Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

quote:

---

I am frustrated by how anyone can not see abortion as cold-blooded killing. If you don't see it as such please respond.

---

I'm pro-choice, only because I think it doesn't matter how I regard the issue. It's a woman's body and that's it.My twin brother and I were put up for adoption at birth by a woman who presumably got pregnant without having planned to do so. I think she did the right thing by carrying twins to term, though certain members of the board will no doubt disagree with me. Screw you in advance, Dan.I have two kids of my own, and they're the greatest gifts I've ever received. I'm glad that both of them were healthy, normal pregnancies and there was never any concern about their well-being or their mother's.I can also name three women I know (and I wasn't involved, make that clear) who have had more than one abortion, for no better reason than that they are too stupid to use contraception or keep their legs shut. Do I consider this irresponsible? Reprehensible? I sure do.An old boss of mine (a Catholic and a pro-lifer) and his wife chose to have an abortion because the life of both mom and child were in danger. I can tell he regrets it (it would have been his only son) but it was necessary.A couple of friends of my family had a daughter who was born with massive deformities (the mother was older and had not had an amnio): severe developmental problems, no eyes, organs on the outside of her body, etc. They didn't expect her to live more than six months, but she survived to nearly two years old. When she finally died (in great pain), the parents were bankrupt and estranged.We have to realize that there are a lot of things involved in the issue. I think the entire abortion subject should be seen in the context of a wide variety of reproductive choices, and the current definiton of the debate is too narrow and emotional. However, even in its present state, I support the pro-choice position. The mother isn't just the incubator for this precious fetus. Her pregnancy itself should be the product of informed, conscious decision-making, and whether or not she elects to continue the pregnancy should be carried out without coercion as well. If she decides she's not having the child, the choice has to be hers.regards,
Esteban "No Life" Hambre[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-13-2004]

:: states,

quote:

---

Sex -- protected or not -- does not establish consent to pregnancy.

---

Oh please. I think that an adult woman should be able to gauge the risk of having sex, particularly if it's unprotected. She may not be trying to get pregnant, but things do happen.I've already said I know women who have had multiple abortions. These weren't rape victims or abandoned partners. They simply didn't want to be pregnant, but didn't want to have to take precautions beforehand to avoid getting pregnant. Are they and their partners guilty of murder? Nah. But are they guilty of being irresponsible? Sure.I have also said that I see the abortion choice in a continuum of choices: a woman should be free to decide whether to have sex, with whom to have sex, whether to use protection or not, whether to take the morning-after pill, whether to have an abortion when she learns she's pregnant, whether to terminate the pregnancy later. However, the line cuts both ways. Her having to make the choices at the end of the list is directly affected by the choices she made earlier in the process.regards,
Esteban Hambre

:: declares,

quote:

---

The point is that pregnancy is not a necessary result of unprotected sex, and so a consensual link between the act and ONE OF it's possible consequences cannot be established. When I drive in my car I know that I am at risk of an accident, but that does not mean I consent to being rear-ended.

---

I hope you're kidding. If two people have unprotected sex, who else could conceivably be responsible if they end up pregnant?? It's absolutely comical to say that someone can consent to an act but withhold consent for the possible consequences of the act. Your analogy of the car is a good one, but not the way you formulated it. You're saying you realized that you could get in an accident if you drive your car, but that doesn't constitute consent to have someone hit your car. Fair enough. However, if you consented to drive without your seatbelt, let's face it, you consented to fly through the windshield on impact.regards,
Esteban Hambre

:: declareth,

quote:

---

What I think is comical is your implication that open doors imply consent to burglary.

---

I never mentioned burglary, because I think that's a poor analogy. I'm through with arguing by analogy with you, since in the car example you make it sound like I said you want to fly through the windshield. I guess it's easier than dealing with the argument I'm actually making.I'm talking about consent, and responsibility for the consequences of your own actions. What I meant is that you have the choice to protect yourself, and not making that choice could have consequences you didn't consciously choose. No bricks or hammers, no burglars, no crazed motorists. Two consenting adults are making a free choice, but saying they're not responsible for anything they didn't plan. I see a big problem with that.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Fine, I agree, 'consent' is too strong a term. I didn't mean that by having sex, people 'consent' to giving birth, not by any means.One last thing, though. I don't think I deserve to be painted like this:

quote:

---

And in the case of a woman's right to refuse consent to pregnancy it will remain just that: your problem.

