Who the hell told a 17 year old girl," Well you're too young to have a child"? Not the best idea but at 7 1/2 months its a little late to change your mind. Where was the mothers family support? This is great propaganda for the right to lifers but there is a whole lot being left out of this story. Choice is also about keeping your children even when you are too young. At 7 1/2 months you can't tell me no one suggested adoption. Theres a whole lot not being told. Where were the mothers parents and grandparents in all of this?
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Difficult anti-abortion video
- Thread starter Mithcoriel
- Start date
Agree with alot of what you're saying, however the problem is not just the core issues (morality of abortion, issues of using contraception) but social stigma and a families reaction, a man's reaction to such news. These are all cultural, and for the most part the fact that it is more or less impossible to raise a child from 16-21 and not really mess up your life (a cultural issue).Grimstad said:
These issues can be addressed, particularly if we want to encourage population growth (ie make having a child young more practical, less of a sacrifice to careers etc) or just the ethical reasons (the ethics of elective abortions can be somewhat sidestepped if we reduce the number of individuals who WANT them (through better contraception, better life choices such as sexual partners and better support from government, community and family for teenage mothers/couples), though I think families want to disown them feeling "shamed" by them, and those who view pre-marital sex is immoral want to make examples of them ("see how screwed up your life will become..."), these are kind of polluting the issues regarding abortion (as I've said before, if all they cared about was reducing abortion, they would be promoting better use of contraceptives or better support for parents/families...).
Mithcoriel
Member
Also, it seems to me, that if you're young and get an unwanted pregnancy, if you have an abortion, most people won't care about it too much. Apart from the pro-lifers of course. But if you carry out the baby and give it up for abortion, it seems to me you would be judged much more. People would consider you heartless for leaving your child in an orphanage or whatever. So maybe pro-lifers should consider trying to change that social attitude.
Though I don't know if it actually would be better, making more children for orphanages.
Though I don't know if it actually would be better, making more children for orphanages.
What I find crap about this video is, instead of giving credit to the people in her life who helped her walk, the doctors, her mother and grand mother and foster mother, she decides to give credit to Jesus and god, despite the fact that there are thousands of late term abortions each day and Jesus had fuck all to help them. It was the people in her life, not some magical skydaddy...
Under the circumstances her mother was not evil, just trying to preserve her own life, I for one don't see anything wrong with that.
Under the circumstances her mother was not evil, just trying to preserve her own life, I for one don't see anything wrong with that.
I see the mother as obviously having mad several bad choices in her life... but wouldn't call her evil.xchillx42 said:
I also agree that stating everything good as due to God is in some ways a slap in the face to those who really laboured to make a difference, both in the example of this woman's life (ie the surgeons and ICU) and in general.
Isn't this video mostly irrelevant to the pro-choice, pro-life debate? It just seems to be trying to work people up into an emotional state where there vulnerable to accepting whatever argument is presented to them. I mean her story may be very moving, but what relevance does it have?
I personally don't lie at either polar end of this debate, or rather while I may not be explicitly against abortions in the way that Christians tend to be, I also feel most of the pro-choice argument is BS too.
I personally don't lie at either polar end of this debate, or rather while I may not be explicitly against abortions in the way that Christians tend to be, I also feel most of the pro-choice argument is BS too.
Fullmetalgeneticist
New Member
Arguments can include.
1. It's not your choice lady. Honestly you survived... Lucky you. We actually apply some common sense and state that late term abortions are only performed in cases of things such as rape and incest (and even then a lot of women carry the baby to term an put it up for adoption), diseases that will kill the baby on birth in spectacular and horrific ways (don't make me post the video of harlequin baby) or kill the mother. It's rarely done because someone forgot about it... Now people like your parents don't get to make that call.
2. Would you rather we educate children on how to have safe sex and provide contraception both regular and emergency or have your republican friends harp on about "the don't have sex" method of contraception which worked so well for your parents? Our method actually drops number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies by educating young people about sex so they don't get conned into having unsafe sex.
3. And late term abortions are not the same as early term abortions. Understandably late term abortions are tragic events and generally are medical treatments rather than elective surgery. Early term abortions are bunches of cells. If you say that that's murder then blowing your nose is genocide since if those cells are alive then so are the cells on your nose. Now if you use the "propensity to live" argument (that the cells show promise while nose cells are only going to be noses) then masturbation in men and indeed every period is wrong since eggs and sperm also have propensity to become adult individuals...
4. One questions why a medical procedure meant to be used between the 16th to 24th week was used in the 30th week... That doesn't make sense...
