Question For Pro-Choice People

[fredtoast]

(05-15-2019, 08:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A baby has arms and legs before the second trimester passes, so, you're saying that it would be ok since it is not past the second trimester.

That was the whole point to my question, and I'm pretty sure you just answered it in that you think it's ok since you think it's the mother's choice.

You said the baby was born. That means it was carried past the second trimester. That means i think she should be punished for it.

Learn to read.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 09:05 AM)Benton Wrote: No 

(05-16-2019, 09:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not even close.

He challenged the position of a woman's ownership over her body by asking if women should be able to have a surgery that removes the limbs of the fetus. When that was dismissed as an absurd scenario that does not exist, he used the example of a deaf family using a deaf surrogate to increase the likelihood of having a deaf child as proof that this would occur.

The second scenario has nothing to do with a woman's ownership of her body.


While I do not know why anyone would wish that on a child, it certainly isn't anywhere close to having surgery to cut the limbs off a fetus nor does it do anything to challenge the argument against a woman's ownership of her body.

Seems in both instances it's the mother's desire to handicap the child because she wants to.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or they recognize that they cannot provide a good life for the child due to any number of circumstances including, but not limited to, the lack of an adequate social safety net in this country, and they understand that the child services systems in this country are already beyond their capacity. So they choose not to bring a child into the world that will have to suffer throughout their life.

Yeah, probably best just to kill it.  You go with yours and I'll go with the vast majority of abortions are performed because the mother places her welfare other that of her unborn child.

[GMDino]

I think a bunch of people would never talk to a woman who had to make the awful decision to have an abortion and then tell them to their face that they are going to hell and should be in jail for murder.

Not as a group yelling at a single woman, but one on one...face to face.

Because it's easy to have an opinion, its hard to deal with how it actually affects real people.

But they "know" they are "right" because...well we all know it's religious but they will find some science to back it up, I'm sure.

So go find someone who had an abortion.  Talk to them about how they made their choices and then yell at them about how they killed their baby and should be in jail and will burn in hell for all eternity...or stop pretending your opinion matters to them.

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems in both instances it's the mother's desire to handicap the child because she wants to.

That common thread has nothing to do with the context in which the cutting off limbs scenario was introduced. Choosing a mate based on their genetic traits is in no way connected to whether or not one has the right to cut the limbs off a fetus. 

[Benton]

(05-16-2019, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems in both instances it's the mother's desire to handicap the child because she wants to.

This slippery slope style of argument is absurd. One of the most common themes in choosing a mate is often related to someone's genetic predisposition to be like them. You can divide that up by race, height, what you're determining as a handicap, weight, etc. You shouldn't, though. That's the flip side of the same logic people use to abort babies with autism, mental retardation, etc.

I understand the religious displeasure with medically induced pregnancies (just a couple weeks ago my pastor for mother's day made multiple references to how test tube babies aren't really people, that you can't be a person without a mother and the Father), but using science to have a child more like you is not the same as surgically maiming children. Good grief.

[treee]

Here is an interesting piece i came across earlier today that I wanted to share:

Quote:
To the pro-life people out there: I understand how you feel. Honestly. This is such a difficult moral issue, and I know there are plenty of people who feel like murder is finally illegal. I get it.


But there is so so much more to this than the question of one life or two. In the United States, you have to choose to be an organ donor. You can't even use a corpse to save someone's life unless that person gave explicit consent when they were alive. You certainly can't force a living person to give up an organ to save a life, even if both people would walk away alive. That is the concept of bodily autonomy.


Just consider for a moment the incredible cost of pregnancy and birth. Your body physically changes in dozens of ways. You probably experience nausea, dizziness, swelling, back pain, constipation, mood swings. You have to change what you eat, what you drink, how you move, what you do. You may be unable to work or go to school. You may be let go for spurious reasons. You may find it difficult to find people to hire you. You will need ultrasounds, checkups -- health insurance. You will go through the most physically painful experience of your life, where in 70% of cases the baby literally tears its way out of you. You will owe the hospital thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars. Your body will physically never be the same.

