm from finding their target, they swim so hard, try so hard to reach their goal, and we attack them from all sides to 'kill' them, and we also prevent the egg from even getting to it's place where it awaits the arrival of it's other half, don't give a damn for the two halves of a future human who are trying their hardest to reach each
other,BUT, if all of that fails and they become 'joined', then holy hell breaks out, and we
do everything in our power to stop anyone from further steps to stop the event of a
full term pregnancy.

That doesn't make any sense. That's like saying we can roll a tire down the street and if it crashes into a family of five and no one cares. We can roll a bottle of windshield washer fluid down the street and let it slam into a family of five and no one cares. We can roll a headlight down the street and let it smash into a family of five, and no one cares.

But take all of those pieces and assemble them into a car... Then drive that car down the street and smash into a family of five and all hell breaks loose.

The very fact that you mentioned that there's so many ways to prevent a pregnancy supports the notion that there is really no reason for there to be an unwanted pregnancy. I mean, the dude can wear a condom... But if that's not his style, the chick can shove some foam or something up her twat. There's surgical procedures for both men and women to have that would prevent pregnancy. I mean, it just doesn't make fukking sense.

There's the pill that prevents conception. There's the morning after pill that eliminates the possibility that you may have inadvertently fertilized the egg. Why does a woman have to get pregnant and then wait 10, 20, 30 weeks to have a fetus surgically removed. Have you ever seen a fetus at 24 weeks? It's fully formed!!!!!!!!!! It actually looks like a fukking baby! Check out the abortion video in the Canadian Content video section for crying out loud.

Should abortion be legal? No way! Does a woman have a right to not be pregnant? Sure she does! She just has to exercise that right before she actually becomes pregnant in my opinion. And there's a billion and one ways for her to do that. There's everything from abstinence at the extreme end of the scale, to the morning after pill at the not-so-extreme end of the scale. Everything in between works just as well also... Condoms work. Diaphragms work. Foam works. Vasectomies work. Gimmie a break.

 

[lone wolf]

Is this directed at me or Kreskin? From context I would guess that it's directed at me. However, your reply contains no quote of mine, and it immediately follows Kreskins post. So I dunno who you're talking to here.

I'll assume that you're talking to me as Kreskin is not making an argument for being a "poor him"... If I'm wrong in my assumption, then just disregard the remainder of this post.

The question would be then, about my attitude. Is it poor me or screw you?

Obviously, I don't need to read my attitude. I know my life inside and out. My attitude, at this point, is very much in the "screw you" (Non-sexual! Strong emphasis! Non-sexual!) realm. I am absolutely fed up! I'm tired of being told what I want. I'm tired of being told how I feel. I'm tired of being told that I'm wrong for not feeling the way I'm told to feel.

Someone wants me to feel lonely. I do not feel lonely! I'm not going to apologise for not feeling lonely. I don't care if other people feel lonely. Loneliness is not my problem!

Someone wants me to feel left out. I do not feel left out! I'm not going to apologise for not feeling left out. I don't care if other people feel left out. It's not my problem.

Someone wants me to feel desperate. I do not feel desperate! I'm not going to apologise for not feeling desperate. I don't care if other people feel desperate. It's not my problem!

Someone wants me to feel isolated. I do not feel isolated. I'm not going to apologise for not feeling isolated. I don't care if other people feel isolated. It's not my problem.

Someone wants me to feel guilty. I do not feel guilty. I did nothing to feel guilty about. I'm not going to apologise for not feeling guilty. I'm not going to comment on other people, as the people I'm up against don't have a conscience.

So do I look at the world and say, "Screw you"? Damn right I do!

When people deny me my rights and expect me to forget about it and pretend it's not happening... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people commit crimes against me and expect me to walk away... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people invade my privacy and expect me to apologise to them for the things I said... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people track me through town like a wild animal, and expect me to enjoy it... My response is SCREW YOU!

When the police service dismisses my complaints and sends me a load of bullcrap as their explanation... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people ask me to look at the big picture and accept the crimes committed against me as part of a greater good... My response is SCREW YOU!

When the bank screws up on my account and they want me to accept responsibility for their mistakes... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people look at me and expect that I somehow owe them something... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people say that the crimes committed against me were self-inflicted... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people tell me that I can't always get what I want and that I can't even have what I'm legally entitled to... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people watch me under surveillance and somehow muster the arrogance to call me a creep... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people tell me that I suffer from delusions and paranoia, and that the evidence I've accumulated isn't real... My response is SCREW YOU!