1. It's not your choice lady. Honestly you survived... Lucky you. We actually apply some common sense and state that late term abortions are only performed in cases of things such as rape and incest (and even then a lot of women carry the baby to term an put it up for adoption), diseases that will kill the baby on birth in spectacular and horrific ways (don't make me post the video of harlequin baby) or kill the mother. It's rarely done because someone forgot about it... Now people like your parents don't get to make that call.
2. Would you rather we educate children on how to have safe sex and provide contraception both regular and emergency or have your republican friends harp on about "the don't have sex" method of contraception which worked so well for your parents? Our method actually drops number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies by educating young people about sex so they don't get conned into having unsafe sex.
3. And late term abortions are not the same as early term abortions. Understandably late term abortions are tragic events and generally are medical treatments rather than elective surgery. Early term abortions are bunches of cells. If you say that that's murder then blowing your nose is genocide since if those cells are alive then so are the cells on your nose. Now if you use the "propensity to live" argument (that the cells show promise while nose cells are only going to be noses) then masturbation in men and indeed every period is wrong since eggs and sperm also have propensity to become adult individuals...
4. One questions why a medical procedure meant to be used between the 16th to 24th week was used in the 30th week... That doesn't make sense...
Fullmetalgeneticist
New Member
I actually feel sorry for her. She has a fairly decent argument as to why SHE is anti abortion...
However she is forced to hang out with the vultures that are just abusing her to get their faith based view of the world. If you are against abortions then don't have one. You don't get to tell what other people do to their own bodies.
However she is forced to hang out with the vultures that are just abusing her to get their faith based view of the world. If you are against abortions then don't have one. You don't get to tell what other people do to their own bodies.
Mithcoriel
Member
Here's an argument pro-lifers like to use:
"If you're anti-life, chances are, you've been born. If you had been aborted, you wouldn't be here today to encourage the practice. So it's all hypocrisy."
What do you guys think of that?
"If you're anti-life, chances are, you've been born. If you had been aborted, you wouldn't be here today to encourage the practice. So it's all hypocrisy."
What do you guys think of that?
Giliell
New Member
Mithcoriel said:
I'm not anti-life, I'm pro life. That means, I'm in favour of a happy life for everybody as much as possible.
Thing is: I don't consider a lump of cells or something that's in the trial and error stage of nature to be life.
It's at it's best something that might have the potential to become a human being.
And in case of a heavily disabled fetus, I would never condem my child to a life of suffering, a life that might only take place in the emergency unit of a hospital. I'd rather take all the pain and suffering on me.
Therefore I fail to see the argument.
Mithcoriel
Member
Well I agree with you of course, I also say a lump of cells isn't the same as a human being and all. But they'll reply:
"Well if someone had aborted you when you were a "lump of cells" you wouldn't be here now".
"Well if someone had aborted you when you were a "lump of cells" you wouldn't be here now".
Giliell
New Member
Mithcoriel said:
Sure, and I wouldn't know and would never have known.
Heck, if my parents had gone out that night instead of having fun at home and had had that fun another night I wouldn't be here either.
I can't see the point of those "what if" ideas unless you took it to people having sex all the time to make the maximum number of babies.
TheFearmonger
New Member
Giliell said:
Makes sense. As a christian, I was against it because*thepastortoldmesocough* I thought they were alive at conception. Without that rubbish, abortion makes perfect sense. Heartbreaking tales don't change that. You can find a horror story for anything, from flintstone tablets to airbags. Doesn't change their inherent value at all.
Well, it is a human life...all it takes is a DNA test to show that. The thing is, the idea that every single human being has an right to life is an idea that comes purely from religion. If you take a purely secular view and re-establish the right to life without religion, you find that the right to life belongs to a person, not a human. It's not about your DNA, it's about your mental abilities and whether you can suffer because you have to worry about getting killed or not. Saying human instead of person is purely arbitrary speciesism. If aliens of similar intelligence came to earth, would you argue that they don't get the right to life? Of course not.
So an embryo doesn't have a right to life. Period, end of story. If you say it does, you'd better start extending the same right to life to bacteria, as that's what you're doing unless you're basing it on a DNA sequence, which is simple bigotry. As far as the idea of a potential person, this:
hits the nail on the head. At what point does the "potential person" start getting the right to life? As an idea? Conception? Six weeks? Anything you choose is arbitrary; only a person gets the right to life; potential people don't.