Now imagine you never chose this. You never wanted this. But you have no choice.


How can someone end up pregnant and not want to be? There are a myriad of scenarios, all with moral implications. Maybe you have a steady partner and you are using birth control, but the birth control didn't work. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe he couldn't pull out in time. Maybe you never learned about birth control because your school only taught you about abstinence. You didn't intend it, but here you are.


And then worse. Maybe he lied and took off the condom when you wouldn't notice. Maybe he drugged you and raped your unconscious body, or maybe he raped you while you were awake, so the sounds and the pain and the smell is seared into your brain. Maybe he is your teacher, your pastor, your police officer. Maybe he is your brother, your uncle. Maybe he is your father. It happens so much more often than any of us want to think or talk about. And now the seed, the DNA of the person who violated you, is growing inside you, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.


So you give birth, unprepared and unwilling. Because you didn't want or plan for this pregnancy, chances are you didn't take care of yourself as well as is ideal, and chances are you are not providing an ideal life for this child. Maybe you drank alcohol before you knew you were pregnant, or you drank alcohol on purpose to try to kill your baby. Maybe you smoked. Maybe you are addicted to opiates and now your child will be too. Maybe you are poor -- the cost of childbirth didn't help -- and have no means to buy food, diapers, cribs, or other supplies for your baby. Maybe you are a felon or are otherwise ineligible for SNAP or WIC. Maybe your partner beats you and will beat your child, but you can't leave because then you would be homeless. Maybe you are homeless. Maybe your partner left you. How will you get a job? Who will take care of the baby? If you are in school, you almost certainly have to drop out. The effects of neglect, of abuse, of malnourishment, of fetal alcohol syndrome, of neonatal abstinence syndrome, all of these have profoundly negative effects on the child for the rest of their lives.


It is understandable why some pregnant women become desperate, and what a desperate person can do can be horrifying for everyone involved. To quote a clinic administrator (from the 2016 documentary Trapped):

Quote:

I told her you can come to San Antonio and we can help you here, and she said, "I can't, I don't have the means, there's no way I can get to San Antonio. So what if I tell you what I have in my kitchen cabinet, and you can tell me what I can do."

I doubt anyone's read this far. It's for my own catharsis anyway. But given that you can't obligate someone to give up their bodily autonomy to save someone's life in other cases, why is this, pregnancy and childbirth, something that will affect someone for the rest of their life, why is this mandated? Why should a mass of cells without even a brain have the right to require of a living woman what we cannot even demand of a corpse? So many women who have had abortions and later have children express the relief and gratitude that they didn't have a child when they weren't ready. Because of their choice, they were able to save their own lives and bring new life into the world for whom they could properly care.

Now, because of this law, thousands will suffer. The Alabama lawmakers have already handed down their sentences. They had a choice. Now we do not.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 02:32 PM)Benton Wrote: This slippery slope style of argument is absurd. One of the most common themes in choosing a mate is often related to someone's genetic predisposition to be like them. You can divide that up by race, height, what you're determining as a handicap, weight, etc. You shouldn't, though. That's the flip side of the same logic people use to abort babies with autism, mental retardation, etc.

I understand the religious displeasure with medically induced pregnancies (just a couple weeks ago my pastor for mother's day made multiple references to how test tube babies aren't really people, that you can't be a person without a mother and the Father), but using science to have a child more like you is not the same as surgically maiming children. Good grief.

Where did the pastor think test tube babies come from?

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 02:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That common thread has nothing to do with the context in which the cutting off limbs scenario was introduced. Choosing a mate based on their genetic traits is in no way connected to whether or not one has the right to cut the limbs off a fetus. 

(05-16-2019, 02:32 PM)Benton Wrote: This slippery slope style of argument is absurd. One of the most common themes in choosing a mate is often related to someone's genetic predisposition to be like them. You can divide that up by race, height, what you're determining as a handicap, weight, etc. You shouldn't, though. That's the flip side of the same logic people use to abort babies with autism, mental retardation, etc.

