Indisputable Abortion FACTS:

[Spiffor]

you're for sure not talking about let's say 99,5% of the current abortions.

Well, all abortions I've personnaly heard of were performed because the mother could not afford, in terms of time, money, and relationships, to raise a baby. This is what made the pregnancy unwanted.
I admit I don't know every aborting woman on Earth, but I highly doubt that only 0.5% of total abortions are related to the assessed inability of the mother to provide love to her kid.


Edit : oh I see, you are talking about the 0.5% kids that won't be loved...
First, less than 99.5% of unwanted children will be loved like you enjoy to believe. If its existance has enough consequences over the life of the mother (or the parents), it may very well become the scapegoat of the family, with potential terrible trouble with more timely siblings. I however admit that a vast majority (but I'd rather think of 70%) of unwanted children will still be loved by their parents.

But whether they'll feel this love on a daily basis is another matter entirely. If the mother is alone and has to take a second job to make both ends meet, this will be a situation where she cannot give love satisfyingly for her kids (this can also lwer the attachment to the kid in early years, when you have good reason to hate them when they wake you up at night).

MANY unwanted pregnancies are due to the fact the father is abandoning the pregnant mother, who has then to adapt her lifestyle to being a lone income bringer, and who'll have to adapt to an extra person to feed. This is a big change, especially when you are pregnant and physically cannot spend too much effort for it. If you have a stable situation with a house on your own, a stable and satisfying income etc., fine. But if you don't and are forced to take a bigger housing that what you'd need alone because of your pregnancy, well, things can be difficult...

I don't know on what personal experience you base your allegations about abortion. Maybe the women you know to have aborted were living a stable life and only feared an untimely kid would disrupt their carreer plan. Maybe the women you know to have coped with the unwanted pregnancy resumed a stable relationship shortly after the birth. Maybe the women who coped with the unwanted pregnancy managed to overcome the material difficulties they encountered, good for them.
But I don't think you base your experience on a sample similar to mine. The aborting mothers I know of did so because they :
- had an unstable sentimental life. They didn't want to give birth in this unstable climate
- were studying and would have their whole studies (and hence their whole professional life) ruined because of the pregnancy in itself, and the kid later.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
In fact most of these babies would probably not even be 'unwanted' if the parents didn't knew there was an option of abortion.

Yes. God forbid the parents go abroad to abort, or that they resort to back alley crooks and butchers to perform an unhealthy and dangerous abortion. God forbid the parents of unwanted children kill the infant after birth. God forbid the parents to blame all their mishaps to the kid and make its life a hell. God forbid the too young mother isn't mature enough to raise her kids satisfyingly.

Mankind has never seen such a thing, ever !

[Zylka]

In the end, murder doesn't justify any of that criteria. This is the roadblock you'll unfortunately never get around

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
In the end, murder doesn't justify any of that criteria. This is the roadblock you'll unfortunately never get around

There is a roadblock only in your mind. This imaginary roadblock is to consider the destruction of a foetus as "murder". This imaginary roadblock doesn't exist in my mind, and I have no problem with my position.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There is a roadblock only in your mind. This imaginary roadblock is to consider the destruction of a foetus as "murder". This imaginary roadblock doesn't exist in my mind, and I have no problem with my position.

To which I fairly ask - WHY does this roadblock not exist in your mind? WHY is a human foetus not human - please define for me

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
To which I fairly ask - WHY does this roadblock not exist in your mind? WHY is a human foetus not human - please define for me

And like I said before this question is pointless, so I do not bother with it, and shamelessly use the law as definition of when it is possible to destroy a foetus or not.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And like I said before this question is pointless, so I do not bother with it, and shamelessly use the law as definition of when it is possible to destroy a foetus or not.

The question is seemingly pointless because you CAN'T answer it - unless you can explain otherwise. Yet you just blindly accept the arbitrary law without ANY personal justification? Do you do this with all aspects of society?

Rather apathetic, at best.

[Atahualpa]

Zylka chill!

A fetus belongs to the mothers body and the mother can decide on what to do with it.
And because I think you too have a point, I believe a timeframe of 3 months is very well okay.

Why are you ravaging about this stupid black and white topic anyway? This topic is gray, there is wrong and right, do's and dont's and lots of things to consider and they are very close together. Its not easy to draw a line here and I dont think you will find anything better than the current situation.
Not allowing abortion is just soooo easy to say when you dont think of all the consequences.
Just look at Ireland, those girls are flying to the UK to do abortion.

ata

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
The question is seemingly pointless because you CAN'T answer it - unless you can explain otherwise.

