I've been in a lot of pro-choice/pro-life arguments latley....

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

and why the hell do people think a bundle of cells has more rights than a full grown woman?! :grr:

ok, rant over :)

[barb162]

1. I've been trying to figure that one out

for most of my life. Makes no sense to me other than it is a very anti-female statement. The woman has no rights routine and the "cells" are more important than the woman.

[calimary]

2. Couldn't agree more. MY body, MY business. And that's that.

For me, I'm afraid, this is an absolute. NON-negotiable.

And, okay, if they're gonna argue so passionately about clusters of cells, why do they dare file their fingernails, trim their cuticles, pick their scabs, pop their zits, exfoliate their complexions, flush their poop and pee and vomit down the commode, have their hair cut, and their teeth drilled and pulled? Is THAT not killing valuable human cells, too? And are the male and female zygotes formally DEAD and WORTHLESS until they've technically and formally united?


By the way, barb - Welcome to DU!

[0007]

27. Your right on gal. My freedom ends where your nose begins.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Or a eighteen month old.

I basically think a baby is just another dumb animal until it starts talking (and not just mumbling like they do at first, but actually communicating more than just throwing out phrases as could be likened to animals which have several "calls"), and thus only has the rights of animals (i.e. none).

[LoZoccolo]

7. I'M KIDDING! I'M KIDDING!

I hate abortion threads.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. I am glad you said you were kidding

jeesh. LOL

[Buddies]

4. probrably because of...

the same reasons you think a full grown woman has more rights than a growing, developing, living human.

[calimary]

5. Welcome to DU!

[Cheswick2.0]

14. a full grown woman does have more rights than the parasite inside her

sorry to be harsh but there it is.

[REP]

15. Human does not equal Human Being

Human beings are human, born and alive.

Using your definition of growing, developing, living and human, cancerous tumors would be entitled to certain rights.

[noiretextatique]

48. DUH...she's actually a person

:eyes: what b.s.

[Cheswick2.0]

52. Notice his use of words

Woman as opposed to human being. It seems obvious where this poster stands on the issue of women's personhood/humanity.

[noiretextatique]

55. this seems to be the case among a high

percentage of folks (particularely males) on the pro-control side...big surprise there :eyes:

[Ohio Dem]

6. What I tell people.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be party to an abortion, and I wish there were less of them. But I don't think I should be able to make that decision for others. That's the heart of it for me. I'm personally appalled by abortion, but who the hell am I? It's not my decision to make. And it's not my business to stigmatize those that have abortions. It's none of my business. The only way that it is my business is to make sure some guys in congress don't tell women what to do. They have no more right than I do, and I'll fight for a woman's right (I hope the father is involved in the decision if he's around, but either way) to chose for herself. As long as a woman isn't forced into abortion when they would rather have the child, that is. Of course. Why should I be able to make that decision for her?

Same thing for many issues. I'm not gay. Gay marriages aren't any of my business, either. This is not a decision for me to make. This is not a decision for a few in congress to make, either. If two gay people wanna tie the knot, accepting the legal benefits and other ramifications of the act, who am I to argue? Who is Bush to argue, for that matter? As long as I'm not forced into a gay marriage, it's not my business.

[jessicazi]

11. You're right...

Ohio Dem,

I completely agree with your post. I, myself, would never get an abortion. The option was open to me when I got pregnant at the young age of 17. It was completely unplanned and I was born and raised in a conservative, religious household-so I was really in a tough spot!

However, I don't believe in abortion (for me), and I chose to carry the baby to full-term, and give her to a couple who would never be able to have a child without adoption. I wish more girls would choose adoption, because there are loving couples out there dying to adopt. I can't express the feeling I had handing the baby over to this couple. When you are on the giving end of such a gift, your life is never the same.

I think most people don't like abortion, but the issue is about whether a woman has the choice to abort, or continue with the pregnancy. It is none of my business, and I shouldn't make someone else's choice for them. I have nothing but complete respect for the woman/girl who gets pregnant and makes the choice she feels is best for herself and her situation.