Although, I don't think ALL abortions are justified. I dislike flippant abortions as it shows a disregard for life in general (the same kind of disregard that's in just killing an animal for no reason at all), so contraception is preferable, though this certainly doesn't make abortion as a whole wrong. If, as has been said, these don't happen, then it's merely a hypothetical objection, and I don't think there's a way to implement this in pulbic policy anyway; it's just a personal objection. And late-term abortions need good justification, as they generally DO involve a significant ammount of suffering, and it also begins to become unclear what the fetus's mental capabilities are.
As for what I'd say to this person, I didn't get to watch the video (it was taken down), but it would probably go something like: "Are you a person now?" "Yes." "Then you have the right to life now, but not back then." "But I wouldn't have existed!" "Come back when they invent time travel." :roll: Or, to be more serious: "Well, are you against pre-marital sex?" "Yes." "Then you're against my existence." The whole idea of "I wouldn't have existed" just doesn't follow. Time only moves in one way (as far as we know), so just because you have right now doesn't mean you always had it, even back to before you had the mental qualifications. And in the end, you still weigh whether something is right or wrong based on how it affects people now, not based on this kind of "what if?" since that just leads to overpopulation if taken seriously.
Also, I do greatly support adoption as an alternative. How do we solve the problems of so many kids in orphanages? Let GBLTs adopt.
We want children, too, and that's the only way we can get them! If people only had babies when they, personally, wanted them, it'd be even harder for us to adopt, especially gay male partners.
So an embryo doesn't have a right to life. Period, end of story. If you say it does, you'd better start extending the same right to life to bacteria, as that's what you're doing unless you're basing it on a DNA sequence, which is simple bigotry. As far as the idea of a potential person, this:
Mithcoriel said:
hits the nail on the head. At what point does the "potential person" start getting the right to life? As an idea? Conception? Six weeks? Anything you choose is arbitrary; only a person gets the right to life; potential people don't.
Although, I don't think ALL abortions are justified. I dislike flippant abortions as it shows a disregard for life in general (the same kind of disregard that's in just killing an animal for no reason at all), so contraception is preferable, though this certainly doesn't make abortion as a whole wrong. If, as has been said, these don't happen, then it's merely a hypothetical objection, and I don't think there's a way to implement this in pulbic policy anyway; it's just a personal objection. And late-term abortions need good justification, as they generally DO involve a significant ammount of suffering, and it also begins to become unclear what the fetus's mental capabilities are.
As for what I'd say to this person, I didn't get to watch the video (it was taken down), but it would probably go something like: "Are you a person now?" "Yes." "Then you have the right to life now, but not back then." "But I wouldn't have existed!" "Come back when they invent time travel." :roll: Or, to be more serious: "Well, are you against pre-marital sex?" "Yes." "Then you're against my existence." The whole idea of "I wouldn't have existed" just doesn't follow. Time only moves in one way (as far as we know), so just because you have right now doesn't mean you always had it, even back to before you had the mental qualifications. And in the end, you still weigh whether something is right or wrong based on how it affects people now, not based on this kind of "what if?" since that just leads to overpopulation if taken seriously.
Also, I do greatly support adoption as an alternative. How do we solve the problems of so many kids in orphanages? Let GBLTs adopt.
We want children, too, and that's the only way we can get them! If people only had babies when they, personally, wanted them, it'd be even harder for us to adopt, especially gay male partners.
Giliell
New Member
Nogre said:
Well, they tried to abort her at 30 weeks gestation. Without any good medical reason.
Even back then, had she simply been a premature baby, she would have had a good chance for a normal developement.
That's where the problem lies:
Why do you suddenly become a person at birth?
Why is a 30 weeks gestation premature baby a person, but a 35 weeks gestation baby inside the mother not?
I am totally pro-choice, but I cannot find an (attempted) abortion of a healthy baby at 30 weeks with a healthy mother justified.
Giliell said:
Well, that's the difficulty... Some have concluded that that point actually lies after normal birth, about a month or so afterwards.
Personally, I think that the point where you become a person can't be clearly defined. It probably differs between people, so whatever you choose is ultimately going to be arbitrary. So I'd probably tend towards saying that it's somewhere in the latter two trimesters, just to be conservative...as well as the fact that these latter trimester abortions are often unecessary because of the kind of medical care we have these days, and there's usually considerable suffering for the baby (which does matter). But I would probably leave that determination to physicians and psychologists that might actually be able to study the mental aptitudes of babies in those extremely early months of life.
Ultimately, it would probably just be better to do our best to minimize abortions through contraceptoin and carry them out as early as possible when we do use them.
And once again, when it is frivolous (like it sounds in the video), I object to it personally because it's blatent disregard for life in general with no real good reason.