real life-I would say that only if the pregnant woman requests to see those things. As I have said many times before, abortion is not an easy choice, and I would suspect that there is great conflict to most women who choose abortion.
Are you hoping that by engendering guilt in the woman that she would decide not to abort? That is not very empathic of you. If you were having a heart transplant, would you want to be required to observe a video of the operation? I know that it is not the same as seeing brainwaves, but I think that you will get my meaning!
Phoenix32890 wrote:real life-I would say that only if the pregnant woman requests to see those things. As I have said many times before, abortion is not an easy choice, and I would suspect that there is great conflict to most women who choose abortion.
Are you hoping that by engendering guilt in the woman that she would decide not to abort? That is not very empathic of you. If you were having a heart transplant, would you want to be required to observe a video of the operation? I know that it is not the same as seeing brainwaves, but I think that you will get my meaning!
Real Life's main arguments seem to be centered around guilt.
I was under the impression that most pregnant women get ultrasounds early in the pregnacy to see whether the fetus is healthy. Also, to see if there is anything abnormal which may affect the mother.
I guess this isn't always the case.
Do women have to pay for ultrasounds in the USA? I know that may sound ignorant, but I am in that regard.
All the costs of medical care in the US could be a big factor as well.
I just heard yesterday on U.S. radio that some abortion clinics are telling their patients about the science based studies that indicate that a fetus can feel pain durring the abortion, and probably more pain than an adult since their pain recptors are developed, but the natural pain blockers are not.
The women are given the facts and asked if they wish first to give the fetus an anesthetic. So far of all the women that were given the option, none chose to abort without the anesthetic and many chose not to abort.
Also the city of Milwaukee, Wi had three abortion clinics until last week. One closed. Now only two are left who are part of a chain of nat'l abortion clinics.
As far as Phoenix guilt trip statement, I do believe all patients should be given the facts, even if they find them grotesque. How else can a woman make a decision of such importance, unless she knows ALL the facts. A friend of mine commented to me yesterday that a woman who thinks it's "her body" and she should be allowed to do as she wishes is a crock! He said it's no longer just "her body" once she becomes pregnent. I think he's absolutely correct.
When I was in Junior High, our girls gym class was shown a movie about abortion and were actually shown video taped abortions. One doctor aborted a child that fell into a 5 gallon bucket. The child was crying so the doctor clubbed it and killed it. It never left my memory. That's what happens sometimes durring late term abortions. What do you say to that Phoenix?
I also saw ultrasound video if a fetus being aborted and it squirmed and tried to push the forceps away. How grotesque is that? I guess the doctor giving the abortion didn't inject enough saline into the fetus' brain before trying to tear it into pieces.
why yes, non you have quite an idea there, I would add to it that before anyone is allowed to enlist in the military they be shown films of a 3 year old living torch covered with flaming napalm, a 17 year old gut shot with one round of 7.62 and for a finale a short film of a US soldier riding in a HV going over an IED and having his legs blown off. Then he can go ahead and enlist. What say you?
dyslexia wrote:why yes, non you have quite an idea there, I would add to it that before anyone is allowed to enlist in the military they be shown films of a 3 year old living torch covered with flaming napalm, a 17 year old gut shot with one round of 7.62 and for a finale a short film of a US soldier riding in a HV going over an IED and having his legs blown off. Then he can go ahead and enlist. What say you?
dys,
I would think there is a great difference in the situations you describe and that of an abortion. I would think that those enlisting would already know there is a possibility of them having to go to war and encountering many atrocities. It's hardly kept from the public.
Nondenom-christian, what you saw in jr. high was graphic and horrible, especially for a young girl to view. I can imagine how those images would stay with you for the rest of your life.
For a young girl, coming into womanhood and being aware of her possible motherhood, would closely identify with those films.
I have a friend who is against abortion because her mother tried to abort her and, thankfully, the abortion failed.
Both of you take this subject very personally. Trouble is, now that you have grown up, you have to realize that it isn't about you, it is about a range of women of such diversity that there isn't any one average or norm of women who get abortions.