Jessica

[Cheswick2.0]

17. Since you are pro-choice I am going to give you something else to think

about. You are on the right track and I thank you in all sincerity for your pro-choice position.
However, why do you feel it necessary to tell people that you are personally appalled by abortion? Would you be less appalled by the life of poverty some women lives because she is unable to finish her education or find decent daycare for an unwanted child? Would you be less appalled by some 13 year old incest victim forced to carry her fathers baby to term and then give it up for adoption, or worse yet keep it? Would you be less appalled at a 16 year old living on welfare with several babies from several different fathers, none of whom she is capable of being a good mother to? What kind of future do those kids have?
There are many things in this world much more appalling than abortion. Poverty, hunger, environmental degredation, disease and war all come to mind. Why give comfort to the Anti-choice folks by voicing part of their argument for them?

[Ohio Dem]

81. No argument here.

I think I'm guilty of a poor choice in words. You are absolutely correct that there are times when an abortion is the best option. You are right that there are more appalling things than abortion. I think "personally appalled" is stronger than the sentiment I was aiming for.

By "personally," I meant in a situation where I was personally involved. I understand that it's not my choice, it's the (hypothetical) woman's. But I would rather raise the child myself if it came to that, rather than have an abortion occur. I know what you're thinking: It's not my choice. I know that. I can't, and shouldn't try to, force any woman to not my her own decision. But it would bother me.

[K-W]

8. You must understand the pro-life stance better than that?

You dont define a bundle of cells as the same as a full grown woman, some people do.

The problem is, no definition of a person makes empirical sense, you can draw the line in many places with some reason. The argument that life begins at conception cant be proven wrong or right, nor can whatever your definition of a person be.

What do you do when a significant portion of the population thinks murder is being committed by people who dont think they are doing anything wrong at all.

Its a problem with absolutely no solution, and I dont like your arrogant attitude that somehow you know what is right and wrong. I think legally speaking, we have to be pro-choice, there simply arent enough people who think abortion is murder to justify making it the law of the land. But that wont appease those people, to them this is like the Iraq war is for most of us, senseless killing.

The only real hope is that with time we all reach some sort of agreement, but blind arrogance from both sides isnt going to help that at all.

[DoktorGreg]

10. Actually, it is empirically possible to shoot down the conception argument

Take and egg out of the womans body and fertilize it. No Baby. No potential for a baby. Ever. Whats missing? The woman.

The duplicity of the current pro-life argument is clearly shown this way. If you wanted to pick a point where life began, then implantation would be the place to peg it.

However pro-life proponents steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this simple biological fact, in much the same way the ignore other scientific arguments. To me that clearly illustrates that their intentions are to outlaw all birth control, not just abortion, meaning their intentions are to subjugate women, not prevent abortions.

On the other hand, once the egg has implanted, it becomes a who different issue. I agree at that point it becomes wildly more complex. Even then, people need the freedom of self determination. That means they can not be subjected to the will of others, unless they are willing. Even if that other person is just a cluster of cells growing in their womb.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. This is your agreement

Get a uterus and do whatever the fuck you want to do when you get pregnant.

You have NO RIGHT to determine with other people what I can do with my uterus. Agree to that and we will be fine.

[REP]

20. Fuck the Pro-Lie Stance

Fuck 'em and let them rot in hell. Asking to reach some sort of agreement with the Right to Liars is like asking for some sort agreement with slavery. Ain't gonna happen, and damn anyone to hell who says it should.

A woman belongs to herself - not to you, not to the state, not to the church. The antiabortion fuckheads do not believe any of that. They don't give a shit about the pweshush pweborn poppet; they want to control women and women's sexualtiy. Anyone who doesn't understand that is living in Cloud Cuckooland. Anyone who denies that is being dishonest.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. Hey Rep, how about you and I get together and compromise on what K-W

can do with his testicles. K-W probably thinks he should control when and how he becomes a father. I'm thinking permanent sterilization (after he leaves a sperm deposit for future sig others to impregnant themselves with when and if they chose) seems like an ideal compromise.

