|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 27, 2011 14:47:30 GMT -5
I knew someone was going to say that.
See, the thing is, anti-choice people are, indeed, anti-choice. They seek to eliminate a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy. They are not 'pro-life' in any meaningful way. They care not about life but about making sure there's no CHOICE in the facing of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. They don't make sure the unwanted babies have good homes and don't languish for a lifetime in a broken foster-care system; they don't provide help for the women and girls who DO keep the resulting baby they, for some reason or another, they initially believed themselves incapable of caring for. That's not preserving life. That's as far from 'pro-life' as you can get.
Pro-choice people, on the other hand, seek only to keep that choice available. That's it. They're not 'pro-death' because they're not advocating mass murder--no matter WHAT anyone says about the 'personhood' of a fetus at any given stage. Nor, it should be said, is anyone 'pro-abortion' because no one for one moment suggests mandatory abortions or abortions for women who DON'T want them.
You can call it 'pro-death' if you want to to make a point, but I know pro-choice has nothing to do with death. You can also say 'pro-life', but I also know that that side has nothing to do with life, either.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Apr 27, 2011 15:07:49 GMT -5
If life begins at conception how was I charged with minor in possession of alcohol at 20? Because you live in a place with insanely conservative liquor laws. I support the right to drink while in the womb! God knows you'll need it with all these fucking mombies. re:anti-choice being immature: Um...they don't want women to have a choice between carrying the pregnancy to term and having an abortion. Therefore, they're anti-choice. How is that immature? It's not analogous to "pro-death" because, with some exceptions (every group has their crackpots) pro-choicers aren't advocating abortion, they're advocating the right of women to have abortions if they so choose. For pro-death to be what the anti-choicers imply it to be, pro-choicers wouldn't be advocating the right to choose, they'd be advocating forced abortions, in direct opposition to "pro-lifers" advocating forced full-term pregnancies.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 27, 2011 15:57:22 GMT -5
You can call it 'pro-death' if you want to to make a point Specifically, if you want to make the point that you are a moron.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 28, 2011 3:24:45 GMT -5
They're anti-woman.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Apr 28, 2011 3:45:08 GMT -5
Just to put another nail in the coffin that is "pro-life". The anti-choice crowd often demand that the fetus is carried to term regardless of complications. Thus if the pregnancy is entropic, they would rather the mother and child die than an abortion happen.
Also, any "pro-lifer" that states that in the event of complications and such there should be medical intervention to save the life of the mother. These people are automatically by definition pro-choice. They are giving the mother the choice to undergo a medical procedure that may save her life.
Just some distinctions.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 28, 2011 5:30:36 GMT -5
Sylvana, I think you meant "ectopic", which is where the fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. "Entropic" is something completely different.
Also, when it comes to complications and medical intervention, it isn't always a choice -- emergency surgery, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Apr 28, 2011 6:49:32 GMT -5
Playing Devil's advocate here...
Imagine it would be legal for parents to euthanise their children up to an age of, let's say, three years. There may be some restrictions, but in the end "I finally got a job an another town, but I can find no one willing to rent me an apartment after I say that I have a tantrum-prone two-year old. So I decided to get an appointment at the doctor and have him put to sleep. I don't like it, but I'm jobless otherwise and couldn't feed him." would be a realistic scenario. After all, it's legal for pets, too. A few thousand children are euthanised that way every year. Would you be okay with this? Would you accept it as the way it is, or would you take steps to stop these (to you) horrifying events? Try to convince parents contemplation such an action to not do it and choose another way? Lobby politicians to outlaw that practice?
That's about the situation Anti-abortion activists are in. As I see it, they (the sane ones) don't specifically want to constrict a woman's right to choose, they just think that the fetus' right to live supersedes his mother's right to self-determination. And some of them are growing increasingly fanatical after a while. Or it might be that I'm an idealist.
Corollary: Those opposing abortions due to medical emergency (to save the mother's life) are just nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 28, 2011 13:48:00 GMT -5
The pro-life movement is not pro-life.
