Question to supporters of late term abortion

No, it won't .... YOU have experienced TWO abortions and pregnancy and childbirth and still have not presented even ONE fact pertaining to any of it. .....all that expeience and NO credibility.

You seem to think your little "experience" is the benchmark for the world....it isn't.....and since you continually ignore facts that you don't agree with you seem to think experience is the ONLY thing used to form an opinion and to hell with facts and science....if everyone thought that way we'd still be living in caves and grunting hello...

Abortions continue .... ...and always will........

 

The woman does control pregnancy. She chooses to partake in acts with a man that creates the situation where pregnancy can occur. In the case of rape the man creates the situation of where pregnancy can occur. The fetus does not create the situation, and is not liable. The fetus did not spontaneously create, someone else took actions to create it. Someone else is liable.

If you drive a car into someone else, you created the situation by not paying attention or making a wrong judgement or just deliberately directing the car into someone else. The car had no say in the matter. It exists in the situation because you got into it and drove it.

How do you know they are only going to cut you once a day for a prolonged period? Because they told you? Can you see the future? Can you read their minds? How do you know when they carry the knife to you the first time they won't kill you? That is an imminent threat.

Now if you knew there was a very small risk of death. (Say less than 1:10,000) for example a toddler kept attacking you with its own body (no weapons), do you honestly think a court would say deadly force with intent to kill was justified? Even if you had to wait 9 months for child protection to take the toddler away, do you think a court would say you were justified to kill the toddler to stop them hurting you, even though you KNEW there was very little chance they could kill you?

 

I never implied it. I said what I meant.

 

In the US prior to Roe vs Wade it was illegal to take the life away from an unborn. They had the right to life. That has now been taken away until it reaches 24 weeks, and you want it to not even have the right to life after 24 weeks.
And yes i would much prefer all abortion was unneccesary. And yes i would prefer elective abortion illegal and impossible to procure even in a back alley. But unfortunately it is.

Ok thats fine. I know there are plenty of pro life groups that dont actively support mothers needs. But there are some who do and ive shown you. Please show me a prp choice group that actively supports other choices, i will gladly follow them. Im not saying they dont exist, im saying i havent come accross one yet and i would like to.

 

Its her choice to create the situation where pregnancy occurs. Its not her choice to kill her unbirn child for her actions, or for the actions of another party.

And no im not frigid at all. I love sex. Ive been pregnant 7 times i know of. Hubby and i love sex so much he got a vasectomy so we could greatly reduce our chance of pregnancy, but if it occurs ill take responsibility, because I chose to partake in actiond that created the child, the child didn't create itself.

If i was terrified of something, i wouldnt create a situation where that thing could happen. If i was terrified of drowing, i wouldn't blindy jump of a pier into the ocean. If I really desperately didnt want to get pregnant i wouldn't have sex. And hubby and i have gone long periods without sex before because of child birth and other procedures. I really desperately did not want to get an infection. We found other ways to be intimate.

Bottom line is, vaginal penetration by a penis is neccesary for the creation of life, not for life itself.

I am anti choice in regards to abortion. I hate elective abortion by "choice". "My body, my choice" is the worst slogan ive ever heard. Abortion should only be done to save a life, or prevent a life from living in significant pain and suffering with no chance of improvement. Unfortunately situations still exist that would drive women to back alley procedures, so obviously elective abortion needs to be available to some extent, or otherwise abortion not on demand but in a broad range of circumstances, like in Iceland.

I have always said im neither pro choice or pro life.

 

I impose nothing. Each woman determines the value of their own unborn child.

I have already given you Planned Parenthood as an example, which is an advocate for all women and their general empowerment. National Advocates for Pregnant Women supports women through research, education and litigation: http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/

 

You are imposing the view that an individual women can determine if a life is worthy or not.

And thanks for that link. I can see things that i can support and things that I strongly oppose, but I will follow what they do, and offer my support where neccesary.

I could never support planned parenthood as they do far too many things I dissaprove of.

The only thing I strongly oppose in the pro life movement is abstinence only sex ed and banning abortion to save the mothers life when there is no other option (eg. Ectopic pregnancy), or if the fetus is severely malformed and has no chance of improvement. As far as I'm aware neither feminists for life or democrats for life promote those ideas.

 

LOL, You can't even agree with yourself! Read the blue above,.,,DUHHH
You are Anti-Choice.....as long as YOU have had your TWO abortions you now don't think anyone else should have that choice...

 

Absolutely not. No one is forced to be pro-choice when abortion is legal.

They do "things you disapprove of," according to whom? Planned Parenthood has been demonized and slandered by "pro-lifers," but it does more to help women and reduce abortions than all "pro-life" organizations put together.

Any "pro-life' organization that believes life begins at conception would not allow an exception for the woman's life (if it is consistent in its beliefs). We don't allow one human being to be killed to save the life of another.

 

Unless it's YOU choosing to kill your 'unbirn child'.....

Only a frigid person would demand someone not have sex.

If I get knocked up, *I* will do the responsible thing and abort instead of having a child I cannot or will not care for. I also will not birth a child only to pawn it off onto others to raise.

Your point?

Your point?

Unless it's YOU doing the aborting .......

 

Good for you living according to your choices...thing is they are YOURS to make. Trying to make others live THEIR lives according to your choices is extremely conceited and unattractive on many levels...makes you come off as a self important narcissist.

I also got snipped to avoid getting my wife pregnant...but would NEVER try to make any other man do so, it is not my business and neither is another woman's life yours.

 

you telling me to do more research with the number of false things you have put in you comments.

Find your (so called) data that details the number of Canadian women who have elective abortion is the US after 20 weeks, until then you have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

and Once again that does not mean that their experiences changes anything, experiences are purely individual things, your experiences of an event are different from mine even for the same event.