[REP]

28. Can We Trust Him With Even That?

After all, are we really really sure we can trust him with any decision regarding his body? I mean about depositing sperm - he obviously can't be trusted with billions and billions of potential cuddly-wuddly baaaaybees in his sack; they have to be kept safe from him.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. wel unfortunatly he has probably gotten away with sperm carelessness

already. But if we give total control of the samples to any woman he might be involved with and NEVER to him, it will probably be safe.

[kiahzero]

57. God forbid someone accurately represent the anti-abortion argument

If someone does that, then clearly they must agree with the anti-abortion argument.

I just LOVE the logic some people come up with on these threads.

[Cheswick2.0]

60. What's your point?

I was commenting on what the poster posted. That happens here. I was just letting him know what the argument sounds like in reverse since he decided to get all snippy about people being arrogant and stuff. Excuse me, my Uterus must have been wandering.

[kiahzero]

64. You were attacking him personally

And suggesting that he held a position, when he was just trying to maintain some intellectual honesty.

[Cheswick2.0]

66. I didn't say he held any position

I was letting him know what it would be like to have the same sort of argument made about his reproductive rights.
Nowhere in my post did I state what his position is. However it is interesting that you would call what I said a personal attack. My point exactly, LOL, it is a personal attack (though not in the message board sense you seem to mean) to decide someones reproductive rights for them.

[kiahzero]

68. You said he should be sterilized

How, exactly, is that not a personal attack?

As per DU rules, it's OK to discuss public policy. It's not OK to attack other posters personally - you can attack the idea, but not the person.

[Cheswick2.0]

71. LOL

He was making the anti-choice argument. I made the pro-forced sterilization argument in response. You seem to have a problem with equality of the sexes.

[kiahzero]

72. He was doing no such thing

He was presenting the anti-abortion argument ACCURATELY, rather than creating a straw man.

And, what a surprise, yet another personal attack: "You seem to have a problem with equality of the sexes."

[Cheswick2.0]

78. This is my last post to you

I am not interested in posterbation and circular debates.

I was presenting the pro-forced sterilization argument accurately just as you say the other poster was presenting the pro-life argument accurately. You decided to insert yourself into the conversation for goodness knows what reason, making up imaginary rules as you go along.

Also let me give you a hint about personal attacks. You can accuse me of them until the cows come home. Believe me there is nothing I would like better than the lay a massive personal attack on you just for fun. You would know it if I had.

You still seem to have a problem with equality and let me clear up what I mean by that. I mean that you seem to have the idea that forced sterilization is a strawman (please look up the definition) rather than the equal and opposite reaction to the pro-life argument. Do you honestly think it couldn't happen? Just imagine a country full of pissed off women like me making the rules. I think forced sterilization is a perfect solution. Women can have sex and won't get pregnant unless they want to. You may not like the idea but I think it has merrit. That is not a personal attack, it is simply a brilliant solution the "abortion debate" problem.

[kiahzero]

83. Fine

You didn't "present the pro-forced sterilization argument accurately" - you argued that an individual poster should be sterilized because he corrected someone on what anti-abortion people believe.

I find it funny that you would seek to educate me as to the meaning of straw man - I'm well aware. Your argument was not a straw man, it was an ad hominem argument. The straw man was the first post (though, in actuality, it would more accurately be termed "begging the question').

Women can have sex and won't get pregnant unless they want to. You may not like the idea but I think it has merrit. That is not a personal attack, it is simply a brilliant solution the "abortion debate" problem.

Posting something even close to that in level of misogyny would almost certainly result in a deletion, if not a ban. But somehow, suggesting that all men be forcibly sterilized is just par for the course. :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

53. And this is why.

:eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

54. this is why what?

Do you have a problem with women sticking up for themselves? Or are you just hoping we will be ladylike while we do so?

[LoZoccolo]

56. Nah.

Try again.

[Cheswick2.0]

58. try answering a post someone doesn't have to be clairvoyant to read

most people here don't read minds.

[LoZoccolo]

59. I'm not gonna sit here and beg someone to see...

...what's wrong with about half that post.

[Cheswick2.0]

63. beg someone to see? How about not be totally fucking incomprehensible

Cryptic comments and rolling eyes smilies do not an opinion make.