Let me explain otherwise then.
The question on whether an embryo is a human being or not (or more importantly, profits from human rights or not) is the only point raised by the anti-choice camp. It has consistently been the anti-choice mantra ever since abortion became an issue.
You crowd pretends to scientifically argue that an embryo is a human being. It then derives that an embryo is a full fledged human being whose temrination is murder. The shift from one position to another is more than a stretch.

The anti-choice camp then uses this conviction (that embryoes are babies) to shout "murderers" at aborting women . They treat pro-choicers as baby killers, and use this weakness that nobody wants to be depicted as a baby killer.

As a defense to these insults, the pro-choicers have two equally pointless strategies:
- They argue embryoes aren't human yet. This is mostly nonsense. Even my skin cells are human.
- They argue that embryoes do not profit from individual rights yet. This is a much better argument, but as you can see, a debate about this with anti-choicers will become utterly pointless:
Antichoicer: "You're a baby murderer !"
Prochoicer: "I'm not, embryoes don't profit from individual rights !"
Antichoicer: "Don't try to justify yourself, you're a baby murderer !"
Prochoicer: "This is not justification but truth. Embryoes don't profit from individual rights !"
and so on, and so on.

As you can see such a debate can not progress in any direction. Both camps will find excuses to back their arguments, despite them being weaved out of hot air.

Lastly, this is an argument which has no relevance to abortion. Abortion is about relieving women of an unfair burden.

It is about women not having to get the consequences of accidents or assholish/coward lovers. The antichoicers always try to shift the focus from the (real) suffering of the mother and of the born kid to the (alleged and unprovable) suffering of the embryo, holier-than-thou principles like sanctity of life, etc.

The antichoicer crowd doesn't care at all about women. Pregnant women are invariably considered as 'faulty' for their pregnancy, and should now 'bear the consequences of their actions'. The antichoicers deliberately ignore the very many reasons as to why a girl could accidently become pregnant, without her being responsible for anything (my personal favourite is when girls trust that their lover will stop ****ging before ejaculation - how many million unwanted pregnancies have been caused by this lie ?)

Most antichoicers will be more tolerant towards post-rape pregnancies, but that's only because we don't considered raped women to be responsible for what happened to them anymore (it sure wasn't like that 50 years ago). The antichoicers however still don't ackn owledge that in many occurences of consensual sex, the girl doesn't get to decide if she actually recieves sperm or not.
I guess the little slut should have abstained instead of making love to the man she loves

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Its not easy to draw a line here

That's precisely why I am using the law as a frame of reference. Since the line is difficult (very difficul) to draw, I prefer to use the one that's already drawn.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That's precisely why I am using the law as a frame of reference. Since the line is difficult (very difficul) to draw, I prefer to use the one that's already drawn.

that may be convenient but have u thot about it much? its a pretty silly thing to say, "the line should be where it is cuz thats where it is."

[Atahualpa]

yavoon:

I said the line should be where it is, because nobody came up with a better one
And I guess thats what Spiffor meant too.

ata

[Robert]

Rex Little: Even if we agree that a fetus is a human being with full human rights, that does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent.

That's insane!
Every woman knows that if she has s.e.x. with a man without protection and without using the morning after pil, she runs the risk of getting pregnant.

It's not as if the baby came in here out of nothing!
It's because of what the mother did!
She is responsible for her own actions.

I'm pro-choise!
A woman can chose to not have s.e.x.
A woman can chose to use anti-conception
A woman can chose to use the morning after pill.

If she refused to chose, she should take her responsibilities.
It's not like "I can live the fun life I want, and if something happens as a result of my fun I'll just kill it"

[Robert]

It's not a child. It's not a human being (as per my definition of being - a sentient form of life). It's a human fetus.

Of course it's a human being. It's a developping human being. Like a 2 weeks old baby is a developping human being.

There's not much difference between a 3 months old unborn baby and a 3 months born baby besides the size.

By aborting a baby you take every possibility for the child to become a man or a woman.

What you say is in fact the same as if you remove someones eyes and claim he can't see.

[Robert]

one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath.

I can't believe any jewish rabbi said that.
In the psalms King David says he was created and formed in his mother by God. And He was loved by God.

There is more in the Bible, but only that should be enough to claim that the Jewish faith believes that an unborn baby has a soul.