I understand the religious displeasure with medically induced pregnancies (just a couple weeks ago my pastor for mother's day made multiple references to how test tube babies aren't really people, that you can't be a person without a mother and the Father), but using science to have a child more like you is not the same as surgically maiming children. Good grief.

Sure, we'll just disagree. Of course one is going to consider one "worse" and personally I'll take limbs over hearing. But IMO both are striving to disable their child. They ladies said they wanted to have a disabled child. There's reasons there are laws to disallow relatives to marry and as far as I know it has to do with the medical harm it may cause the child.

I have nothing against medically induced pregnancies, but what if the mom has no arms? Should she be allowed to put a substance in the test tube that can block the development of limbs?  IMO both are perverse. "I'm disabled, so I want my child to be."

[BFritz21]

(05-16-2019, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You said the baby was born. That means it was carried past the second trimester. That means i think she should be punished for it.

Learn to read.

I said open the mom up and break the babies legs or deform it any other way.  If it's still in the mother, how is it already born?

Learn to read.

Talk about your all-time backfires.

[jj22]

(05-13-2019, 04:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'd be more sympathetic towards the pro lifers if when the baby was born they didn't bend over backwards to cut programs that help the mother after they forced her to have the baby.

Instead they turn their backs on the mother and baby.

Force them to have the baby, but check the voting records of these politicians (and who the pro lifers support). You won't find much they voted for that help these women. If anything at all.

To the OP are you for helping to support the women and baby? Does your voting record reflect that?

Does life according to pro lifer definition begin at conception and end at birth?

"Shame" I got no answer. I haven't heard any pro lifers championing helping the baby and mother once it's born. That would go a long ways to helping us understand your "defense" of the baby. Crickets from them when asked who would help the mother and child once the baby is born, and would/have they support(ed) those social programs that do. Can't even muster up pretend support of them on a message board.

I guess it's true what they say.

According to pro lifers, life and rights of the baby begins at conception and ends at birth.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 04:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said open the mom up and break the babies legs or deform it any other way.  If it's still in the mother, how is it already born?

Learn to read.

Talk about your all-time backfires.

(05-14-2019, 05:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: OK, so limbs are formed by then, so it would be ok for a woman to have a surgery that opens her up and breaks the babies legs and arms or just has them cut-off causing the baby to be born deformed just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants?

Yeah, Let's talk about all time back fires.

You said the child was born.  That means it was carried past the second trimester.  That means I think the mother should be punished.
 
Why don't you just admit that you misread my original post?  You just keep looking worse and worse the more you keep doubling down on being wrong.

[BFritz21]

(05-16-2019, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, Let's talk about all time back fires.

You said the child was born.  That means it was carried past the second trimester.  That means I think the mother should be punished.
 
Why don't you just admit that you misread my original post?  You just keep looking worse and worse the more you keep doubling down on being wrong.

I said the baby WOUD BE BORN deformed, meaning IT'S NOT BORN YET, and I made it clear in my original post that it was doing that while the baby was in the mother.


Yeah, all-time back fire #2.  Let's talk.

[Lucidus]

(05-13-2019, 02:57 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: People that say it's ok for a woman to have an abortion because it's her choice and her body, so you have no problem with a woman drinking heavily during pregnancy, even though alcohol can seriously affect the unborn child's development, particularly its brain?  It also causes other birth defects.

You think it's ok to smoke during pregnancy, even though smoking can cause preterm birth (which can cause problems), low birth weight, and other health problems?

Drugs are illegal, so that's a little more complicated argument, but a woman can do drugs since it's her body and you're ok with the baby being born addicted to drugs?

There are many other things a woman can do to harm an unborn baby during pregnancy, but you think it's ok because it's her body?

I am pro-choice because I feel it's wrong to strip the mother of their autonomy. However, I would be dishonest if I said I wasn't at all conflicted on the subject of abortion. 