[LoZoccolo]

65. It's why I hate abortion threads.

I said that in a reply somewhere else in this thread, which, ironically, you actually responded to.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. take a position and make it clear

You are taking the gutless way out and I am surprised at you. Why not just make clear exactly what you are saying?

[LoZoccolo]

69. Because it's a waste of time.

I've been at it with REP before. It was one of my first posts. I'm not even really here to fight so much as I'm here to show the innocent bystanders that it's OK to think sometimes people on the pro-choice side use rhetoric that's manipulative and disingenuous.

I've gone over it before: some people call it one way, some people call it another way. It's an ambiguous issue. If it was unambiguous, people would be confident enough about their position to argue it in a civilized manner and not go off into tangents about people's "intentions".

[Cheswick2.0]

75. Good, now we are getting somewhere

You think women defending their rights in passionate terms is rhetoric. Perhaps if we didn't have to listen to the pro-life crap every day of our lives it would be different.

Pro-choice is NOT ambiguous simply because you don't want to commit to a position that might piss someone else off. Either women are equal in society or they are not. It is as clear and as simple as that. In addition you seem to have proved my point from another post. You don't care if women fight for their rights as long as we do it in a ladylike manner.

LZ, this is the problem.... women like REP and I do not think our rights are ambiguous and when we have made the same arguments for the 12 billionth time we tend to get impatient with the same old propaganda being thrown our way time after time after time after time after time time after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after timetime after time after time after time after time.

I refuse to accept that my rights are a matter of ambiguous public opinion for everyone to debate politely and I am willing to be as unpleasant as necessary to hang on to them for me and for generations of women to come. Sorry if that offends your message board sensibilities, because I think of you as one of the "good guys".

[LoZoccolo]

76. Nobody said your rights are ambiguous.

This is why I hate abortion threads.

You just want me to "commit to a position" because you think you might be able use it to completely dismiss everything else I've said and start talking about something else...I think.

Anyways I have to get back to work.

[LoZoccolo]

77. The "ladylike" accusation, now that offends me.

That's disingenuous.

[smirkymonkey]

79. Thank you!

I have been agreeing w/ you all along, but just wanted to acknowledge your point on this issue.

Why do so many men just not get it?

[LoZoccolo]

70. Besides, my position isn't the issue.

It's the way people argue that I think makes these threads useless.

[LoZoccolo]

61. More than half, actually. n/t

[noiretextatique]

49. tell you and that "significant portion" of the population what you can do

is NOT HAVE ABORTIONS :eyes: all those so troubled by distingusihing between a fetus and a grown woman have the option not the have abortions.
what's up with controlling everyone else's choice on the matter...
:wtf: is THAT?

[gumby]

9. Either

women are property of the State, or they are not property of the State.

Period.

[onebigbadwulf]

12. The host has rights over the parasite. Always. Case closed.

Wabam!

[REP]

13. I, Too, Am Tired Of The Idiot Antiabortnoids

Let me make something clear: when I say idiot antiabortnoid, I mean every single asshole who wants to outlaw abortion and regulate the contents of women's bodies.

Women are not morons who cannot be trusted to make the right decision themselves.

Women with unwanted pregnancies are not vending machines to fulfill the desires of wealthy infertile couples. (Ever hear of a rich woman giving up her child to poor parents?)

Women are more than ambulatory wombs.

Women's rights are human rights.

[Cheswick2.0]

18. After this election is over several of us women are starting

a woman's party. Want to join us? I'm thinking we can call it the "Woman's Human Rights Party". We can work out all the details when we hold our national meeting! :7

I'm not kidding.

[REP]

19. Sounds Great, IF...

...it doesn't turn into another woman-as-mommy focused thing, as so many women's groups are lately. Not that there's not a place for it, but with 44% of US women aged 15-44 NOT having children, there is a definite place for a woman-as-full-member-of-human-race focused group without the daycare issues.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. I agree

There is nothing wrong with being a mommy. I am one, but that was my CHOICE. Women do not have to justify themselves by having children.

[REP]

30. Damn Straight!

Motherhood can be a great choice for some, absolutely. I am so glad there are groups working to keep women from having forced surgery (or being denied treatments) while pregnant, and to make sure that women with children continue to get reasonable accomodation in the workplace, and working for all the other issues that affect women with children.

