To be saddened that anyone would want to take away a woman’s right to safe abortion?

[Balayagequeen]

It makes me sad and angry that there are so many people who believe that a woman’s right to a termination is up for debate/political football.

It’s always privileged men too.

No woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy that she doesn’t want.

An abortion is a very safe, simple procedure, it’s a personal and private choice, it’s discreet, no one is ramming it down anyone else’s throat or trying to persuade others to do it. The vast majority of the time is done very early on in the pregnancy. Evidence shows that there are no long term negative physical or mental effects on the woman.

As someone who works for children’s services, there are already far too many children in the care system and they can end up deeply traumatised, and having poor outcomes in life, adoptions often don’t work out and even when they do can be extremely traumatic for both the mother and child. That is not to take away from all of the wonderful adoptive parents and foster carers, but please let’s not romanticise it.

Most adoptions are because the birth parents are unable to care for the child, not because the mother willingly gave the baby up. Therefore to force a woman to give birth would potentially be the worse option for the woman, the child and any existing siblings. It isn’t a fairytale ending where a woman willingly gives up her baby to a loving couple to live happily ever after.

There are babies conceived in poverty, domestic abuse, rape, teenage pregnancies, older age pregnancies. These women should not be forced to give birth, it is not the better option for anyone.

If abortion was ever restricted in the western world then I have no doubt that it would result in unsafe illegal abortions, risking the woman’s life.

Women take all the risk with pregnancy and childbirth. They take an enormous toll on a woman body, her mental health, her life outcomes. We are not living in the dark ages, women deserve the choice.

What right does any privileged male who has probably never experienced any of these things and has probably done very little child rearing, who can never conceive or give birth, have to try to restrict a women’s access to abortion?

Are they themselves going to care for the babies born? Or will they expect that someone else will do it?

There is no life and no baby.

Obviously no one wanted her to die. Pro life
people tend to respect human life. That’s the point. That poor woman. You are being sensationalist.
That’s like me saying pro choice means really
enjoying killing babies or something equally stupid.

I think you’ve quoted the wrong person, I’m in agreement with you. I’m just saying that “pro life” people want to see fetuses equal with women which means we couldn’t save dying pregnant women with a viable pregnancy because the law doesn’t allow the “killing of one life” to save another.

It’s not seperate though is it. It’s part of a woman, it’s an inhabitant

@Balayagequeen I think you’d be more accurate to say - it’s taking away men’s right to abortion. Because evidence shows that given resources and support most women wouldnt chose to terminate. Women are killing their ‘fetuses’ / ‘children’ in utero because they lack the resources, autonomy or ability to do otherwise.

In the vast majority of cases women kill baby A and then go on to have baby B not long after. It’s not having a better baby or better choices - it’s realising they are responsive to normal hormones and better not keep aborting as a method of birth control. It’s delaying outcomes by killing viable embryos / fetuses / babies (choose your definition).

People who want two kids will have two kids. People who want however many kids will have however many kids. The number of abortions - (ie viable potential children they kill) has no impact on that outcome.

The ultimate goal of pro-life is for abortion is be a rarity. We want unborn humans to stop being killed, and for the suffering inflicted during later term abortions to be acknowledged, and mitigated when such abortions happen.

Some (particularly certain religious sects) want zero abortions, achieved through the force of law and a total ban, some want more restrictions and to combat anti-science stances (like the fetus not being alive), and to have an equal platform as pro-aborts to share anti-abortion views.

I want less abortions achieved through pro-life education and better contraception awareness, and more support for those who need it, and a ban on coercing abortions (including the threat of withdrawing paternal support).

I'm pretty sure if abortion was seen as a last resort, they'd be more stringent about contraception use.

Well you only have to look at the state of the world to know there’s alot going on that’s truly awful but doesn’t impact you on a personal level. What a stupid question.

A sensible and balanced response. You have summed up my views perfectly.

The most vulnerable are the unborn who have no legal rights, no voice, and who can be killed on a whim.

But why is the sacrifice of the lives of women and babies worth it just for a baby to pass through the birth canal and take a breath? Why is that bit SO important to you? I’m not asking you to decide which babies have good qualities of life - I’m saying why must birth be the ultimate goal even though you know there’s a high chance of a poor quality of life. Which there would be if abortions we’re outlawed

What week was your baby born?

