Just A Little Pro-Life

[J842P]

She chose her words poorly, but it isn't like she got herself pregnant and wants to abort (and kill) the unborn. She just doesn't want to take personal responsibility for the baby another person made. How this is read will vary based on how one views abortion (is it the killing of an innocent person or is it just a choice if a person will be made?). So I can see why she and others on her side won't understand why many of you on the opposite side see what she's said as hypocritical.

Biology may not be your long suit so I’ll just explain now: a woman does not get herself pregnant. Human beings do not reproduce by parthenogenesis .

So, she can’t handle the baby because she already works too much, it would harm her marriage and wreck her health. But it’s ok in her mind for the pregnant woman to have a baby she is already working too much, it would harm her marriage/relationship and harm her physical health.

What makes her so special that she should not have to take care of a baby the other woman cannot take care of? Nobody is suggesting that the fetus be transplanted into her uterus.

Why does she think the woman seeking a abortion wants one? Probably because she already works too much, it would harm her relationship and risks harming her health. That’s why most women seek abortions: they can’t juggle a job or school and a baby, not to mention the fact that many women are penalized at school and work for being pregnant; it would harm her relationships, and it would risk her health.

Hypocrisy? Lack of empathy? It’s both. Plus the desire to punish women for getting pregnant.

Or maybe, *just maybe* it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Where in the world did you get that from?

From what she wrote. It doesn't say what people here are claiming it says. It doesn't say she insisted on the mother raising the baby. Only that she convinced the mother to not kill the baby before it was born.

If she didn't insist the woman raise the baby... one could possibly wonder why said baby wasn't put up for adoption to begin with.

Her insisting on something doesn't necessarily translate into the mother doing it. She convinced the mother not to kill the baby. Nothing is said either way about if she wanted the mother to raise the baby.

And that this woman was put on a list of potential caretakers for the infant, that implies this woman made some statements that were easily 'mistaken' (taken at face value?) for providing higher levels of support.

I disagree. It seems to be surprise to the writer that her name was put on the list. There is no evidence that she ever gave any indication that she would agree to raise the baby. We only know that the mother decided to put her name down. Maybe she thought the writer would make a good caretaker. We have no idea why she wrote her name.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've been told that only makes sense if you don't think abortion is murder... therefore... some kind of point.

I would say the point is that from this woman's point of view abortion is murder, and all other considerations of the pregnant woman's life, finances, relationships, lack of support are to be ignored. Nothing is as important to her as preventing the abortion, regardless of the chaos it would bring to the other woman. I would say the woman is not empathetic, insensitive, ignorant, and a few other things, but I wouldn't say she is a hypocrite. Not until she becomes pregnant by accident and has to decide on having her life ruined as she predicted or have an abortion.

Exactly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your post only makes sense in the context of "a fetus in the womb is the same as a fully formed human person".

It makes sense in the context of "a human being before birth is an innocent person worthy of protection". It doesn't have to be as fully formed as a person who is born. And a newborn isn't as fully formed as a person as a 10 year old either.

Which is nice and all, but what does this have to do with meddling in other people's lives without the resources to back up said meddling, unless, as marc notes, preventing murders makes lying okay.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Or maybe, *just maybe* it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder.

Naw that can't be it. She must think what Toni thinks. To think otherwise is impossible. Therefore this woman is a hypocrite.... lol

 

[J842P]

Your post only makes sense in the context of "a fetus in the womb is the same as a fully formed human person".

It makes sense in the context of "a human being before birth is an innocent person worthy of protection". It doesn't have to be as fully formed as a person who is born. And a newborn isn't as fully formed as a person as a 10 year old either.

Which is nice and all, but what does this have to do with meddling in other people's lives without the resources to back up said meddling, unless, as marc notes, preventing murders makes lying okay.

Well, to a lot of people lying to prevent a murder would be ok.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Your post only makes sense in the context of "a fetus in the womb is the same as a fully formed human person".

It makes sense in the context of "a human being before birth is an innocent person worthy of protection". It doesn't have to be as fully formed as a person who is born. And a newborn isn't as fully formed as a person as a 10 year old either.

Which is nice and all, but what does this have to do with meddling in other people's lives without the resources to back up said meddling, unless, as marc notes, preventing murders makes lying okay.