There are so many things that affect women regardless of their reproductive status, though, that seem to be getting short shrift next to "mommy issues." These are important issues, but making sure all women are treated as equals will help, well, all women!

[SpecialK84]

21. Babies are parasites now?

I suppose it's a good thing none of our parents thought that of us when we were just a cluster of cells.

I don't believe either have "more rights" (that would be, after all, the premise to the concept of "equal rights"). However, seeing as a fetus lacks the capability to terminate it's host, it's not exactly a even playing field.




See, contrary to popular belief one can be a woman, a democrat, completely non-religious AND pro-life at the same time. I have yet to implode from that combination.

[REP]

22. Hauling Out The Strawmen So Soon?

However, seeing as a fetus lacks the capability to terminate it's host, it's not exactly a even playing field.

Where to start, where to start. First, yes, a fetus does have the capability to 'terminate' it's "host" (by the way, so refreshing to see a pro-liar so upfront with this dehumanizing view of women). You might want to check out a medical textbook sometime. Williams is highly regarded; check out 'eclampsia' and 'septicemia' for starters.

Unequal playing field, is it? Well, tell you what - as soon as that pweshus preborn poppet can use its own kidneys, lungs, etc, without relying on the "host" (that is, a woman) it can have just as many rights as she does. Since that point is birth, I'm sure we're in agreement.

[SpecialK84]

31. Maturity is a virtue.

One of my biggest issues that transcends party lines is the completely immature reactions people have when faced with an opinion different from their own.

I have never, and will never, refer to someone that is Pro-Choice as a "Pro-BabyMurderer"; thus I ask that you would extend the same courtesy to me by not using the term "Pro-Liar". Calling someone a liar simply because they share a view different from yours is the epitome of childish behavior.

Besides the fact that it was a rhetorical comment, I wouldn't say a condition like eclampsia is the result of the fetus making any kind of choice, it's just an unfortunate medical complication.

I guess I was mistaken in thinking there were open-minded people here. Being "intellectual liberals" as the stereotypes (which seem to run rampant) go.

[Cheswick2.0]

33. Where the lie comes in

The lie is that a fetus should have equal rights to the woman carrying it.

[SpecialK84]

36. That isn't a "lie" ...

It's a difference in opinion, one that can never be proven one way or another, thus neither side can accurately call the other a "liar".

[Cheswick2.0]

37. it's a lie

some things are lies even when they are somebody's opinion.

[SpecialK84]

38. and you're the judge and jury on that?

[Cheswick2.0]

45. Yes I am

[Kipepeo]

86. about those differing opinions

"One of my biggest issues that transcends party lines is the completely immature reactions people have when faced with an opinion different from their own."

You mean like when they try to force their opinion on your body through legislation?

When they try to change the laws so that your opinion about your own body doesn't count?

[Cheswick2.0]

25. I am not buying

I do not believe a woman can be a democrat, non religious and pro-life. But let's make a deal. I will never support legislation forcing you to have an abortion even if you prove to be an irresponsible american woman determined to over populate the world with children you can't support and who will grow up to use way more than their fair share of the worlds natural resources.

PS.. the unborn can abort its host, so can a deer tick and various forms of worms.... amoung other things.

[SpecialK84]

34. I'll pinch myself and make sure I'm real.

Again with the assumptions that everyone fits some sort of pre-determined box; I can be one thing but not other.

I never stated that I supported legislation that bans abortion. People see things in black and white so much it really saddens me. I was just stating my opinion on the subject of calling a baby a 'parasite' seemed a little harsh (in somewhat of a joking manner even ... but it seems everyone has their claws out around here).

[Cheswick2.0]

35. I never said you supported anti-choice legislation

I said I do not believe a woman can be pro-life non religious and a democrat.
If you don't support legislation to ban abortions then you are pro-choice. So you will have to find someone who does support legislation to ban abortions to prove your point. You don't qualify.