When people tell me that I have an attitude that needs to be adjusted... My attitude is SCREW YOU!

When people try to intimidate me by telling me things that I know to be untrue... My attitude is SCREW YOU!

I could go on forever... But I'm going to stop right about --------------------> Here. (Arrow inspired by Nuggler.)

Obviously it was for you - but you might want to ask yourself why you felt it necessary to go into a long-winded rant over one line that you weren't even sure was dedicated to you. Is that how you handle your legal issues? Mayhaps there is a reason local authorities choose not to believe you and simply dismiss you as a nut. Throughout these forums, you do tend to come across as a self-absorbed narcissist. My suggestion would be exended therapy then start fresh some place where nobody knows you. Of course, when your shyte doesn't stink and only you can be right and everyone who doesn't worship you is someone to be berated, you're not going to win any popularity contests.

Good luck in future endeavours....

Woof!

 

[tracy]

The very fact that you mentioned that there's so many ways to prevent a pregnancy supports the notion that there is really no reason for there to be an unwanted pregnancy. I mean, the dude can wear a condom... But if that's not his style, the chick can shove some foam or something up her twat. There's surgical procedures for both men and women to have that would prevent pregnancy. I mean, it just doesn't make fukking sense.

There's the pill that prevents conception. There's the morning after pill that eliminates the possibility that you may have inadvertently fertilized the egg. Why does a woman have to get pregnant and then wait 10, 20, 30 weeks to have a fetus surgically removed. Have you ever seen a fetus at 24 weeks? It's fully formed!!!!!!!!!! It actually looks like a fukking baby! Check out the abortion video in the Canadian Content video section for crying out loud.

Should abortion be legal? No way! Does a woman have a right to not be pregnant? Sure she does! She just has to exercise that right before she actually becomes pregnant in my opinion. And there's a billion and one ways for her to do that. There's everything from abstinence at the extreme end of the scale, to the morning after pill at the not-so-extreme end of the scale. Everything in between works just as well also... Condoms work. Diaphragms work. Foam works. Vasectomies work. Gimmie a break.

Just so you know, no birth control method works all the time. Condoms are only about 86% effective with typical use, diaphrams even less. The most effective methods seem to be surgical since they reduce the chance for human error (vasectomies and tubal ligations), but good luck getting one if you are under 35 and don't have any kids. Most docs won't do them on patients like that. The morning after pill prevents implantation of fertilized eggs, as do many forms of birth control: the pill, depo-provera (the shot), IUDs, the patch, etc. If a fertilized egg is a person then all those methods are wrong. I guess they could choose abstinence, but that isn't realistic for most people even if it works for some.

BTW, I've seen fetuses at 24 weeks because we routinely look after them, since that's when they're able to survive outside the womb. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester of pregnancy. Find me a doctor in Canada who will routinely abort healthy fetuses beyond viability and I'll get just as outraged as you.

 

[talloola]

Automobiles have nothing to do with 'human' reproduction.

We are talking about the failed attempts at preventing pregnancy, not the successful ones.
It's all human error, that will never be prevented.

The situation where women find themselves pregnant, when they don't want to be will
always exist, it is unrealistic to suggest that, those situation should be prevented, we all wish that, but it
never will. We shouldn't spend time criticizing in an unrealistic manner, all that tells me
is what you're saying about yourself, '" look how noble and good I am", and I have the right
to stand up on my high horse and look down on the 'mistakes' others make.

Others should stay out of the personal problem, of the women in these situations. They can resolve their problem with the help of their doctor, families, or other persons they trust. It is not the position of strangers to stand back and judge them. That is tacky and rude and not constructive.

The constructive method, one who is against abortion, can play,is to behave in a way that prevents 'them' from landing in that position, and stay out of the business of others.

 

[gerryh]

Ok...for the pro-choicers..... when is abortion no longer an option and why?

 

[lone wolf]

Ok...for the pro-choicers..... when is abortion no longer an option and why?

When the fetus can live outside the womb I don't believe abortion/induced miscarriage should be an option - unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. The jury's out on this one because there have been survivals of premature births in the seventeenth week.

Woof!

 

[gerryh]

When the fetus can live outside the womb I don't believe abortion/induced miscarriage should be an option - unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. The jury's out on this one because there have been survivals of premature births in the seventeenth week.

Woof!

and over the years this "survival point" has gotten lower and lower. The "accepted" cut off point at this time is 20 weeks (even though Canada allows abortions up to the day before birth). Plus, survival outside the womb is a very broad term. "Preemies" require exstensive medical intervention to survive, but then again, full term babies will die within days if left to their own devices.