Lying? What lying? I've only read the OP. Does the additional information show that the writer lied about something?

As for meddling in other people's lives, we as society to a lot of that when it comes to preventing murders. If this woman sees abortion as murder, then the meddling is probably seen as justified.

 

[Toni]

She chose her words poorly, but it isn't like she got herself pregnant and wants to abort (and kill) the unborn. She just doesn't want to take personal responsibility for the baby another person made. How this is read will vary based on how one views abortion (is it the killing of an innocent person or is it just a choice if a person will be made?). So I can see why she and others on her side won't understand why many of you on the opposite side see what she's said as hypocritical.

Biology may not be your long suit so I’ll just explain now: a woman does not get herself pregnant. Human beings do not reproduce by parthenogenesis .

So, she can’t handle the baby because she already works too much, it would harm her marriage and wreck her health. But it’s ok in her mind for the pregnant woman to have a baby she is already working too much, it would harm her marriage/relationship and harm her physical health.

What makes her so special that she should not have to take care of a baby the other woman cannot take care of? Nobody is suggesting that the fetus be transplanted into her uterus.

Why does she think the woman seeking a abortion wants one? Probably because she already works too much, it would harm her relationship and risks harming her health. That’s why most women seek abortions: they can’t juggle a job or school and a baby, not to mention the fact that many women are penalized at school and work for being pregnant; it would harm her relationships, and it would risk her health.

Hypocrisy? Lack of empathy? It’s both. Plus the desire to punish women for getting pregnant.

Or maybe, *just maybe* it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder.

When concern for the child once it exits the womb is nonexistent, yeah. Lack of empathy, lack of human decency. Hypocrisy. Those fit.

She badgered a woman to give birth to a child for whom the mother could not provide a stable and adequate home. And was unwilling to step in and care for the child because it would be difficult. No shit. The post writer’s circumstamces were possibly less than ideal but they sure as shit were far better than that mother’s circumstances. And all she did was whine about how hard her own life is.

 

[Toni]

Which is nice and all, but what does this have to do with meddling in other people's lives without the resources to back up said meddling, unless, as marc notes, preventing murders makes lying okay.

Lying? What lying? I've only read the OP. Does the additional information show that the writer lied about something?

As for meddling in other people's lives, we as society to a lot of that when it comes to preventing murders. If this woman sees abortion as murder, then the meddling is probably seen as justified.

Sure. And if I am a poorly educated white evangelical Christian, voting for Trump because he’s “anti-abortion” may seem like the right thing to do.

If I oppose pollution, setting fire to an auto plant might seem like the right thing to do. So what if the auto workers die in the flames? The’re complicit.

 

[Gun Nut]

She chose her words poorly, but it isn't like she got herself pregnant and wants to abort (and kill) the unborn. She just doesn't want to take personal responsibility for the baby another person made. How this is read will vary based on how one views abortion (is it the killing of an innocent person or is it just a choice if a person will be made?). So I can see why she and others on her side won't understand why many of you on the opposite side see what she's said as hypocritical.

Biology may not be your long suit so I’ll just explain now: a woman does not get herself pregnant. Human beings do not reproduce by parthenogenesis .

So, she can’t handle the baby because she already works too much, it would harm her marriage and wreck her health. But it’s ok in her mind for the pregnant woman to have a baby she is already working too much, it would harm her marriage/relationship and harm her physical health.

What makes her so special that she should not have to take care of a baby the other woman cannot take care of? Nobody is suggesting that the fetus be transplanted into her uterus.

Why does she think the woman seeking a abortion wants one? Probably because she already works too much, it would harm her relationship and risks harming her health. That’s why most women seek abortions: they can’t juggle a job or school and a baby, not to mention the fact that many women are penalized at school and work for being pregnant; it would harm her relationships, and it would risk her health.

Hypocrisy? Lack of empathy? It’s both. Plus the desire to punish women for getting pregnant.

Or maybe, *just maybe* it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder.

whatever to personal beliefs... I can claim a sincere belief that the words you have chosen murders the language and therefore you should be locked up in jail... a belief equal to any other person's imagination.
"I believe it is murder" Well, doctors, lawyers, and government officials don't, so.. who cares what you choose to delight yourself in believing.
Since the fact is that it is NOT murder, I prefer to start from there and hear the arguments (of which anti-choice folks have none).