I personally don't think pregnant women should drink or smoke, but as long as smoking and drinking remain legal, I also feel it should be her decision to make, even if I feel it's a bad one.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 05:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said the baby WOUD BE BORN deformed, meaning IT'S NOT BORN YET, and I made it clear in my original post that it was doing that while the baby was in the mother.


Yeah, all-time back fire #2.  Let's talk.

The question you asked indicated that the child would be carried past the second trimester and be born.  That is the question I answered.

You still do not understand what I wrote in my original post, so I am going to explain in as simple terms as I can.

The mother should be punished for any damage (or reckless behavior that could cause damage) to a child she carries past the second trimester.

If she has the fetus dismembered and then has it aborted before the end of the second trimester it is okay.

If she carries the child to term and it is born LIKE IN YOUR QUESTION then she should be punished.

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure, we'll just disagree. Of course one is going to consider one "worse" and personally I'll take limbs over hearing. But IMO both are striving to disable their child. They ladies said they wanted to have a disabled child. There's reasons there are laws to disallow relatives to marry and as far as I know it has to do with the medical harm it may cause the child.

I have nothing against medically induced pregnancies, but what if the mom has no arms? Should she be allowed to put a substance in the test tube that can block the development of limbs?  IMO both are perverse. "I'm disabled, so I want my child to be."

Are you purposefully choosing to ignore the context? If so, please let me know so that I don't waste my time responding. If not, I'm going to suggest that you go back to the start before responding, because this isn't a matter of "which is worse" it's a matter of "are the two examples comparable in the context of a woman's right to ownership of her body?" (a woman's ownership of her body is the issue that was being debated). 

[Benton]

(05-16-2019, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: . Should she be allowed to put a substance in the test tube that can block the development of limbs?  

In this instance, it was semen put in a test tube. 

So, no, it's not the same as surgical maiming.

[Bengalzona]

(05-13-2019, 02:57 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: People that say it's ok for a woman to have an abortion because it's her choice and her body, so you have no problem with a woman drinking heavily during pregnancy, even though alcohol can seriously affect the unborn child's development, particularly its brain?  It also causes other birth defects.

You think it's ok to smoke during pregnancy, even though smoking can cause preterm birth (which can cause problems), low birth weight, and other health problems?

Drugs are illegal, so that's a little more complicated argument, but a woman can do drugs since it's her body and you're ok with the baby being born addicted to drugs?

There are many other things a woman can do to harm an unborn baby during pregnancy, but you think it's ok because it's her body?

I think a woman who is not forced to carry a child, but does so because she chooses to, is far less likely to engage in any of those behaviors. That is a woman who cares about the baby she is carrying and is invested in seeing it born healthy. 

[BFritz21]

(05-16-2019, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The question you asked indicated that the child would be carried past the second trimester and be born.  That is the question I answered.

You still do not understand what I wrote in my original post, so I am going to explain in as simple terms as I can.

The mother should be punished for any damage (or reckless behavior that could cause damage) to a child she carries past the second trimester.

If she has the fetus dismembered and then has it aborted before the end of the second trimester it is okay.

If she carries the child to term and it is born LIKE IN YOUR QUESTION then she should be punished.

That's hypocritical because you said it's her body.  Killing the child before term damages it more than dismembering it would.

(05-16-2019, 05:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think a woman who is not forced to carry a child, but does so because she chooses to, is far less likely to engage in any of those behaviors. That is a woman who cares about the baby she is carrying and is invested in seeing it born healthy. 

Unlikely, but possible.  

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 06:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's hypocritical because you said it's her body.  Killing the child before term damages it more than dismembering it would.
  

There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about what I am saying.  Apparently you just lack the ability to understand a very simple concept.  I honestly don't know how to make it any more simple.

Child not carried past end of second trimester....no punishment for killing or damage done.

Child carried past end of second trimester....punishment for killing (except to protect the life of the mother) or any damage done.



If you still don't get it I give up.