ARTICLE: Thank God I'm Not a Woman!!!

[DaShi]

Why don't those no good anti-abortionists do this: Pool all your funds that would otherwise go to bombing clinics, threatening//killing doctors, and bribing politicians and create an organization that will take care of unwanted children. This organization would take care of all expenses of the mother of the unwanted child for carrying the child to term: medical fees and the naught. Then the organization would adopt the child. They would take care of it and try to find it a new family that will want it.

This way, anti-abortionists get their ~8 pounds of flesh, and the mother doesn't need to worry about it. However, if the mother were to suffer any health or mental problems as a result of the pregnancy, the anti-abortionist womem hater organization would be fully culpable. Afterall, they've removed all right of choice from the mother. So they would be responsible in compensating her for their decision.

[Imran Siddiqui]

specifying that pharmacists, as well as doctors, have the right to withhold services on moral grounds

WTF? So if the pharmacist was a homophobe, he could refuse to withold drugs from gay people? It is a 'moral ground'.

Btw, the whole "medical benefit" discussion of abortion. Most doctors are dedicated to ridding their patients of pain. You'd be silly not to realize that labor is freaking painful!

[Ned]

DaShi, I agree with you that taking care of unwanted children is a financial burden that society should not bear. But, would you support extending the time we kill fetuses from just before the moment they were born live and viable, to just after as well?

And, if you are willing to go that far -- why don't we think of extending it just a little bit farther -- to any children who are not promptly adopted.

Ah, but you say I speak nonsense here? Well, if I do, then your whole post and rationale was nonsense as well.

[DaShi]

All my posts are nonsense. What's your point?

[Ned]

DaShi, no point at all.

I tend to be pro-abortion, but only at will in the first trimester as the Supremes originally stated in Roe v. Wade. After that time, I the rights of the fetus have to be considered. I view the matter as a balancing of rights -- the rights of a woman to control her body vs. the rights of fetus to life. The balance shifts back and forth in particular circumstances depending. The subject is not easily confined to simple rules.

"Society" does enter into the equation, but only if children are largely unwanted and unadopted on birth. Such does not appear to be the case in the US at least.

[Patroklos]

Everyine's conception of birth is arbitrary. Pro-abortionists throw out birth all the time, but there is no physical or mental differance between a baby just born and its womb confined self the day before.

You all are not making a jubgement on any scientific or otherwise physical facts, you are making a judgememnt call no different than the religious people you ridicule.

And of course the fact that a large portion of that anti-abortion community do not oppose it for religious reasons means nothing too you. They of course are making the same arbitrary decision you are.

[Ming]

HEY... discuss the topic and not the posters...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Straybow

Then no problem. But when someone goes to the only hospital in the area and needs an abortion to save their own life, they shouldn't die just because the religious fundamentalist is working that night.

Ectopic pregnancies are the only case that would qualify, and abortion is necessary because neither mother nor baby will survive if nothing is done.

In fact, there are a wide range of conditions that can place the mother's life at risk in pregnancy. My own sister has been advised against getting pregnant due to conditions that would place her at risk (she has a history of DVT, pulmonary embolism and a host of "women's problems").

So faced with a woman who had, for example, a 30% risk of death if pregnancy went to term- would you force her to take that risk? I posed this question to Ben in another thread last week but he got all coy and wouldn't answer.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ned
DaShi, no point at all.

I tend to be pro-abortion, but only at will in the first trimester as the Supremes originally stated in Roe v. Wade. After that time, I the rights of the fetus have to be considered. I view the matter as a balancing of rights -- the rights of a woman to control her body vs. the rights of fetus to life. The balance shifts back and forth in particular circumstances depending. The subject is not easily confined to simple rules.

"Society" does enter into the equation, but only if children are largely unwanted and unadopted on birth. Such does not appear to be the case in the US at least.

Well, the general gist of my rant was that if the anti-abortion crowd wants to make these decisions for women, then they should be responsible for the consequences.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Have I discovered the pro-lifer equivalent of kryptonite?

[pchang]

No - true pro-lifer's would say screw the woman and force her to carry the pregnancy to term

[Ben Kenobi]

What makes them the same?

They aren't really the same. The guns are better than these drugs.

In most cases, if you shoot someone you are not going to kill them unless you know what you are doing and where to shoot. In the case of abortifacient drugs, they are designed so that they will kill a child, without any detailed knowledge of how they work.

Secondly, while you can use a gun for purposes other than to kill a person, such as to hunt, who can hunt with an abortifacient drug?

The only purpose of the drug is to make sure that the baby dies. That's it.

Laws are in place that state a doctor has to tell the patient of any serious side effects of a drug they prescribe...

Then why are doctor's prescribing this drug which does have serious side-effects, yet does not have a medical benefit?

because the doctor and patient have already decided the possible serious side effects are out weighed by the advantage of taking he drug.

Here I thought the drug was available without a prescription. I know that there are people who have been pressing hard for this, which means that the only way people will ever hear about the side effects is from their pharmacist.

And I think that if they are made available without a prescription that the pharmacists should have the right to use their discretion whether or not to stock the drug. The drug does have serious side-effects, but unfortunately, politics seems to always trump medicine, and the welfare of the patient.

What a silly question.
The woman is taking the drug for a reason... she doesn't want the child. So it is indeed helping her.
That's the whole point of taking it.

So if I clubbed an unwanted infant to death I am helping the mother too? And here I thought you could come up with a medical benefit of the drug for mothers in their early pregnancy.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's ****in' stupid. That's likes saying, damn, I'm glad murder is illegal, or I might murder someone, and I think that's wrong

Think about it for a minute Che.

You like laws against murder because they protect you. If you believe that the unborn child is also a person, then any law that exposes them, also exposes you. If the state can define who is and who is not a person, then that sets a danger to everyone, not just the unborn.

[Ben Kenobi]

Only very rarely is anyone accidentally killed by abortion.

This isn't a supportive argument. You will get a higher penalty for killing someone purposefully, then you will if you do so acidentally, all other things being equal.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where do we draw the line? Well, personally, I'd say birth. Infanticide has a lot going against it. People avail of it for all the wrong reasons -- "wrong" sex, physical deformity, mental disability, too many mouths to feed (should have figured that one out during physical gestation, dumb****).

So how does this differ from abortion?

People have them because they want a boy, rather than the girl they are carrying.

They have them because their child is shown to have a physical deformity, or has down's syndrome.

They have them because they don't feel they can afford another child.

Why are all these reasons bad reasons to kill your infant, but good reasons to kill your fetus?