What I Think About Abortion

Right of the father is the father taking a chance of dying even now days having a baby is not risk free for the woman or nine months of discomfort at best for that matter.

Then even if there is a marriage there is no guarantee a man will not just walk away from the woman and the children as happen all the damn time

The lady I am now dating have two late teen daughters that she needed to raise by herself while moving from three countries that have three languages when her husband disappear into a bottle.

She is truly amazing but somehow I question if her ex-husband should be granted a say concerning the children or before that the fetuses.

I don't think you're a bad person, Snood. I just think you're more judgmental that you want to let on. You want a specific phrase to be used in describing abortion - it's the taking of a human life.

And really, no one here has disagreed with you. Semantics aside, the whole point of your "discussion" is to judge a woman's actions, as if you have the right to do so. If choice is between a woman and her doctor, you've certainly expended a whole lot of time and energy devoted to doing the very thing you say you're opposed to.

It's very apparent you'd never say to a woman directly, you're a baby killer. No, you're way more subtle and sophisticated than that. When you continually insist on correct terminology about taking a human life and disregard the medical and scientific views that constitute Life, you're not actually on the view point of Pro-Choice as you'd hope to be.

Other posters, who are men, have tried their best to give sound reasoning for their beliefs. And you've shut them down as well. What is interesting to me, is when I as a woman post, my judgement is questioned as "pathological," gaslighted (You didn't mean what you said - I somehow quoted incorrectly), appealed to emotion using person attacks against me, actually verbatim, telling me that my emotions are "raw", and finally, stomping your foot and refusing to "discuss" anything more.

Yes Snood, I think I'm with you, we are done.

I deserve better than that.

I think this discussion has been one of the more civil and constructive I've seen on the topic.

I think snood's question is why we allow the taking of a human life in this case. Legally, police are allowed to use lethal force, as are combat soldiers, and allowances are made in cases of self-defense. So how can we justify killing human life in the womb?

First, I accept that there are some people who will not allow any justification whatsoever, from the point of fertilization on. They are free to express that belief. They are free to take the necessary steps to prevent their own unwanted pregnancy, and they are free to provide a pregnant loved one with all the support needed to ensure a safe pregnancy and bring it to term. However, I don't believe that their freedom extends to denying choice to others who feel differently.

We know, however, that women have chosen to end their pregnancies throughout human history and that some societies, and some individuals, are more accepting of this than others. How can one "feel differently" about taking a human life before it is born?

I'd answer this question by suggesting that the fetus, while human, is a different, and special, category of human life. It isn't a "person". One example of why I say this is the behavior of demonstrators at abortion clinics. These are the self-appointed champions of the unborn who claim to love every unborn child. Yet they often present graphic photos of these naked aborted fetuses, or parts of them. No one would ever display gory pictures of their child that died in an automobile accident or of a loved one who was a burn victim. That would be considered highly disrespectful. Soldiers are prohibited from distributing photos of battlefield dead for the same reason. The fact that the most vocal defenders of the unborn see nothing wrong with displaying their aborted remains tells me that they do not see the victims as "persons". Nor does the census doesn't count a pregnant woman as more than one person. Again, in a crowded room we rely on a "head count" to determine the number of "persons". If we see seventy-five people in a room and half of them are pregnant there are still only seventy-five people in the room.

This doesn't mean that termination of a pregnancy should be seen as inconsequential, a choice to be made flippantly. The choice to reproduce and the choice to abort are equally solemn decisions. But I don't think we should equate human life in the womb with the complex arrangement of creativity, responsibility, and freedom which characterizes fully human life in its relation to the external world.

HIghtor said:


I appreciate your taking the time to address this more fully. However, the question you paraphrase me as raising isn’t what I was trying to say. I’ll quote my opening post:

I said:


What I was trying to say- ALL I was trying to say- is that the whole argument seemed to me to happen in a vacuum that excluded the possibility that a human life was involved, and I don’t think that’s honest.

I didn’t mean anything beyond that, or in addition to that… just that.

And I'll say again...No matter how many discussions are had about the right to terminate a pregnancy, and no matter how anyone chooses to frame their argument, to me the bottom line is still the same: it is up to the pregnant woman what happens with her pregnancy, not a room full of wanna-be scholars or wanna-be theologians, not the government, not the pope, not the biological father.

The pro-lifers have finally succeeded in having the laws concerning unborn foetuses changed, and an unborn foetus is now classified as having the same legal rights as a living ‘HUMAN BEING’.

You are driving to work while drinking a nice morning hot cup of coffee, which you accidently spill in your lap, momentarily distracted, you hit another care in which a pregnant woman has a miscarriage, but she herself is not harmed in any way. You are then charged with dangerous driving causing the death of a human being.

This woman has never been able to carry a pregnancy to its full term, but she isn’t saying anything, she’s going to get a big paycheck out of you in compensation, that is, after you get out of jail for the manslaughter of a human life.

There was a case in South Australia, where a pregnant woman, with her unborn foetus, were killed in a car crash. Her husband, the driver of the car was charged and convicted on 'ONE COUNT ONLY' of dangerous driving causing death. The unborn foetus was deemed to be part and parcel of the dead body of the woman and not that of an individual person.

Please read this Medium article by a mother with some valuable insights on abortion. I felt it really filled in some blanks in my understanding.

https://link.medium.com/giljfc1aPlb

Very apt. Thank you.

"Yes, I Believe the Fetus is Human. I’m Still Unequivocally Pro-Choice-
Here’s the reason why"

Sheesh, what a relief!

Women don't give birth to cows!! Or pigs. Or chickens. Not even cats.




Yes, women procreate other humans. I'm glad that was clarified.

It would help if we considered the effect that the patriarchy has had on our attitudes towards women and nature.

It hasn't been all that long when it was believed that women had no part in the creation of a child other than as a place for it to grow and be nurtured just as the soil is a place to grow and nurture a seed that grows into a plant.

It was the man's seed that was implanted into the womb of the woman, and it was just as unthinkable for a woman to reject the plant or fetus growing within her womb as it was for the soil to reject the seed.

The knowledge of the biology has changed, but the attitude in many cases has not. In the patriarchy women and nature are still downgraded.

I just want to share one response I got from the lady who wrote that piece. I asked and got her permission to talk about her and her experience. Anyway, I found her remarkable.

I am halfway through watching the movie The Last Duel. It's based on a true story about a woman who claims she was raped, and the events that unwind because of that, set in the year 1386. What you said about the Patriarchy really strikes a chord. What women have been put through is truly a shame.

I think we're stuck with the patriarchy until the end. Women gaining power does not mean a weakening of the patriarchy and a course toward a matriarchy. Power and control is contrary to the the concept of a matriarchy. The matriarchy is based on cooperation and balance and not power and control.

I think it has to start from the bottom up and not the top down.

I have no idea what we’re “stuck” with. I’m not aware of anyone advocating for or desiring a matriarchy.
The power structure that has always existed in the US was created by, for, and is maintained to serve one group above all others - white cis men.

I’d think that at least that much is undeniable. But I know some will deny it anyway.

Here is a more comprehensive look on abortion. From legal barriers to psychological ones, this gives insight of some of the subjects discussed on this thread including Gulit, Counseling and enacted Legislature:

https://www.ramapo.edu/law-journal/thesis/why-women-should-make-the-abortion-decision-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/

1. Thank you for posting that link.

2. The word "comprehensive" is an understatement.

3. The link you provided touches on anything and everything on the topic.

4. I strongly recommend everyone to check out the link.

5. Very very informative.

6. Again, thank you for posting the link.