However, some of the sheep following the pro-life movement are pro-life.
I would know, I was one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 28, 2011 13:59:21 GMT -5
Yla: I've heard that comparison before and it just smacks of rubbish. No matter how loudly the people screech about it, at the end of the day a fetus isn't a person. It has no right to 'live' over an adult's freedom of choice. A three-year-old IS a person and DOES have the right to live no matter what their parent wants to do.
Put another way, in some places house pets are seen as the 'property' of their owners and I think it's completely legal for the owner to decide to take the pet to the vet and have it put down for exactly the reasons you used in your example. I don't think people should have the right to do that.
But that's because pets and children are living, breathing, sentient creatures that another person doesn't have the right to kill. A fetus isn't comparable with a toddler, no matter what the anti-choicers or pro-lifers or anti-abortionists say.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 28, 2011 14:51:30 GMT -5
Cait, you and I see a clump of cells, they see a thing with a soul, and thus, a person.
They basically view a fetus the same way they view a 3 year old. And that's messed up.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Apr 28, 2011 15:03:38 GMT -5
Yla: I've heard that comparison before and it just smacks of rubbish. No matter how loudly the people screech about it, at the end of the day a fetus isn't a person. It has no right to 'live' over an adult's freedom of choice. A three-year-old IS a person and DOES have the right to live no matter what their parent wants to do. Put another way, in some places house pets are seen as the 'property' of their owners and I think it's completely legal for the owner to decide to take the pet to the vet and have it put down for exactly the reasons you used in your example. I don't think people should have the right to do that. But that's because pets and children are living, breathing, sentient creatures that another person doesn't have the right to kill. A fetus isn't comparable with a toddler, no matter what the anti-choicers or pro-lifers or anti-abortionists say. But what about late third-trimester fetuses, that could potentially survive outside of its mother? That pretty much is a person. Unless there is some dire medical emergency that would kill the mother, it's not right to abort that. You hear stories of babies surviving botched late-term abortions, albeit badly hurt. That is just fucked up. I honestly don't care what anyone on the pro-choice side has to say- unless there's a very good medical reason for it, aborting a viable fetus just doesn't seem right.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 28, 2011 15:28:44 GMT -5
Lazy, very very very few women terminate a pregnancy THAT late and the ones that do are almost all because there's some major complication or a previously undiagnosed serious (and often deadly) fetal abnormality. It's almost never a case of the fetus even being viable. Third-trimester abortions or abortions of viable fetii are actually very hard to come by--there actually has to BE a very good medical reason for it. Almost all abortions occur within the first trimester.
Also, I have never ever heard of a late-term fetus surviving a botched abortion. I'm disinclined to believe this is possible.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Apr 28, 2011 15:33:52 GMT -5
Abortions in the third trimester are very uncommon in the US. In fact, it's banned in 36 states.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Apr 28, 2011 15:39:56 GMT -5
Lazy, very very very few women terminate a pregnancy THAT late and the ones that do are almost all because there's some major complication or a previously undiagnosed serious (and often deadly) fetal abnormality. It's almost never a case of the fetus even being viable. Third-trimester abortions or abortions of viable fetii are actually very hard to come by--there actually has to BE a very good medical reason for it. Almost all abortions occur within the first trimester. Also, I have never ever heard of a late-term fetus surviving a botched abortion. I'm disinclined to believe this is possible. Gianna Jessen. I saw her on television a while ago telling her story- her mom tried to abort her at 7.5 months, but she survived, albeit badly disabled.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 28, 2011 15:46:54 GMT -5
Okay, fair enough. I thought you meant a late-term back-alley abortion, which made me wonder how the hell it would happen. People who do back-alley abortions often don't even have provision to keep the patient alive, let alone provision to keep a suddenly not dead two months premature fetus alive.
Still, I reiterate: late-term abortions are extremely rare. Even when they're available.
|
|