Log In Sign Up

What if you don't have a reason for wanting an abortion


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #41  
April 25th, 2007, 07:43 PM
Caeden'sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'> But it's NOT just her body. It is her baby's body she's killing! The baby has no choice... confused.gif[/b]
The fetus cannot strive without the mother's body. Say a family member has an illness and cannot live without you giving them one of your kidneys. They are dying but NO ONE will force you to give them your kidney. It's your body and although they can't live without a piece of it, it's your choice. Forcing a woman to keep an unwanted pregnancy is like forcing you to keep your kidney....
[/b]
No, not quite... The family member's need for a kidney isn't because of choices YOU made.
[/b][/quote]

So what if they needed the kidney because of choices THEY made? Would you still give them your kidney?[/b][/quote]

That'd be up to me to decide... it all depends. My kidney's are crap though, so i doubt they'd want them in the first place...

But the point is *I* didn't cause them to ruin their kidney, therefore, it is not my responsibility to fix it if i don't want to.

Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
YOU make the decision to get pregnant, therefore it's your responsibility to bring that child into the world...[/b]
Why does everyone that gets pregnant makes the decision to get pregnant? I didn't decide to get pregnant but I am now, we actually wanted to wait, but our birth control method failed. I don't understand the concept of looking at a child as punishment for choices you make either. You made your bed, now sleep in it, thinking, so to speak.
[/b][/quote]

Because... When you have sex, you KNOW the possible consequences of doing so.

As for making your bed, well yes... That is true. We all need to accept responsibility for the choices we make. If you look at a child as punishment, then that's pretty sad, in my opinion... (General you, i know you're not saying YOU do)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
April 25th, 2007, 07:55 PM
Caeden&#39;sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Because... When you have sex, you KNOW the possible consequences of doing so.

As for making your bed, well yes... That is true. We all need to accept responsibility for the choices we make. If you look at a child as punishment, then that's pretty sad, in my opinion... (General you, i know you're not saying YOU do)[/b]
So my husband and I shouldn't have sex if we are not ready for a child? I should get my tubes tied, right?
[/b][/quote]

No... You should do everything reasonably possible to prevent pregnancy, BUT understand that there is still that slim chance you will get pregnant, and be willing to accept that.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
April 25th, 2007, 08:15 PM
Caeden&#39;sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'> Because... When you have sex, you KNOW the possible consequences of doing so.

As for making your bed, well yes... That is true. We all need to accept responsibility for the choices we make. If you look at a child as punishment, then that's pretty sad, in my opinion... (General you, i know you're not saying YOU do)[/b]
So my husband and I shouldn't have sex if we are not ready for a child? I should get my tubes tied, right?
[/b]
No... You should do everything reasonably possible to prevent pregnancy, BUT understand that there is still that slim chance you will get pregnant, and be willing to accept that.
[/b][/quote]

Just because I accepted the pregnancy doesn't mean that everyone should be willing. I am doing everything possible to prevent myself from having ovarian cancer again (without of course having my ovary removed) but if it comes back then I should just accept the consequences?
[/b][/quote]

Uhmm... what? I'm confused... You don't have any choice but to accept it if it comes back, right?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
April 28th, 2007, 04:07 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ohio
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Okay, but why shouldn't the baby have rights? If newborns have rights, so should fetuses... It's still human, is it not?[/b]
because a person can opt out of rasing a child and no it's not a human.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #48  
April 28th, 2007, 08:20 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>Okay, but why shouldn't the baby have rights? If newborns have rights, so should fetuses... It's still human, is it not?[/b]
because a person can opt out of rasing a child and no it's not a human.
[/b][/quote]
Really? Even considering the fact that the fetus is comprised SOLELY of human DNA?
[/b][/quote]
I don't think anyone is arguing that a fetus is genetically human. The point is that it is not considered totally human until it is granted human rights. The law does not see it as human, as it is not granted rights as a seperate human being. My kidney is comprised of human DNA, but it is not going to get granted seperate rights from my body.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #50  
April 28th, 2007, 08:30 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Miguelsmommy @ Apr 28 2007, 05:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>Okay, but why shouldn't the baby have rights? If newborns have rights, so should fetuses... It's still human, is it not?[/b]
because a person can opt out of rasing a child and no it's not a human.
[/b][/quote]
Really? Even considering the fact that the fetus is comprised SOLELY of human DNA?
[/b][/quote]
I don't think anyone is arguing that a fetus is genetically human. The point is that it is not considered totally human until it is granted human rights. The law does not see it as human, as it is not granted rights as a seperate human being. My kidney is comprised of human DNA, but it is not going to get granted seperate rights from my body.
[/b][/quote]
If she said personhood, or something similar, then I could see where the disagreement lies. But all she stated was that 'it is not human'. So I am assuming that she is meaning exactly what she said (I could be wrong though).