[SpecialK84]

43. I apologize for my purposeful ambiuosity.

I'm not trying to be contridictory for fun, I promise. I only replied that I hadn't said I supported legislation because I thought your post implied that I did. I never said one way or the other. See, I don't believe pro-choice means no laws regulating abortion and pro-life means banning everything ... I guess I just don't see things as being that simple.

I am pro-life, but at the same time I don't think all abortions should be banned, as I do think there are nuances which provide legitmate reasons for abotions on occasion.I guess my basic (albiet crass) belief is that if you're screwing around and "oops" get pregnant you should be adult enough to face the consequences.

Yes, I'm talking about adoption. I know some people with 'population control' philosophies about this subject don't agree with me.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. Pro-choice means just that

women have the choice. You don't get to change the deffinition. You also don't get to choose for me or anyone else.

Thnk whatever you like about your own body.

I am pro-life, but at the same time I don't think all abortions should be banned, as I do think there are nuances which provide legitmate reasons for abotions on occasion.I guess my basic (albiet crass) belief is that if you're screwing around and "oops" get pregnant you should be adult enough to face the consequences.


So what you are saying is that your judgement about when abortion is and is not okay is superior to other women, so you should be able to decide for them. That's totally screwed up.

Yeah, but you are Democratic non religious and pro-choice... :eyes:

[TankLV]

84. The cells that may or could eventually comprise a "fetus" are technically

a "parasite". Read a few medical journals.

It is your opinion that it is a "baby".

They are a group of cells only.

They are not a "baby".

[onebigbadwulf]

39. Fetuses are parasites. Babies aren't. An important distinction.

Even you admit that the fetus has a host. Do babies have hosts? No.
Thus fetuses are parasites and babies aren't.

And I'm not talking about the "can't fend for ones-self because I am helpless" sense of the word parasite. (Like freepers would consider single mothers parasites of the wellfare system)

I'm talking about a literal blood sucking can't live without this particular uterine host obligate parasite. The host should be able to legally and biologically do whatever it wants with whatever is growing on or inside it regardless of the potential opportunities it may present in the future.

[SpecialK84]

40. I see what you're saying ...

and I can agree with the concept, I just think the term parasite is a little harsh, and personally wouldn't want to have been considered in those terms before I was born. But, maybe that is just me.

[knitter4democracy]

44. I can't

Babies aren't parasites? Oh, so they can feed, burp, change, and generally take care of themselves just minutes after birth like other mammals?

You are being arbitrary here. Just because a baby can breathe outside of the mother immediately after birth, that doesn't mean that it is entirely independent. Are you against breastfeeding? That is what breasts are for, for feeding our babies until at least one year of age according to recent research (more like until age four or so, given teeth development and world averages). But breastfeeding means the baby's a parasite! I mean, it's literally feeding off the mother's body and killing her!

I really take offense at calling any human offspring a parasite. A fetus is not choosing to feed off the host and then kill it when the fetus becomes viable (both die without intervention). If you actually view babies and fetuses as parasites, what do you think your uterus is for? Do you agree with doctors who say, "There's no room in the tomb for a womb?" and think all women should get hysterectomies as soon as possible? How about those periods? Do you hate those and want to get rid of them as soon as possible?

This may sound corny, but I am proud to be a woman in all of my complexity. I have carried three lives in my body, two to term (one was a very early miscarriage and still is hard to think about). I felt my son move at ten weeks when I could still have aborted him as that parasitic clump of cells you so glibly talk about. I have nursed both of my "pwecious wecious" babies long-term (one for three and a half years and still nursing my two y.o.). I have been blessed to use my body for bringing forth and sustaining life, even when the doctors didn't think I could. Motherhood does not entirely define me, as it doesn't define any woman, but it is an important part of who I am.

I do not believe in forcing other women to carry children against their will and would never agree to making abortion illegal, but to call a fetus a parasite or a mere clump of cells is wrong. Where is that hatred coming from? Are you angry at being a woman? I'm not being a freeper here, but the rage at the fetus is honestly misplaced. It isn't a baby's fault that it's in a uterus--a woman chose to engage in sex when she was ovulating. It's part of who we are, and we are foolish to pretend otherwise. As others have said on this board and elsewhere, the abortion issue is more complex than you're making it.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. This is not hatred, get a grip for Gods sake

We are talking in scientific terms because the anti-choice robots are using the same kind of sentimental arguments that you just gave.
I am a mother. I decided to be a mother twice. I would have done it one more time if I could have. That was my choice. I breast fed both my children and I would gladly die for either one of them.
THAT IS MY CHOICE. Other women have the right to decide differently. Women DO NOT DESERVE to have their lives made more difficult than they are just because of a lot of sentimental clap trap about every clump of cells being precious. If that were true we would all be in trouble because the world would have trillions of people by now.