In What way?

The goal is to end the progression of pregnancy. How is is unsafe to a fetus that isn’t going to progress ? Is it like Tinkerbell and the clapping? If a fetus is aborted does a car accident happen elsewhere int he world? What is the unsafe part?

Where or how something lives makes no difference to the fact it's alive and is an organism in its own right.

Stop being obtuse.

You think a foetus isn’t alive? That’s embarrassing.

But anyway, I’m just pointing out that the death of a newborn really doesn’t have any more effect on you - a random stranger - than the death of a late term foetus. Just seemed a really odd argument to use.

I think a woman seeking an abortion (as opposed to an induction) at 38 weeks is a baby killer for sure. It is NOT the same as aborting a 1st trimester foetus.

You're suggesting that poverty = poor enough quality of life to warrant being killed. Should we apply that to other lives?!

A mother is a ‘host’ which then suggests the baby is a ‘parasite’.

If your child as born is entirely dependent upon parents for care - and parents neglect that care - they are held accountable if that child dies. I have a child that is dependent on me for life saving care each day. So I know of what I speak.

But if a ‘host’ decides to end the life of the ‘parasite’ inside the womb rather than outside the womb then there’s a difference??

They respect fetuses. They don’t respect women omen like Saavita.

Being anti choice means dead women. Dead women who didn’t even want an abortion.

No point sugar coating it, people know this and still want to restrict women from abortions

I don’t agree with murder, as a rule. There are circumstances where I can concede that a human being can kill another human being without having to feel guilty: for example in self defence, or to save others.

I have similar views on abortion. “Just because I want to” is not in my honest opinion a good enough reason to abort. I have a close friend who became pregnant despite using contraception. She wasn’t in a relationship with the father, already had two kids to support as a single mother and was in her last year of a masters. She took a MAP which also failed and eventually had an abortion. I don’t judge her or expect her to feel guilty. She made a decision taking into account her existing children, her ability to provide, how it would affect her education and job prospects. It is not black and white, all or nothing.

I have family members who were adopted. How can anyone say what kind of life a baby will have? A very affluent family could fall on hard times or both parents could be killed in a car accident and the circumstances could end up in total misery for the child (don’t we all have some amount of misery?). A poor family, struggling to stay afloat could win the lottery/work hard and gain promotions which a few years down the line have changed all their lives and prospects. Nothing is guaranteed. You can’t say a baby will have a shit life (even if disabled honestly, although again, I wouldn’t judge someone for making that choice - it wouldn’t be easy to walk into with your eyes open, but for those that are “surprised” by disabled children they aren’t usually killed for being an inconvenience).

It’s shades of grey in my opinion, basically. And so I suppose my answer to your end goal question is: unless you have a crystal ball you can’t say how your life would end up or the life of a child. So does that explain how I can be pro-choice while also not condoning being blazé about abortion?

This is something I find particularly irritating. You're getting upset over a mere word choice. Parasite is just a clinical description. So would calling the mother a host be. They aren't value judgements. A fetus does function like a parasite and a pregnant woman does function like a host. That's the reality.
The body doesn't have priorities, those are conscious choices which only people can make. It can't keep the fetus alive without help from the mother. If the mother doesn't eat enough to sustain it, the fetus will die. If she isn't careful about toxic exposures it can die. I could go on about the many choices women make to sustain a pregnancy, but I'm sure you get the drift. That line of reasoning isn't relevant anyway.

The goal for pro life is to control women, and to make them second class citizens to a fetus.
The pro life movement is happy for women who WANT their babies, to die.thats the deal you get in afraid.

The fact you think it’s all about contraception and education shows your serious lack of knowledge. I really don’t think such Ill informed people who clearly are dense enough to believe sensationalist anti choice rhetoric deserve a valid opinion on this subject.

You can’t give one example??

What did you mean about a rapist not being the father??

No, the most vulnerable is the actual living woman who is an actual person.

The vehemently prochoice on this thread seem to be talking in absolute extremes, whilst failing to acknowledge the many shades of grey. It doesn’t strengthen your arguments just highlights the weakness. I find it really odd that you struggle to empathise with any view other than your own. You don’t have to agree.

Of course it does. Thats the whole point. It’s reliant entirely on being an inhabitant of a woman therefore it is her entity, not its own