 

[Jarhyn]

Or maybe, *just maybe* it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder.

whatever to personal beliefs... I can claim a sincere belief that the words you have chosen murders the language and therefore you should be locked up in jail... a belief equal to any other person's imagination.
"I believe it is murder" Well, doctors, lawyers, and government officials don't, so.. who cares what you choose to delight yourself in believing.
Since the fact is that it is NOT murder, I prefer to start from there and hear the arguments (of which anti-choice folks have none).

Yeah, words have implications to them, something some asshats would separate out to denotation and connotation, but it's a false separation: words have a meaning in place in their usage, and the meaning is WHOLE.

To call some killing without a negative ethical component "murder" is to misuse the word; it is either the statement of a liar, a lunatic, or the uneducated.

You must establish the fundamental ethical background of WHY a thing qualifies as murder before you state that a thing IS murder, and it must be stated on the basis of mutually held axiom to be accepted by the second party. So if you want to prove it is murder, you have to prove a soul, a God, the edict of that God, and an ethical framework wherein that edict means anything to human wthics: you have to solve Euthyphro's dilemma even if you establish a soul, a god, and a heaven otherwise you are not arguing against abortion, you are arguing for a war against God and Heaven.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You must establish the fundamental ethical background of WHY a thing qualifies as murder before you state that a thing IS murder, and it must be stated on the basis of mutually held axiom to be accepted by the second party. So if you want to prove it is murder, you have to prove a soul, a God, the edict of that God, and an ethical framework wherein that edict means anything to human wthics: you have to solve Euthyphro's dilemma even if you establish a soul, a god, and a heaven otherwise you are not arguing against abortion, you are arguing for a war against God and Heaven.

No. It need not have anything to do with a god. You merely need to have empathy for the unborn. Empathy that is easier to form and more widespread in the population the further on the particular unborn is towards birth. And even then, there are some who have argued (including on this board) that even after birth it should be ok to kill the baby until further development post-birth. You don't need a god to exist for killing other human beings to be seen as wrong. We atheists consider it murder to kill other adults, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

You must establish the fundamental ethical background of WHY a thing qualifies as murder before you state that a thing IS murder, and it must be stated on the basis of mutually held axiom to be accepted by the second party. So if you want to prove it is murder, you have to prove a soul, a God, the edict of that God, and an ethical framework wherein that edict means anything to human wthics: you have to solve Euthyphro's dilemma even if you establish a soul, a god, and a heaven otherwise you are not arguing against abortion, you are arguing for a war against God and Heaven.

No. It need not have anything to do with a god. You merely need to have empathy for the unborn. Empathy that is easier to form and more widespread in the population the further on the particular unborn is towards birth. And even then, there are some who have argued (including on this board) that even after birth it should be ok to kill the baby until further development post-birth. You don't need a god to exist for killing other human beings to be seen as wrong. We atheists consider it murder to kill other adults, right?

Mere empathy doesn't get you there. Being able to empathize with or feel empathy for a thing does not obligate action on behalf of that things prerogatives or existence.

I can feel empathy for a fucking tick. It doesn't mean I'm not going to pull it off my body and grind it to paste before flushing it down a toilet

 

[Toni]

Or maybe, *just maybe* it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder.

Naw that can't be it. She must think what Toni thinks. To think otherwise is impossible. Therefore this woman is a hypocrite.... lol

If there were any irony meters left unbroken, this would definitely break one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Or maybe, *just maybe* it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder.

Naw that can't be it. She must think what Toni thinks. To think otherwise is impossible. Therefore this woman is a hypocrite.... lol

If there were any irony meters left unbroken, this would definitely break one.

Ah yes, while you demonstrate this refusal to look at it from her point of view you play "I know you are but what am I" games. All is fun in the land of Toni.

 

[Toni]

If there were any irony meters left unbroken, this would definitely break one.

Ah yes, while you demonstrate this refusal to look at it from her point of view you play "I know you are but what am I" games. All is fun in the land of Toni.

But I am looking at and acknowledging the post writer's point of view: It doesn't matter how inconvenient or what the cost of a pregnancy is to a pregnant woman, she is morally obligated to carry the pregnancy to term. But the post writer is quick to beg off actually caring for the resulting child because it's too hard.

I get that completely. Both sides.

