Just A Little Pro-Life

[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.

Right back atcha, chief.

Thanks son

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

That's not the part you added.

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.

True.

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.

Not what you added before either, but you are now. You're probably right about this one.

The other woman cares so much about her own happiness and welfare that I don't care at all what happens to her.

Well aren't you a delight.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hey Toni, maybe this though experiment will help you see the writer's viewpoint.

If a woman has a baby, but then afterwards realizes the baby will be more work than she thought, or things changed in her life and she's feeling less able to care for the baby, do you think its ok for her to go ahead and kill it in its crib? If not, why not? How about a 10 year old kid? Is it ok for her to kill them? Oh, you say, but an unborn isn't the same. That's not a baby. That's different. THAT'S where you and this writer are actually in the most disagreement, not anything regarding murder being wrong or taking personal responsibility, or controlling peoples bodies etc. We control people's bodies often when it means preventing a murder.

Oh but the baby who is born can be sent to child services and adopted. The unborn one has to be brought to term or extracted early from the womb etc. How dare this writer demand what this woman do with her body just to stop a murder? Well, first, she didn't. She convinced her not by force to do so. And second, answer this. Say the baby after birth is in the back seat of her car and starts crying and that triggers something in the woman and brings back a flood of horrible memories that she can't cope with. Is it ok for her to throw the baby from the car to splatter onto the pavement, or should she at least pull over before she leaves the baby by the roadside and drives away?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Noticed Jolly "Alan Dershowitz" Penguin didn't quote this.

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.

It reminds me of a guy who is complaining at work, talking about how he'd know how to fix this or that, and being told by the Boss, 'okay, you've got this now'... and the guy freezes in place. Because he now owns it, and is responsible for it.

It is so much easier to rise to the pure call of being pro-life, and counseling people to make decisions that seem right in your own world view. Then it becomes comical for them to walk it back when all of a sudden, the, at times, unimaginable burden that parenting can be (especially early on) comes back towards you. Raising a baby isn't work hours... it isn't 24 hrs... it permeates almost every part of your life. Your entire life now consists of compromises and changes you have to make, some in areas you never even considered you'd need to consider. Having a child is the greatest (great as in good) mistake (mistake as in bad) a person or couple can ever decide to make.

This woman, and women that love to sell Pro-Life to save the life of a fetus, don't sell that part of it. They knit a fancy lie to desperate people, both instilling a greater sense of shame if a woman decides to get an abortion and a fanciful 'you can do it' pep talk. Pro-Life really is Pro-Birth.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Noticed Jolly "Alan Dershowitz" Penguin didn't quote this.

Your insults are inappropriate. That you can't have a conversation like this without them is a problem for the board.

Also, I am not taking the position of the writer quoted in the OP. I am merely noting that the quick leap to calling what she wrote hypocrisy and that it isn't. She may actually think abortion is murder and if she does then what she wrote makes sense from there.

 

[Toni]

Hey Toni, maybe this though experiment will help you see the writer's viewpoint.

If a woman has a baby, but then afterwards realizes the baby will be more work than she thought, or things changed in her life and she's feeling less able to care for the baby, do you think its ok for her to go ahead and kill it in its crib? If not, why not? How about a 10 year old kid? Is it ok for her to kill them? Oh, you say, but an unborn isn't the same. That's not a baby. That's different. THAT'S where you and this writer are actually in the most disagreement, not anything regarding murder being wrong or taking personal responsibility, or controlling peoples bodies etc. We control people's bodies often when it means preventing a murder.

Oh but the baby who is born can be sent to child services and adopted. The unborn one has to be brought to term or extracted early from the womb etc. How dare this writer demand what this woman do with her body just to stop a murder? Well, first, she didn't. She convinced her not by force to do so. And second, answer this. Say the baby after birth is in the back seat of her car and starts crying and that triggers something in the woman and brings back a flood of horrible memories that she can't cope with. Is it ok for her to throw the baby from the car to splatter onto the pavement, or should she at least pull over before she leaves the baby by the roadside and drives away?

I don’t equate an 8 week embryo with a full term baby or a 26 week or 30 week fetus.

Not does nature. At least 25 percent of all conceptions result in early miscarriage, sometimes without the mother even realizing that there was any pregnancy to lose. It’s estimated that even more fertilized eggs fail to implant and establish a pregnancy. Of course later miscarriages happen all too frequently. And there are stillborn births and of course women who die giving birth and sometimes both baby and mother die during birth. This happens even to healthy, well educated, economically secure women with excellent health care and no history of substance abuse.

 

[Toni]

Noticed Jolly "Alan Dershowitz" Penguin didn't quote this.

Your insults are inappropriate. That you can't have a conversation like this without them is a problem for the board.