 

Nope a woman does not control pregnancy, she has no control over whether the fetus suppresses her local immune system, whether her hormone levels increase by up to 400%, whether her blood pressure increase by 15%, whether her circulatory system get re-routed, whether a new organ is grown in her body, she has no control over whether the fertilized ovum implants.

You are actually proving my point, she chooses to take a risk .. just as millions of other people do every day ... That assumption of risk does not mean that those people who consent to risk lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others.

While consent to sexual intercourse merely causes the risk that pregnancy will occur, consent to expose oneself to risk that one will be injured by a private party is not a legal proxy for consent to the actual injuries should they occur. On the contrary, the law recognizes the exact opposite. consent to jog alone at night in central park does not stand as a proxy for consent to be mugged and/or raped, should others attack you. The law instead recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 - What this means is that just because normal consensual sexual intercourse usually precedes pregnancy does not mean that a woman has consented to pregnancy.

consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, it cannot be .. consent cannot be transferred between parties without the agreement of the person who gave the original consent.

Irrelevant .. the mentally incompetent person you invite into you house who then starts to injure you does not create the situation, nor are they liable, that does not mean you cannot defend yourself, up to and including deadly force if required.

Do the research on actual and legal cause.

The car exists whether I am in it or not .. you are the person in control of the car ergo you are responsible for its actions or are you trying to assert that a car is the same as a fetus, if so then you are stating that the fetus is property and as such the woman can do what ever she wishes.

Imminent threat is not the only reason for the use of deadly force in self-defence, please educate yourself on self-defence laws. The fetus's behavior falls into that category of action in which the law assigns objective fault even without the presence of conscious intention. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behavior is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 - In the same way the fetus's behavior is objectively at fault for causing pregnancy, even though it has no knowledge, consciousness, or intention of doing so.

Which is irrelevant as the person involved has other courses of action other than deadly force to stop the injuries occurring immediately, a pregnant woman has no other recourse. A pregnant woman cannot ask the fetus to stop, she cannot withdraw from the conflict, she cannot call police officers to stop the fetus injuring her, she cannot seek help from others to stop the fetus from injuring her .. The person in your scenario has all of these option available, a pregnant woman does not, the ONLY way she can stop being injured is to remove the entity causing those injuries through abortion and that usually ends up with the fetus dying.

 

Actually I owe you an apology, I have confused you with another poster .. so please accept my apology on the point of not allowing those who have not experienced something to speak .. though it is noted you have said you would respect a person who has under gone something more than a person who has not .. why .. their experiences have no relevance to you.

 

It is polite to quote the person you are responding to, please do so.

You did not ask for those things in your original request,

so now having been given what you requested you decide to move the goalposts, one wonders if I provided those things you have further requested how many more times you would move the goalposts.

moving the goalposts fallacy - Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

 

Rubbish.

Nope they did not, if that was the case then there would have been no abortions due to pregnancy caused by rape or incest.

Untrue, the state can impose restrictions on abortion after the 1st trimester if they so wish, the only time abortion is unrestricted in the US is during the 1st trimester.

Hypocritical stance given your already admitted history.

Already did that, you then decided to move the goalposts from your original request.

Pro-choice groups as a whole actively lobby for better health care, better welfare, better sex education & better access to free contraception .. they also, unlike pro-life groups, support the woman in what ever choice she makes .. pro-lifers just want to force her to do one thing only, that is not choice.

 

Which is irrelevant to the issue.

Name me one situation where a choice you made that may lead you to being injured means you are denied help to stop those injuries?

I've already quoted you the legal aspect of this, why do you ignore it?

Factual incorrect or have you not heard of in vitro?

 

Exactly the same right you and all other people have when faced with a third party inflicting non-consented injuries onto you, why should a pregnant women not have the same rights you or I do?

 

Thats the problem though, the woman is not the only person in the equation (yes I see a prenate as a person). The decision is not just about her. Its about the life that was forced to be in her body by her actions or the actions of a third party. It just baffles me that people think you can force someone to be somewhere and then kill them because you don't want them in that somewhere.

And if I see prenates as people (and I do) what kind of human being would I be if I just sat back and said "well if you want to kill someone, that's your choice"?

When Nazi Germany said Jews weren't people, should the rest of the world said "well, they dont think they're people, so I can't either"?

 

Out of curiosity, why is abortion such an important issue to you? Personally speaking.

- - - Updated - - -

I trust the moderators to handle it. Please forgive my ignorance.

 

Because its not the same situation. Its not just a random mentally incompetent person inflicting injuries on you. Its the mentally incompetent offspring of the person being attacked. Not only that, but in most cases they were forced into the woman's body by her own actions, and she was fully aware of any "injuries" she may receive whilst that person was in her body before she forced that person into her body.

I dont think its legal anywhere to abandon or kill your mentally incompetent dependant child even if they are inflicting non life threatening injuries on you.

 

Hasn't happened yet (atleast not in the case of injuries), but I would say when getting help for those "injuries" led to the death of an innocent, dependant child that I forced into the situation that caused me the "injury".

I probably ignored it because the situation is not comparable. Either that, or I did address it and you ignored or dismissed my response because it wasn't to your liking.

How we create life wasn't the point I was making, the point is an individual person does not need sex to keep them alive.

 

How did I move the goal posts? I asked to be shown where pro choice groups support a woman's other choices; which are adoption or keeping the baby ( is there a fourth choice I dont know about?) This isn't even an argument I just wanted to see it. However someone posted something before which I followed. I don't know how well I can support them as I strongly oppose some things they have on their site.

 

Because I would trust personal experience over someone just telling me what someone else has done.