The part I really struggle with is her bragging about her hypocrisy and selfishness on the internet and expecting sympathy for herself rather than actually attempting to rally aid for someone who so clearly desperately needs it. And for the record, I'm actually talking about the child. Instead, she self -righteously talks about how it was predictable that child services would remove the child from the mother's custody because she wasn't fit to raise the child. Which was perhaps the mother's point in the first place.

I save my respect for those who do their best to ensure that every child has care that it requires throughout pregnancy and after. There are many such people who not only advocate that abortion is wrong but also advocate that it an obligation to ensure that the child receives such care and resources as it needs ---from conception to adulthood.

That ain't the post writer who expects praise and sympathy for her cruelty and selfishness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She chose her words poorly, but it isn't like she got herself pregnant and wants to abort (and kill) the unborn. She just doesn't want to take personal responsibility for the baby another person made. How this is read will vary based on how one views abortion (is it the killing of an innocent person or is it just a choice if a person will be made?). So I can see why she and others on her side won't understand why many of you on the opposite side see what she's said as hypocritical.

She's the one that got the woman to choose the path that lead to trouble. Her action, her responsibility.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But I am looking at and acknowledging the post writer's point of view: It doesn't matter how inconvenient or what the cost of a pregnancy is to a pregnant woman, she is morally obligated to carry the pregnancy to term. But the post writer is quick to beg off actually caring for the resulting child because it's too hard.

Nope. That isn't the point of view she expressed. You are reading more into it than what she wrote (at least in the OP) to make it suit your own views.

 

[ZiprHead]

But I am looking at and acknowledging the post writer's point of view: It doesn't matter how inconvenient or what the cost of a pregnancy is to a pregnant woman, she is morally obligated to carry the pregnancy to term. But the post writer is quick to beg off actually caring for the resulting child because it's too hard.

Nope. That isn't the point of view she expressed. You are reading more into it than what she wrote (at least in the OP) to make it suit your own views.

Right back atcha, chief.

 

[Toni]

But I am looking at and acknowledging the post writer's point of view: It doesn't matter how inconvenient or what the cost of a pregnancy is to a pregnant woman, she is morally obligated to carry the pregnancy to term. But the post writer is quick to beg off actually caring for the resulting child because it's too hard.

Nope. That isn't the point of view she expressed. You are reading more into it than what she wrote (at least in the OP) to make it suit your own views.

Nope. I went back and re-read the OP and the post writer expresses that having a 6 month old would be too hard because she already does too much, it would stress her marriage and it would harm her health.

D'oh. Babies are a lot of work. They often put a lot of stress on a relationship, and they can cause negative health impacts. In other words: they aren't convenient. At. All.

These are all truths that the post writer did not recognize or deem important when they were costs that would be born by the mother. But she was totally opting out if SHE was expected to step in and bear some of the costs herself.

That said: a baby that you love and want and assuming that you are stable enough to be able to provide for the baby without feeling that it is breaking you in any sense is the best thing in the world. The woman she talked into continuing her pregnancy obviously had serious problems and lacked stability and was in no way prepared to continue the pregnancy in a way that would ensure a healthy baby nor was she prepared to do what was best for the baby in any sense of the word. I wish the very best for the baby and for the baby's mother. The other woman cares so much about her own happiness and welfare that I don't care at all what happens to her.

Yes, I do think that it is more noble to continue the pregnancy, assuming no great health risks to yourself and assuming that you will be able to have adequate nutrition, housing, and medical care as well as sufficient emotional support that you can safely continue the pregnancy and truly give the baby a shot at a decent life even if you know you might or would or should place the baby for adoption. Of course, this means that the mother is able to forego drugs and alcohol during the pregnancy as well. It would be a lovely world if everyone who got pregnant had such resources, both economic and emotional. The truth is that young, poor girls and women who use drugs and alcohol to deal with their life's stresses also are prone to sometimes using sex for the same reason and unfortunately, are also very much more vulnerable to violence, including but not limited to rape, and emotional and physical abuse. The effects of these ills are not limited to the mother, unfortunately, but are also borne by the baby. However, these effects are not born by the people who insist that all pregnancies must be continued. Nope. Those people just get to continue their own lives and pontificate about how terrible it is that anyone would want to terminate a 8 week pregnancy and how high their taxes are.