Also, I am not taking the position of the writer quoted in the OP. I am merely noting that the quick leap to calling what she wrote hypocrisy and that it isn't. She may actually think abortion is murder and if she does then what she wrote makes sense from there.

Of course it’s hypocrisy to expect someone else to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself in the easier form.

 

[Toni]

That's not the part you added.



True.

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.

Not what you added before either, but you are now. You're probably right about this one.

The other woman cares so much about her own happiness and welfare that I don't care at all what happens to her.

Well aren't you a delight.

Sorry you have trouble understanding what I write.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Noticed Jolly "Alan Dershowitz" Penguin didn't quote this.

Your insults are inappropriate.

You misspelled "observation" and "accurate".

That you can't have a conversation like this without them is a problem for the board.

Yes, but not in the way you think.

Also, I am not taking the position of the writer quoted in the OP. I am merely noting that the quick leap to calling what she wrote hypocrisy and that it isn't. She may actually think abortion is murder and if she does then what she wrote makes sense from there.

Thinking abortion is murder does not absolve her from the consequences of her actions (or her sense of not feeling culpable) which actively led to the suffering of a baby that needed to be removed by the state.

 

[prideandfall]

Your post only makes sense in the context of "a fetus in the womb is the same as a fully formed human person". It is not. So it makes no sense to call the removal of a clumpy wad of cells, like performing a biopsy of a small bit of tissue, "murder". This is why these two camps talk past each other. We cannot agree on what we are talking about.
No one disagrees that murder is bad. No one disagrees that a biopsy of a few cells is not murder. The disagreement is is about if those cells have a soul... and that can be argued in church, in my opinion, not in the courts.

i'm jumping in on this kind of late, but i was just talking to my girlfriend about this the other night so it piqued my interest.

IMO this is the biggest and most useless distraction of the abortion debate: the question of 'is it a lump of cells' or 'is it a baby' is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter what the answer is.
we, as a species, have collectively decided that there are a multitude of situations in which it is acceptable to kill other humans. the death penalty, war, "home defense", espionage, involuntary manslaughter, on and on.
as such i concede the point, even though i completely disagree with it... you want to say that a fertilized egg is a chubby baby? fine, whatever, a zygote is a kindergarten aged girl in a sun dress and pig pails.
but it's still acceptable to kill them, because abortion is a situation like the above, where it's simply acceptable to kill another person.

 

[prideandfall]

Hey Toni, maybe this though experiment will help you see the writer's viewpoint.

If a woman has a baby, but then afterwards realizes the baby will be more work than she thought, or things changed in her life and she's feeling less able to care for the baby, do you think its ok for her to go ahead and kill it in its crib? If not, why not? How about a 10 year old kid? Is it ok for her to kill them? Oh, you say, but an unborn isn't the same. That's not a baby. That's different. THAT'S where you and this writer are actually in the most disagreement, not anything regarding murder being wrong or taking personal responsibility, or controlling peoples bodies etc. We control people's bodies often when it means preventing a murder.

Oh but the baby who is born can be sent to child services and adopted. The unborn one has to be brought to term or extracted early from the womb etc. How dare this writer demand what this woman do with her body just to stop a murder? Well, first, she didn't. She convinced her not by force to do so. And second, answer this. Say the baby after birth is in the back seat of her car and starts crying and that triggers something in the woman and brings back a flood of horrible memories that she can't cope with. Is it ok for her to throw the baby from the car to splatter onto the pavement, or should she at least pull over before she leaves the baby by the roadside and drives away?

you didn't ask me this question but i want to answer is because i've found that generally speaking i have a much, much harder pro-abortion stance than most people do, and this conversation is interesting to me.

i'm sure toni would hedge and haw and dodge this, but i'll come right out and say it: until a person has mentally developed enough that they can look you in the eye and tell you, with a clear and rational understanding of what the concept means and all the consequences it entails, "i do not wish to die" then i think it's fine to kill them.
generally speaking i'd say that puts it anywhere from like ages 9 to 12, depending on how much the thing has developed intellectually.

the deaths of children mean nothing - they haven't done anything yet, and they haven't built a network of obligations around which they are the lynch pin. if a kid dies the only fallout is a couple sad people who are often too stupid to realize they can just shit another one out that'll look just like the other one, and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.

if abortion is murder, it's an irrelevant murder. it means as much as flushing a gold fish down the toilet that wasn't quite dead yet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[you didn't ask me this question but i want to answer is because i've found that generally speaking i have a much, much harder pro-abortion stance than most people do, and this conversation is interesting to me.

i'm sure toni would hedge and haw and dodge this, but i'll come right out and say it: until a person has mentally developed enough that they can look you in the eye and tell you, with a clear and rational understanding of what the concept means and all the consequences it entails, "i do not wish to die" then i think it's fine to kill them.
generally speaking i'd say that puts it anywhere from like ages 9 to 12, depending on how much the thing has developed intellectually.