Either you believe women have equal rights in this society or you don't. Don't get hung up on language.

[knitter4democracy]

82. Don't get hung up on language?

So words are powerless now? Calling a fetus a parasite is not scientific in the least. It doesn't meet the definition of a parasite, so you're using the word for its power. Science does not actually have an answer on exactly when life begins because they still don't understand the process (check out New England Journal's website for a clinical review article from about two years ago, the last time they touched the subject--the author, an OB researcher, freely admitted that we know jack about how fertilization and implantation occur). Even scientists don't call them clumps of cells or parasites.

I completely agree that it's a choice. I believe that I said very clearly that I do not want abortion illegal and that the government should stay out of my uterus, let alone every woman's. It is an intensely personal decision and very complicated. Women need the personal space to make that decision without governmental interferance.

Yes, I do believe women need to have equal rights in this society and have fought for those personally. That said, I don't think I have to act like a man to be equal to one. I want the freedom to be the woman I decide and feel led to be, not some copy of a man. Just because they don't have to live with the consequences of sex doesn't mean that we women should throw out our uteri and act just like them. We've been given a sacred place and need to be respectful of it. Abortion should never be done lightly. You may think that sentimental, but in matriarchal systems, much of the time women had power because we can bear and give life. It is a powerful thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

47. People who think women should stay pregnant as punishment

because they spread their legs, talking about what's harsh, crack me up.

Get fucked, you better stay fucked, isn't that your basic philosophy?

[Mandate My Ass]

74. You nailed it there

I see all the anti choicers on this board whining the same thing "A woman has to take responsibility for her actions." :puke:

IMHO, having a baby you are not completely financially, emotionally, socially, age-appropriately ready to bear is the height of irresponsibility. They want women to bear this tremendous burden alone because they had the temerity to have unsanctioned intercourse.

It's a sentence they want to impose on unwilling women although they mouth all the platitudes about the wonderfulness of the wee precious babies and what joy motherhood is. I'd call it Puritanical but it's just plain cruel.

[smirkymonkey]

80. Actually a fetus does have the capability to terminate it's host

and that is why a woman should never be forced into preganancy against her will.

[southernleftylady]

32. what i say to those.. I would rather give my cells to stem cell research..

than my son to their war!
nuff said!

[Atlas Mugged]

41. Wow...

...good one.

I usually avoid abortion threads like the plague - but this one post made it worthwhile.

[southernleftylady]

42. thank you! and its the whole hearted truth! :) nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. It's not "pro-life", it's "pro-preggers".

Almost all of the "pro-lifers" I've come across are also against birth control and sex education. They just can't stand the idea that people have sex for pleasure and don't necessarily want to be strapped with the questionable joys of parenthood. They see pregnancy as a sort of "sin tax" that naughty people having fun should have to pay.

[slackmaster]

62. Cue Monty Python music...

Every sperm is sacred.

:argh:

[DaveSZ]

73. Exactly

Most of the "pro-lifers" don't want to do anything to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place (and therefore abortions) like making the morning after pill available otc, expanding sex education, etc.

This is because most of them are Fundies who are opposed to any kind of sex act outside of marriage (or even within marriage) except for purposes of procreation.

Then, after the babies are born, they tend to follow Dick Cheney's motto:

"Go fuck yourself!"


So the kid needs an education?

"Go fuck yourself!"

The kid needs daycare while the mother is on "workfare?"

"Go fuck yourself!"

The kid needs clean air to breath and clean water to drink?

"Go fuck yourself!"

[niceperson]

85. babies should never be viewed as punishment

If it isn't wanted, it shouldn't exist. Plain and simple.