---

I certainly never said anything that could remotely be construed as being against women's rights. I admitted that my use of the term 'consent' was wrong. This is what I said in post #32, and this is where I leave it:

quote:

---

I have also said that I see the abortion choice in a continuum of choices: a woman should be free to decide whether to have sex, with whom to have sex, whether to use protection or not, whether to take the morning-after pill, whether to have an abortion when she learns she's pregnant, whether to terminate the pregnancy later. However, the line cuts both ways. Her having to make the choices at the end of the list is directly affected by the choices she made earlier in the process.

---

regards,
Esteban Hambre

Whenever I read anti-abortion literature, I wonder at what point the fleshy outer casing of the fetus (sometimes referred to as the 'mother') becomes fully developed. At least the fetus "has a brain waves (sic), a heartbeat, arms, legs, fingers, toes, a face, and after nine weeks, fingerprints." According to your post, the only thing a mother has are legs, a stomach, and a cervical canal. But I guess that's all women are to you, so I shouldn't be surprised.regards,
Esteban "Fully Formed Fetus" Hambre

quote:

---

Because the fetus in the womb is the baby outside the womb is the little girl is the teenager is the woman. They are all the same person in different stages of development.

---

White Hill,It may shock or dismay you to know that I have two children of my own. I know the difference between a fetus and a child. You seem to want it both ways, that women have full reproductive freedom and that abortion should not be permissible. This is impossible.Any rational person would admit there is at least a slight difference between a fetus and an infant: the fetus is inside its mother. And so the mother has the responsibility for deciding whether to carry the baby to term. As Crash and Lam have both stated, the ideal would be for every pregnancy to result from the free choice of a healthy woman ready to start a family. However, we are realistic enough to realize that that's not always the case. And we are realistic enough to admit that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have the baby, she will abort. Whether that unfortunate choice is respected or turned into a virtual death sentence for both mother and baby is up to us.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

The failure of the law to ban abortion in all but the most extreme instances (death of the mother and/or child) is a case of moral inconsistency, that, I think, we will soon see rectified.

---

Most of us realize that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from being performed. If a woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term, she will abort. Whether she survives the ad-hoc procedure is the only question. I submit that there is just as much moral inconsistency in believing that banning abortion won't kill babies or mothers.Suppose you lived in a nation ruled by fanatical animal-rights activists who tried to stop you from having a tapeworm removed from your body. By claiming that it is a living thing (tapeworms have heartbeats, remember), they decree that you are not free to separate it from its host and cause its death. The fact that what's inside you is not human is beside the point. Whether or not it is a human fetus or a parasite, you would still claim the same right to control your own body as a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Gene90,My point is that you'd demand control over your own body, and rightly so, even if the government decreed that a life inside you was not yours to terminate. Your criteria for claiming the right to do this would be the same as for a woman claiming the right to terminate a pregnancy. You either agree that the government can make laws stating what you can and can't do with your own body or you don't.You equate abortion to murder because you don't think there is any difference between life inside the womb and outside it, but we wouldn't be having this debate if fetuses didn't develop inside another human's body. You conveniently ignore the fact that the "womb" herself has the right to control her own body. Even though you yourself would claim the same right to protect your body from government intrusion, you argue that a woman does not have that right.Talk about moral inconsistency.regards,
Esteban Hambre

gene90,Your constant assertions that aborting a fetus and murdering a newborn baby are the same thing would only convince someone who's already as doctrinaire in his anti-choice position as you. The people here (especially those of us who have live children) realize that an unborn child is still part of his mother, and whether you like it or not (and it's pretty clear you don't), we actually give a pregnant woman the right to control her own body. This obviously isn't a valid aspect of the debate as far as you're concerned. The mother and her Constitutional freedom become irrelevant to you as soon as the egg is fertilized inside her.She also becomes invisible, quite literally, to the anti-choice folks. What's wrong with talking about how the fetus 'looks' inside the mother? Well, this may come as a surprise, but you can't see the baby until it's born. The colorful pictures of the unborn baby are products of impressive photographic technology, and they've fostered the illusion for folks like gene90 that the mother is transparent. You really think a fetus glows like it's the 2001 Star Child or something? A fetus that small is inside a woman's body, gene90, and for most of us the mother is hard to ignore. Try as you might, you can't show us pretty pictures and make us believe that letting an infant starve is the same thing as terminating a first-trimester pregnancy.The difference is a woman, and that's a big difference to most people. It says a lot about you that you make a lot of noise about how the fetus looks, but you never seem to notice the mother.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 05-07-2004 06:20 AM