I'm thinking Toni might do a little more than hedge and haw and dodge.

the deaths of children mean nothing - they haven't done anything yet, and they haven't built a network of obligations around which they are the lynch pin. if a kid dies the only fallout is a couple sad people who are often too stupid to realize they can just shit another one out that'll look just like the other one, and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.

That probably is why so many marriages don't survive the death of a child. Jebus... I'm thinking you are arguing a bit outside of the experience. A baby doesn't do anything much (other than consume and develop), but it, to parents that care, engulfs your entire existence. You are also like a god for a year.

Also, I think women (non-Catholic women ) would disagree about the 'just have another'.

if abortion is murder, it's an irrelevant murder. it means as much as flushing a gold fish down the toilet that wasn't quite dead yet.

Umm... A gold fish can suffer, a zygote can not.

 

[Toni]

Hey Toni, maybe this though experiment will help you see the writer's viewpoint.

If a woman has a baby, but then afterwards realizes the baby will be more work than she thought, or things changed in her life and she's feeling less able to care for the baby, do you think its ok for her to go ahead and kill it in its crib? If not, why not? How about a 10 year old kid? Is it ok for her to kill them? Oh, you say, but an unborn isn't the same. That's not a baby. That's different. THAT'S where you and this writer are actually in the most disagreement, not anything regarding murder being wrong or taking personal responsibility, or controlling peoples bodies etc. We control people's bodies often when it means preventing a murder.

Oh but the baby who is born can be sent to child services and adopted. The unborn one has to be brought to term or extracted early from the womb etc. How dare this writer demand what this woman do with her body just to stop a murder? Well, first, she didn't. She convinced her not by force to do so. And second, answer this. Say the baby after birth is in the back seat of her car and starts crying and that triggers something in the woman and brings back a flood of horrible memories that she can't cope with. Is it ok for her to throw the baby from the car to splatter onto the pavement, or should she at least pull over before she leaves the baby by the roadside and drives away?

you didn't ask me this question but i want to answer is because i've found that generally speaking i have a much, much harder pro-abortion stance than most people do, and this conversation is interesting to me.

i'm sure toni would hedge and haw and dodge this, but i'll come right out and say it: until a person has mentally developed enough that they can look you in the eye and tell you, with a clear and rational understanding of what the concept means and all the consequences it entails, "i do not wish to die" then i think it's fine to kill them.
generally speaking i'd say that puts it anywhere from like ages 9 to 12, depending on how much the thing has developed intellectually.

the deaths of children mean nothing - they haven't done anything yet, and they haven't built a network of obligations around which they are the lynch pin. if a kid dies the only fallout is a couple sad people who are often too stupid to realize they can just shit another one out that'll look just like the other one, and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.

if abortion is murder, it's an irrelevant murder. it means as much as flushing a gold fish down the toilet that wasn't quite dead yet.

Oh, I would NOT hedge and haw and dodge this but what you are advocating is straight up not abortion but murder.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hey Toni, maybe this though experiment will help you see the writer's viewpoint.

If a woman has a baby, but then afterwards realizes the baby will be more work than she thought, or things changed in her life and she's feeling less able to care for the baby, do you think its ok for her to go ahead and kill it in its crib? If not, why not? How about a 10 year old kid? Is it ok for her to kill them? Oh, you say, but an unborn isn't the same. That's not a baby. That's different. THAT'S where you and this writer are actually in the most disagreement, not anything regarding murder being wrong or taking personal responsibility, or controlling peoples bodies etc. We control people's bodies often when it means preventing a murder.

Oh but the baby who is born can be sent to child services and adopted. The unborn one has to be brought to term or extracted early from the womb etc. How dare this writer demand what this woman do with her body just to stop a murder? Well, first, she didn't. She convinced her not by force to do so. And second, answer this. Say the baby after birth is in the back seat of her car and starts crying and that triggers something in the woman and brings back a flood of horrible memories that she can't cope with. Is it ok for her to throw the baby from the car to splatter onto the pavement, or should she at least pull over before she leaves the baby by the roadside and drives away?

I don’t equate an 8 week embryo with a full term baby or a 26 week or 30 week fetus.

Not does nature. At least 25 percent of all conceptions result in early miscarriage, sometimes without the mother even realizing that there was any pregnancy to lose. It’s estimated that even more fertilized eggs fail to implant and establish a pregnancy. Of course later miscarriages happen all too frequently. And there are stillborn births and of course women who die giving birth and sometimes both baby and mother die during birth. This happens even to healthy, well educated, economically secure women with excellent health care and no history of substance abuse.

