Reply #85: Ok... [View All]

[RatRacer]

As it stands, there is NO MEDICAL TEST that can be performed that can gage when life begins. So does it begin with fertilization? Implantation? At X days/weeks/months?

The whole premise of anti-choice is that a woman is 'taking the life' of another human---but up until what point? Viability? Implantation? Fertilization?

If they say that a woman, by having an abortion, is taking a life, then the ONUS IS ON THEM TO PROVE WHEN LIFE BEGINS. But they can't do that. No one can.

Some religions claim that life begins at conception. Others believe life begins with the first breath.

Me? It doesn't really interest me one way or the other because I don't see abortion as murder, and I don't see it as ANYTHING that deserves any legislative interference whatsoever.

If someone happens to come up with a definitive test that says at X day this is a fetus and at X day and X hour it becomes a person, then I'll be more than willing to re-evaulate my stance on abortion. Until then, my reasoning that a fetus is NOT a person is JUST AS VALID as their ascertation that a person is formed as soon as fertilization occurs.

But we have to cowtow to THEIR definitions? Why is that? If they can't prove when life begins, then they can't prove that abortion is murder (because one must be alive in order to be killed). But we still have to follow THEIR example, and go by THEIR idea that abortion is murder.

There are those who say that the embryo/fetus is OBVIOUSLY a 'person' because it has DNA that is separate and unique from the mother. WEll, certain tumours also have their own DNA that is separate and distinct from the host...but we don't consider removal of a tumour to be 'murder' or against the law.

I think the idea is that if there is uncertainty, we should err on the side of caution rather than just assume it doesn't deserve personhood because it's easier that way.

And your pearls of wisdom that no one is stopping me from getting my tubes tied---uh, you do know that a large percentage of people who are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control in ALL forms, right? You do know that there are increasing numbers of licensed pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for women because they don't have the common sense (which anyone in the medical profession should know) that an abortifacent (a chemical that causes abortion) is completely different from a contraceptive (a chemical that prevents either fertilization of the egg, or implatation of a fertilized egg).

So to suggest that these humble "Pro-Lifers" are really looking out for a woman's best interest all around--bullshit. They want to limit access for ALL women--regardless of age or medical necessity---to birth control. Federal and state funding for pre-and-post-natal care is a vague memory. Funding for state and federal funding for after-school programs, school lunch programs, childhood health insurance, etc, is a distant memory.

So who are these pro-life, pro-health, pro-child Republicans that you're talking about? I've never met them at all. They want to make abortion ILLEGAL. Period. They want to make it ILLEGAL for anyone under 18 to get contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to make it heavily restricted for any WOMAN to receive contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to make it illegal for Insurance to pay for contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to continue to do away with social programs that help not only those in poverty, but those without insurance, those with children. PERIOD.

You're talking about some mythical group of people who do not exist in large enough numbers (imo) to warrant MY reproductive rights to be taken away.

You really don't circulate outside a circle of like-minded true believers much do you? I know a lot of people who are both are pro-life and aren't even slightly anti-contraception. You're the one positing a mythical strawman group of pro-lifers that you can easily hate and whose arguments you can dismiss with a wave of your hand and some smart alec comments. There are A LOT of people who take a middle ground position with regard to abortion. In fact, of all the pro-life people I know, only one couple that I can think of doesn't use birth control and even they see it as a personal decision, not one that they would force on others.

I mean, I'm not just trying to jump your case. Sadly, there the same black/white all or nothing type of attitude exists on the other side on the aisle among some hard-core ideologues. It's exactly this attitude from both sides that prevents common sense from entering the equation at all.

Again--you don't know my situation. You don't know my life. If I were to get pregnant today, what CONCERN is it of yours if I have an abortion? What CONCERN is it of yours if I carry the pregnancy to term? It will NEVER AFFECT YOU, nor will it affect the MILLIONS who are so concerned about the quote-life of the baby-unquote. They certainly don't care about that baby once it's born. they certainly don't care about the woman once she's decided to not have an abortion.

If you had a two-day old baby that was I was not responsible for in any way, shape, form, or fashion and you killed it, it wouldn't exactly AFFECT me either, would it? I mean, how would that change my or anyone else's life exactly?

And I do care about both the baby and the mother after it's born. That is precisely the issue I'm trying to discuss...that we're failing women by staking out two polar extreme positions and not being willing to give an inch in fear that they'll take the proverbial mile.

And Abortion is NOTHING BUT A REPRODUCTIVE ISSUE. Nothing but. *I* have the right to have as many children, or as few children as *I* choose to have. NO ONE should have the right to FORCE me to carry a pregnancy to term that I do not wish to have, and no one should have the right to FORCE me to abort a pregnancy that I wish to carry to term. NO ONE.

This is opinion, not concrete fact. If the fetus is/should be considered a separate person deserving of the same right to live as one that has traveled a few inches down a vagina, then it isn't about forcing you to do anything other than realize that your rights end where theirs begin.

Would you equally support a law...whatever...that would require all people, regardless of religious beliefs, to donate a kidney to someone that needs it, even if the recipient isn't a family member? Or how about everyone is forced to donate blood on a monthly basis from age 17 until death. Or that everyone must undergo bone marrow extraction in the hopes of saving another person. It's not the OUTCOME that is eggregious. It's FORCING someone to do something that they don't want to do, or forcing them to NOT do something that they want to do.

False analogy. No one is talking about forcing people to do anything that doesn't involve someone else's rights (the baby in this scenario).

PS--do you think that abortions will go away if you outlaw them? Do you think that the reasons that women have abortions will disappear if you criminalize the procedure? That's not very "pro-life" to sentence women to very short lives due to sepsis, infection, sterility or even DEATH because you don't like why a procedure is done. But I guess since it's not an innocent little baybeeee (but instead some harlot) then THAT life doesn't matter.

No. Then again, murder, stealing, rape, embezzlement, assualt and battery...none of those things have gone away even though we've outlawed them. Should we then, employing your logic here, just do away with those laws since they don't stop all of the above? What law actually stops the illegal act completely? No matter what you outlaw, there will be those who will ignore it and do the illegal act anyway.

It's pro-life to search for solutions other than killing. For one we can do more as a society to support both the child and mother during and after the pregnancy. We can better enforce child-support laws and deal more firmly and effectively with dead-beat dads, we can find ways to encourage (through a variety of means) workplaces and colleges to have on-site or employer sponsored child-care so women don't have to choose between an education or a career and being a mom, we can strengthen the FMLA to apply to more sizes of businesses and be paid leave rather than unpaid, we can do things to better facilitate adoption and make it more affordable for families, and that's just scratching the surface. We have to think creatively and deal with the root issues rather than just adopt quick solutions with such collateral damage.