Organs are not separate beings. Hopefully, we can all agree that the unborn is at least a separate being, and not just one big organ. The organs inside our bodies are part of us. The unborn is a separate being, with it's own blood/circulation, urinary functions, digestive functions, etc. To me, that makes all the difference in the world.

Edited to correct grammar.
[/b][/quote]
Until the unborn becomes born, I disagree that it is a seperate being.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #52  
April 28th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
A fetus is a seperate being IMO, but until it reaches the age of viability I don't think it should have rights of its own.

Once it can survive outside the womb (I think 24 weeks?) at that point I would be okay with a fetus having rights.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #54  
April 28th, 2007, 09:20 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Quote:
How is it not a separate being, when it has it's own blood and circulation? It does not share the same blood as the mother. It has it's own DNA. It produces it's own urine. It has it's own digestive functions. It produces movement of it's own, without the direct help of the mother (as in the mother does nothing to make the baby move -I am not talking about providing food, i.e. energy, to make it move, I am talking about the conscientous effort, to make it move).

How is it not a separate being?[/b]
A separate being would be able to function independently of the mother. Until that time the mother's body is responsible for sustaining the life. By the same description as above, a tape worm is an independent being but it certainly wouldn't be granted rights to house inside a person's body for months.

A fetus has the potential for human life - it has the potential to function independently and separate from it's mother's body. But until it can actually do so, it isn't independent or separate.




Edited because adding using an M instead of a B changed the entire meaning of the word.
[/b]
^^^^^
What she said!
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #55  
April 28th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Caeden&#39;sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How is it not a separate being, when it has it's own blood and circulation? It does not share the same blood as the mother. It has it's own DNA. It produces it's own urine. It has it's own digestive functions. It produces movement of it's own, without the direct help of the mother (as in the mother does nothing to make the baby move -I am not talking about providing food, i.e. energy, to make it move, I am talking about the conscientous effort, to make it move).

How is it not a separate being?[/b]
A separate being would be able to function independently of the mother. Until that time the mother's body is responsible for sustaining the life. By the same description as above, a tape worm is an independent being but it certainly wouldn't be granted rights to house inside a person's body for months.

A fetus has the potential for human life - it has the potential to function independently and separate from it's mother's body. But until it can actually do so, it isn't independent or separate.




Edited because adding using an M instead of a B changed the entire meaning of the word.
[/b]
^^^^^
What she said!
[/b]
Please tell me you guys are not comparing a fetus to a tape worm! A tape worm is NOT human, and wouldn't be granted those rights inside OR outside of a person's body...
Reply With Quote
  #60  
April 28th, 2007, 02:27 PM
Caeden&#39;sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
It has it's own DNA, blood/circulation, functions, etc. It is separate. It is not OF the mother. It is WITHIN the mother, but not is not an appendage of the mother (making it part of the mother, and I don't mean in the general sense of children being a part of their parents), in and of itself.[/b]
I was saying that this same definition could be used to apply rights to a parasite. Not that a baby is a parasite (and for the record, while I'm pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion) but those functions don't necessarily give a fetus rights.

I don't think it's right to apply rights to a fetus that no other human being is allowed. Giving a fetus those rights elevates it to a status (under the Equal Protection Clause, for example) that the rest of the population does not have -- the unfettered right to use the body of another for one's own purposes.

One could say that the fetus has the necessity for use of the mother's body for life (rendering the independent argument void) but necessity does not give another the right. Using the kidney argument earlier someone may die without your kidney, but that does not give them the right to to take your kidney because they need it.

Some might say that it is without fault of the fetus that they must take from the mother's body for their life. Still, lack of fault does not create a right either -- the person dying of kidney failure is no more at fault for anything than the fetus that will die from under-developed respiratory and circulatory systems as the result of being removed from the uterus too early.
[/b][/quote]

Ugh, but the mother CHOSE to give the fetus life, therefore allowing it to use her body... Nobody chooses for their kidney to fail, or for a tapeworm to enter their system. But they DO make the decisions that lead to pregnancy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0