That's all fine and good. And I agree with you (somewhat) but you and I are not the writer. Evidently she DOES feel the unborn is worthy of protection and empathy to the point of seeing killing him/her as murder.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Noticed Jolly "Alan Dershowitz" Penguin didn't quote this.

Your insults are inappropriate. That you can't have a conversation like this without them is a problem for the board.

Also, I am not taking the position of the writer quoted in the OP. I am merely noting that the quick leap to calling what she wrote hypocrisy and that it isn't. She may actually think abortion is murder and if she does then what she wrote makes sense from there.

Of course it’s hypocrisy to expect someone else to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself in the easier form.

Marc already gave the right answer to this. It will be hypocrisy if and when the writer gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion (and kill her own offspring). You remain fixated on the raising of the child. The writer is focused on the killing.

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course it’s hypocrisy to expect someone else to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself in the easier form.

Marc already gave the right answer to this. It will be hypocrisy if and when the writer gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion (and kill her own offspring). You remain fixated on the raising of the child. The writer is focused on the killing.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. There's so much more involved in raising a child and pro-life momma ignored that aspect of the woman's life she counseled.

 

[prideandfall]

Oh, I would NOT hedge and haw and dodge this but what you are advocating is straight up not abortion but murder.

shrug. we as a society kill people all the time, every hour of every day, and come up with a whole host of reasons why we justify it as either not murder, or murder that was excusable.
as i'm willing to simply concede the whole "zygote is a baby" point to forced-birthers since i think it's an irrelevant distraction to the conversation, it's simply a matter of classifying abortion as one of the myriad reasons our society thinks it's fine to kill people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hey Toni, maybe this though experiment will help you see the writer's viewpoint.

If a woman has a baby, but then afterwards realizes the baby will be more work than she thought, or things changed in her life and she's feeling less able to care for the baby, do you think its ok for her to go ahead and kill it in its crib? If not, why not? How about a 10 year old kid? Is it ok for her to kill them? Oh, you say, but an unborn isn't the same. That's not a baby. That's different. THAT'S where you and this writer are actually in the most disagreement, not anything regarding murder being wrong or taking personal responsibility, or controlling peoples bodies etc. We control people's bodies often when it means preventing a murder.

Oh but the baby who is born can be sent to child services and adopted. The unborn one has to be brought to term or extracted early from the womb etc. How dare this writer demand what this woman do with her body just to stop a murder? Well, first, she didn't. She convinced her not by force to do so. And second, answer this. Say the baby after birth is in the back seat of her car and starts crying and that triggers something in the woman and brings back a flood of horrible memories that she can't cope with. Is it ok for her to throw the baby from the car to splatter onto the pavement, or should she at least pull over before she leaves the baby by the roadside and drives away?

you didn't ask me this question but i want to answer is because i've found that generally speaking i have a much, much harder pro-abortion stance than most people do, and this conversation is interesting to me.

i'm sure toni would hedge and haw and dodge this, but i'll come right out and say it: until a person has mentally developed enough that they can look you in the eye and tell you, with a clear and rational understanding of what the concept means and all the consequences it entails, "i do not wish to die" then i think it's fine to kill them.
generally speaking i'd say that puts it anywhere from like ages 9 to 12, depending on how much the thing has developed intellectually.

the deaths of children mean nothing - they haven't done anything yet, and they haven't built a network of obligations around which they are the lynch pin. if a kid dies the only fallout is a couple sad people who are often too stupid to realize they can just shit another one out that'll look just like the other one, and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.

if abortion is murder, it's an irrelevant murder. it means as much as flushing a gold fish down the toilet that wasn't quite dead yet.

I totally disagree with you that it should be ok to kill 5 year olds, but I give you credit for being so bold and honest to write such an unpopular view and to be consistent.

 

[prideandfall]

That's all fine and good. And I agree with you (somewhat) but you and I are not the writer. Evidently she DOES feel the unborn is worthy of protection and empathy to the point of seeing killing him/her as murder.

and i do NOT feel the unborn are worthy of fuck-all and don't consider it an unjustifiable killing to drown an 8 year old if you decide you don't like the thing.
if i post that on twitter, does that validate my viewpoint and make it viable for serious consideration?

this dumb cunt posted some bullshit on twitter. the fact she is clearly developmentally disabled doesn't mean that her opinion has any validity.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it’s hypocrisy to expect someone else to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself in the easier form.

Marc already gave the right answer to this. It will be hypocrisy if and when the writer gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion (and kill her own offspring). You remain fixated on the raising of the child. The writer is focused on the killing.

The writer is a very shallow thinker. Bringing an unwanted fetus to term means that either someone bears the cost of raising that child or the child is left to die. In the former, unless the writer is willing to directly support the raising of that child by adoption or foster home, or indirectly via taxes and charity to support the raising of that child, she is a hypocrite.