Question for pro-choicers

Gonzomin said:
With you pro birthers, sex is a contract? Do dogs have contracts when they hook up? We are animals procreating and having sex. These nuances are your creations. However, a rapist is ignoring the niceties that your imagination conjured. It is not over at birth for a woman who had no choice in the deal. You are making a decision that will impact her entire life for her and not permitting her to have anything to say. You think that is right?
Perhaps men should have vasectomies at birth and have then changed when they have a woman's permission. Then they are deciding for themselves about their bodies. Men should have no input.
Click to expand...

do you even read this thread? no where did I say I am a "pro-birther" or pro-life. stop knee jerk reacting to things and actually read what people say.
 
distraff said:
My answer is she should be allowed to abort the fetus if it can't be safety recovered. This is because she shouldn't be forced to use her body against her will for the life of another. In the same way, I shouldn't be forced to donate my kidney to you even to save your life.
Click to expand...

lets assume it can be safely recovered. How does that really change things? Should she be restrained, made to go to the hospital, and have an invasive surgical procedure? How would that be any less violating than drawing blood for someone?


So here is my tricky question for you. Lets say that sometimes pregnancies happened randomly without any sex and produced a fully formed 9 month fetus immediately. These fetuses prevented the woman from ever walking, having sex, or independently urinating again. Surgically removing this fetus would fix all these problems but would kill the fetus. However, the fetus will never be born and will exist in her belly for the rest of her life. Should she be allowed to abort it?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of this question, and once again it's a bit word saladish. You are saying a baby spawns randomly, which massively inhibits the woman. She can have it removed but if it is removed, it's dead. If it's not removed, it's in there forever and she can't walk? I think this is a very obvious abort answer I don't understand how you think it's a tricky question.
 
g r i n d said:
lets assume it can be safely recovered. How does that really change things? Should she be restrained, made to go to the hospital, and have an invasive surgical procedure? How would that be any less violating than drawing blood for someone?
Click to expand...

If the fetus can be safety recovered, then there is no point in killing on extraction when you can extract it alive. In nearly every state in the US, 3rd trimester abortion is prohibited for this reason. We simply ban her from having an abortion without forcing her to have a baby early.

I don't understand the point of this question, and once again it's a bit word saladish. You are saying a baby spawns randomly, which massively inhibits the woman. She can have it removed but if it is removed, it's dead. If it's not removed, it's in there forever and she can't walk? I think this is a very obvious abort answer I don't understand how you think it's a tricky question.
Click to expand...

Yes, you understand my question completely. She is seriously inhibited by the pregnancy and it will be in there forever unless it is aborted. So why do you think killing a baby is justified for a woman's convenience in this scenario?
 
distraff said:
If the fetus can be safety recovered, then there is no point in killing on extraction when you can extract it alive. In nearly every state in the US, 3rd trimester abortion is prohibited for this reason. We simply ban her from having an abortion without forcing her to have a baby early.
Click to expand...

you said yourself you wouldn't support someone drawing blood against your will to save a life, so why would you support a woman being mandated to have an invasive procedure? Giving birth is more intensive than giving blood, but you are against being forced to give blood. I don't think your worldview lines up.


Yes, you understand my question completely. She is seriously inhibited by the pregnancy and it will be in there forever unless it is aborted. So why do you think killing a baby is justified for a woman's convenience in this scenario?
Click to expand...

because I think the right to her bodily autonomy trumps the babys. Just like I believe the right to have guns trumps the right of others not dying in mass shootings.
 
g r i n d said:
you said yourself you wouldn't support someone drawing blood against your will to save a life, so why would you support a woman being mandated to have an invasive procedure? Giving birth is more intensive than giving blood, but you are against being forced to give blood. I don't think your worldview lines up.
Click to expand...

I am not against mandating a women have an invasive procedure. A 3rd trimester abortion is already an invasive procedure and I'm just saying that its morally wrong to kill the fetus in this procedure when its life can be saved.

because I think the right to her bodily autonomy trumps the babys. Just like I believe the right to have guns trumps the right of others not dying in mass shootings.
Click to expand...

And that is why pregnant women should be allowed to have an abortion.
 
g r i n d said:
i became pro choice mostly out of self interest, because I was absolutely terrified about being in a situation where a girl got pregnant and me getting completely fucked over for the rest of my life lol. I do not want kids, at least right now.
Click to expand...

You're very honest about it. Many young women feel the same way. They're going to college, preparing to start a career. The religionists would tell you both to forego having a relationship with the opposite sex. We realists, however, would encourage you to go to a clinic for professional reproductive medical advice.
 
g r i n d said:
aren't you a "forced birther" when the baby becomes viable?

you hold the same logic, do you not? you just draw a later line than gonzo
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a forced-birther because there are scenarios in which, unfortunately, the child and mother must be separated -- almost always for her health, but often because the fetus has deformities.
 
Gonzomin said:
Nobody is in love with abortion. That is stupid. If the left wins, they will not make abortion mandatory. It will be us to the individual woman and her family. We do not want the state and government power to be absolute like the right does. You seek more government police power and more power over people's lives. You want more bureaucracies to examine and police women. More penalties and more pain for women in desperate circumstances.
Click to expand...

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/21/california-rep-jackie-speier-abortion/

Yep, Democrats love abortion. They want to be able to use their free exercise to go on committing abortions.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Fewer dead babies, though.
Click to expand...

Guess what? If the mother dies during a DIY abortion, so does the fetus. Here, I got this for you. Sorry, didn't have time to wrap it first.

SaNqEZ9.png
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
No, I'm not a forced-birther because there are scenarios in which, unfortunately, the child and mother must be separated -- almost always for her health, but often because the fetus has deformities.
Click to expand...

but you are against partial birth abortion, correct? so at the very least, at advanced stages you no longer support abortion.
 
distraff said:
I am not against mandating a women have an invasive procedure. A 3rd trimester abortion is already an invasive procedure and I'm just saying that its morally wrong to kill the fetus in this procedure when its life can be saved.



And that is why pregnant women should be allowed to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

ok?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I wonder how our forced-birther male friends would feel if we set up a govt. bureaucracy to oversee vasectomies? After all, isn't a sperm just a pre-baby? A male wishing to be rendered infertile would have to go through a battery of tests and questions, including an ultrasound wand in his rectum to check his prostate health. Then a panel would decide on whether or not to grant him the procedure. The panels would be made up, of course, by angry old women who want grandchildren. lol
Click to expand...

When did anyone bring up women and hysterectomies or are you still upset over yours??

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
Gonzomin said:
With you pro birthers, sex is a contract? Do dogs have contracts when they hook up? We are animals procreating and having sex. These nuances are your creations. However, a rapist is ignoring the niceties that your imagination conjured. It is not over at birth for a woman who had no choice in the deal. You are making a decision that will impact her entire life for her and not permitting her to have anything to say. You think that is right?
Perhaps men should have vasectomies at birth and have then changed when they have a woman's permission. Then they are deciding for themselves about their bodies. Men should have no input.
Click to expand...

Why are JPP liberals now bringing up women and hysterectomies, when I haven't seen it presented as a method of birth control??
 
g r i n d said:
but you are against partial birth abortion, correct? so at the very least, at advanced stages you no longer support abortion.
Click to expand...

Before we can discuss that medical procedure, let's define it.

"But "partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.
...
"The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated — and the more controversial — the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future."
...
"...the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.

Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally."

https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top