 

[lone wolf]

and over the years this "survival point" has gotten lower and lower. The "accepted" cut off point at this time is 20 weeks (even though Canada allows abortions up to the day before birth). Plus, survival outside the womb is a very broad term. "Preemies" require exstensive medical intervention to survive, but then again, full term babies will die within days if left to their own devices.

Hence "the jury's still out".

Really, I don't suppose you'd survive - even at your advancing years - naked, without shelter, or the abilities to walk and feed yourself. Survival outside the womb is what we all face. At 20 weeks a preemie requires intensive care. Beyond that is bordering on experimentation. Can that really be humane?

Woof!

 

[gerryh]

Hence "the jury's still out".

Really, I don't suppose you'd survive - even at your advancing years - naked, without shelter, or the abilities to walk and feed yourself. Survival outside the womb is what we all face. At 20 weeks a preemie requires intensive care. Beyond that is bordering on experimentation. Can that really be humane?

Woof!

are D&C's and D&E's humane?

 

[lone wolf]

are D&C's and D&E's humane?

Nope.... In my opinion, they're not. That's why, if you'd care to read my initial post on this, I claim to be reluctantly pro choice. I have no right to control what a woman chooses to do with her body or any part of it. That's between her and her conscience.

Woof

 

[gerryh]

Nope.... In my opinion, they're not. That's why, if you'd care to read my initial post on this, I claim to be reluctantly pro choice. I have no right to control what a woman chooses to do with her body or any part of it. That's between her and her conscience.

Woof

and that's where things diverge, the unborn baby,imnsho, is not a "part" of a womans body. It is a seperate entity. It has implanted itself onto a womans womb and recieves succor through that implantation.

 

[lone wolf]

Is temporarily connected not considered a part until detached? I agree, they're separate entities - except that one depends on the sustinance provided by another in order to survive. The point is moot with me considering, in my opinion, it is the woman's body. Whether that "thing" be a polyp, a tumour, a baby or a hangnail, the choice in what to do and how to deal with it is hers.

Woof

 

[gerryh]

Is temporarily connected not considered a part until detached? I agree, they're separate entities - except that one depends on the sustinance provided by another in order to survive. The point is moot with me considering, in my opinion, it is the woman's body therefore her choice.

Woof

A newborn depends on sustenance provided by the other in order to survive. So far, I see no real difference between pre-born and new born.

 

[tracy]

When the fetus can live outside the womb I don't believe abortion/induced miscarriage should be an option - unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. The jury's out on this one because there have been survivals of premature births in the seventeenth week.

Woof!

No there have not. There is absolutely no reputable neonatalogist in the world who would claim to have saved a 17 weeker. 21 weeks is so far considered the absolute edge, though even those claims are debatable. Most hospitals won't treat under 23 weeks. At that point a fetus has about a 50% chance at survival, and the chance of them surviving without serious health issues is much smaller. A 17 week fetus doesn't have the capability to have gas exchange in its lungs because it doesn't have true lungs yet.

 

[tracy]

A newborn depends on sustenance provided by the other in order to survive. So far, I see no real difference between pre-born and new born.

How about the ability to breathe? That's the biggest difference I see. I am pro-choice and would give viability as the time when abortion of healthy fetuses should not be permitted. Most docs and hospitals agree with me. Most of them err on the side of caution and lower the age to 20 weeks, which is a good 2 or 3 weeks before viability so there is no chance to abort a fetus that could have survived even if it means a loooooooonnnnnnnngggggg stay in the hospital neonatal intensive care unit.

 

[tracy]

and over the years this "survival point" has gotten lower and lower. The "accepted" cut off point at this time is 20 weeks (even though Canada allows abortions up to the day before birth). Plus, survival outside the womb is a very broad term. "Preemies" require exstensive medical intervention to survive, but then again, full term babies will die within days if left to their own devices.

The accepted cut off time for abortion is well below the accepted cut off for survival even with the most advanced neonatal intensive care. People don't seem to understand that those few weeks make a huge difference. Until we come up with some way to create artificial lungs for those babies or an artificial womb like environment where their own lungs can continue to grow, they will not be able to survive. They don't have developped lungs yet.

A 20 weeker will absolutely be unable to survive outside of the womb. 100% of them will die no matter what we do to them. That's what makes them different from a 24 weeker or a term baby. That's my rational for 20 weeks as a cutoff.