None of us can know the reasons why women choose abortion over giving birth. There are as many reasons as there are women.
My answer to those who are totally against abortion is: If you force women to have live births, you must be willing to adopt as many of those children as possible. That includes deformed, mentally retarded, crack babies who never stop crying, AIDS infected babies. Until that becomes the norm for pro lifers, I cannot respect their willingness to force their opinions on others.
Momma Angel wrote:dyslexia wrote:why yes, non you have quite an idea there, I would add to it that before anyone is allowed to enlist in the military they be shown films of a 3 year old living torch covered with flaming napalm, a 17 year old gut shot with one round of 7.62 and for a finale a short film of a US soldier riding in a HV going over an IED and having his legs blown off. Then he can go ahead and enlist. What say you?
dys,
I would think there is a great difference in the situations you describe and that of an abortion. I would think that those enlisting would already know there is a possibility of them having to go to war and encountering many atrocities. It's hardly kept from the public.
so then MA I can conclude that you would have no ojbectiong to showing such a film to persons seeking to enlist? Those 18 year olds whose idea of war is based on John Wayne movies where bad things only happen to bad people?
For women whom MIGHT choose abortion, ABSTINENCE is the best choice.
One can never justify that the pleasure of sexual intercourse outweighs the negative feelings a woman has after an abortion.
dyslexia wrote:why yes, non you have quite an idea there, I would add to it that before anyone is allowed to enlist in the military they be shown films of a 3 year old living torch covered with flaming napalm, a 17 year old gut shot with one round of 7.62 and for a finale a short film of a US soldier riding in a HV going over an IED and having his legs blown off. Then he can go ahead and enlist. What say you?
Do you have personal experiences of war?
If so, would you have changed your mind about going if you knew what it was really like?
Yes I do and yes it would.
Quote:Do you have personal experiences of war?
Interesting, why do I assume that was meant with condescension?
It is not safe to assume. It was not meant with condescension. I just felt that you were coming from a place where you had experience of war.
dyslexia wrote:why yes, non you have quite an idea there, I would add to it that before anyone is allowed to enlist in the military they be shown films of a 3 year old living torch covered with flaming napalm, a 17 year old gut shot with one round of 7.62 and for a finale a short film of a US soldier riding in a HV going over an IED and having his legs blown off. Then he can go ahead and enlist. What say you?
Dys,
Would you agree that an 18 year old about to enlist who puts HIS OWN life on the line, and a woman that has an abortion that puts not her own, but ANOTHER's life to an end are really two different things entirely?
Or were you just looking for a way to dodge the question?
dyslexia wrote:why yes, non you have quite an idea there, I would add to it that before anyone is allowed to enlist in the military they be shown films of a 3 year old living torch covered with flaming napalm, a 17 year old gut shot with one round of 7.62 and for a finale a short film of a US soldier riding in a HV going over an IED and having his legs blown off. Then he can go ahead and enlist. What say you?
You seem to be comparing apples and watermelons here.
Although you make a good point, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Questioner wrote:
Real Life's main arguments seem to be centered around guilt.
Hi ?er,
Do you think a woman would feel more guilt if she sees the heartbeat, brainwaves and ultrasound
before the abortion when she still has the chance to avoid ending the unborn's life; or
after an abortion is done and she learns the medical status of the unborn with no chance to undo the deed?
Seems like informed consent would help avoid unnecessary guilt, wouldn't you agree?
Intrepid wrote:dyslexia wrote:why yes, non you have quite an idea there, I would add to it that before anyone is allowed to enlist in the military they be shown films of a 3 year old living torch covered with flaming napalm, a 17 year old gut shot with one round of 7.62 and for a finale a short film of a US soldier riding in a HV going over an IED and having his legs blown off. Then he can go ahead and enlist. What say you?
You seem to be comparing apples and watermelons here.
Although you make a good point, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
yes of course nothing I say could possibly have anything to do with topic at hand, I am an idiot, sorry for comparing dramitics with dramatics. In the future I shall only relate your idiotic drama. kiss my go to hell.
Prickly, Dys. Very prickly.