gene90,If you think there's no difference between a newborn baby and one still developing inside its mother, then I guess there's truly no way we'll ever come to an understanding. On this point, we must agree to disagree.If you think a fetus has a Constitutional right to life, but the mother has no Constitutional protection from government intrusion into her reproductive choices, we must be reading different Constitutions. Please point out where the U.S. Constitution mentions concepts like 'unborn,' 'fetus,' or 'in utero.'It was not my intention to 'abuse' you. I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was opposing you instead of trying to point out the shortcomings of your viewpoint on pregnancy, a subject about which I know a lot considering I'm the father of two children.However, you have no right to say

quote:

---

Are you agreeing with Hambre that this is not a human being?

---

I never said any such thing, because I don't think that has anything to do with the issue. If this is as egregious and deceptive a tactic as it appears, then you owe me an apology. Considering that you also say

quote:

---

(Crash's words) bring back images of Nazism, racism, and eugenics all of which I find politically convenient to associate with liberalism.

---

..in that case, maybe you're intending to be as insulting and outrageous as I suspect. I don't want to waste any more time assuming that my responsible, honest opinions are being considered thoughtfully and answered in kind, if in fact they're merely being twisted to make it seem like everyone on this site is a reprehensible baby-killing Nazi.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

You are welcome to comment now, if you feel it is an issue.

---

I could have commented anywhere along the line, and I did not. I denied ever saying the words you put in my mouth, asserted that I don't consider how we define the humanity of the unborn the issue, and I demanded an apology. You are welcome to apologize now.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

The whole debate is exactly about the definition of a human being.

---

I disagree. If it were the crux of the debate, why would pro-choice people like us have so much trouble deciding where a human being begins to exist? We're sure a baby is human when it's born, but where it achieves its humanness since being merely a single-celled fertilized egg is a question that no one can answer with scientific precision.People like gene90 want to define a fertilized egg as a human being (though even they admit it will 'become' a human being) so they can accuse people who disagree with them of being Nazi racist eugenicists. They change the entire issue from women's reproductive rights to a matter of an oppressed human who happens to be struggling with uterus-bondage. Anyone opposed to protecting the rights of a fellow human being must be a cynical atheist Nazi racist eugenicist. Did I miss anything?I'd like to thank gene90 for thinking none of us here notice the glaring flaw in his logic, something called the mother. He tries to make it seem like the fact that a fetus is still inside of and fully dependent on its mother's body is simply a detail of its status in the 'life cycle.' Sure, pal, pull the other leg.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

We expect mothers to partake (sic) of their time and money in caring for their children that are already born. When they don't they go to prison.

​

Why should it be any different inside the womb? The same logic applies.

---

And we keep informing you that the same logic simply does not apply, because there is an important distinction that you are trying to handwave away. You evidently see the mother as merely the meat that surrounds the precious glowing fetus. In fact the mother is entitled to rights of her own, such as freedom from interference by fanatics who refuse to acknowledge any degree of difference between a living human being and a fertilized egg inside its mother.If you don't agree with abortion, fine, don't have an abortion. I myself have two children, and have never chosen the abortion option. One of us seems to think that people that disagree with him are imposing their choices on others. The other paints his opponents as Nazi racist eugenicists.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

So, if other people have abortions, it's not my business to try to enact laws to stop them?

​

That's odd because if other people murder their children, somehow that is our business, because they go to prison.

---

And gene90, for the umpteenth time, not everyone is as certain as you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a fetus inside its mother and a breathing, functioning, independent human being. All your references to infanticide, no matter how many times you make them, are quite beside the point when we're forced to consider the relevant issue of the mother.I notice you never provided a reference to the part of the Constitution that mentions 'unborn' citizens. Could it be you're barking up the wrong tree trying to bring the Founding Fathers into this?

quote:

---

So you cannot categorically argue that a fetus is non-human

---

And once again, you have no right to say that I did argue that point. The fact that you keep trying to put it in my mouth is no reason to assume it doesn't belong back in your ass. What I did argue is that, since there's absolutely no way to determine scientifically when someone's humanity begins, I guess we owe it to the mother of whose body the fetus is still inside to leave responsibility for the developing human up to her.regards,
Esteban Hambre