Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

gctest50 wrote: »

She might have a few other children already ?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

What happens in women's bodies, with regards to pregnancy, is very much the business of other people, hence why almost every country in the world has abortion legislation.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You say you would be pretty damn sure that abortion would be "fantastic" for you. I have to say, I find that an extraordinary thing to say but you know yourself I guess but I'm pretty sure you don't know all women and so quit speaking for them. Abortion is not good for all women and many regret it, deeply. Indeed, there have been many studies which show that certain women have difficultly dealing with their regret and their mental health has suffered as a direct result (1, 2).

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You say you would be pretty damn sure that abortion would be "fantastic" for you. I have to say, I find that an extraordinary thing to say but you know yourself I guess but I'm pretty sure you don't know all women and so quit speaking for them. Abortion is not good for all women and many regret it, deeply. Indeed, there have been many studies which show that certain women have difficultly dealing with their regret and their mental health has suffered as a direct result (1, 2).

The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy. Major medical bodies have found that induced abortions do not cause mental-health problems, and that the risk of mental-health problems is equal whether an unplanned pregnancy is carried to term or terminated via abortion. Pre-existing factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, pre-existing psychiatric illness, and conservative views on abortion increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.

In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." The APA updated its findings in August 2008 to account for new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first unplanned pregnancy did not increase the risk of mental-health problems. A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences. In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.

Despite the weight of medical opinion on the subject, some pro-life advocacy groups have continued to allege a link between abortion and mental-health problems. Some pro-life groups have used the term "post-abortion syndrome" to refer to negative psychological effects which they attribute to abortion. However, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as an actual syndrome by any medical or psychological organization, and physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes. Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It is the pregnant woman's right to say how she wants her pregnancy to end. It's not my right, it's not your right. We can have an opinion, but our opinions aren't worth jack shít really because it is the woman who chooses what she does with her own body, and if she wants to end her pregnancy, it is better for her and the unborn child to support her in finding a way to end her pregnancy as humanely and safely as possible rather than the risk of her ending her own life to end her pregnancy and running the risk that she will be unsuccessful in both endeavours - leaving her incapacitated, and having to give birth to a child with severe defects or abnormalities.

As I said above - the decision is not ours to make. Our moral standards can differ as much as we like. The decision at the end of the day is down to the moral standards of the woman who is actually pregnant, the woman who is making the decision to have an abortion to end her pregnancy. You simply can not state that you speak for the unborn, quite frankly because that's just making shít up, to suit your own moral standards. If someone wants to do something badly enough, they will do it, and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can stop them. You can force feed her, medicate her up to the eyeballs, keep her in captivity 24/7 until the birth, but the woman ultimately has control over her own biological functions, and like I said - badly enough, she will put herself at risk if it's a choice between her life, and that of the unborn child. I would rather she didn't feel the necessity to go that far, and so while it may be unpalatable to us, the life of the unborn has to be sacrificed in order to save the one that is already born. Is it not much better if we can do that safely and at as reduced risk as possible to the mother, while ending the life of the unborn in as humane and dignified a manner as possible?

You're not just advocating for the right to life of the unborn. In effect what you are really doing is advocating for YOUR right, to control the lives of not just one, but two human beings. You cannot, possibly speak for anyone else, but yourself. You claim to speak for the unborn, but (1) the unborn is not aware of you speaking for them. The only person you are speaking TO, is the person that is carrying the unborn foetus inside THEIR body. They are the only person that can understand you. They are the only person whom you can speak TO, and the only person you are speaking for, is yourself, and what YOU want. (2) The unborn foetus lacks the awareness to know what it wants. YOU don't want the unborn foetus to die, but that is not your decision to make for another person.

I understand clearly the point you're making about incubators, but the thing is - that's all irrelevant, because if a woman does not want to continue her pregnancy, it doesn't matter how independently a premature baby can survive outside the womb. The woman doesn't want it out there. She does not want to give birth, neither by vaginal nor caesarean section. Not even a fcuking transporter. It simply comes down to - if a woman does not want to continue her pregnancy, whatever means a baby can survive outside the womb is irrelevant.

Not once in this discussion have I referred to an unborn foetus being part of a woman's body, because I too agree that they are both separate and distinct human life forms. BUT, here's the thing - though the unborn foetus is not PART of a woman's body, they ARE living within it, and are deriving nourishment from the woman's body, and are dependent on the woman being healthy so that they can continue to grow and develop. If a woman decides that she wants to end the development of the human life inside her, then she will find means to do so, and as I said above - it is better for both the woman, and the unborn foetus, if she is supported in doing so, in as safe, humane and dignified a manner as possible, to minimize the risk to her physical and mental health, as well as afford the unborn foetus the respect in death that should be afforded to it as we would any human being.

I don't think you do understand, to be honest. I don't mean that facetiously, I mean it in the respect that you are still unwilling to acknowledge that the only person whose opinion matters in the decision to end her pregnancy is the opinion of the woman who is pregnant.

What you feel isn't fair, or what I feel isn't fair, simply isn't relevant. I've yet to meet a single human being with identical thought patterns to myself. I've met many that I've shared a similar outlook on life in some areas with, but none that are completely identical in every respect. Why? Because every human being is an individual, and we all have different standards of morality, ethics, philosophies, outlook, and opinions, but none of that is in any way relevant to the woman who wants to end her pregnancy. She will have her own standards, her own ethics, her own philosophies, and while we can share our opinions... ultimately, the decision is hers to make to end her pregnancy should she wish to do so. You feel it's not fair on the unborn child, but that is not you speaking for the unborn child, that is you speaking for yourself.

The unborn child has none of your thoughts, morality, ethics, philosophies, because these are things we learn as we grow and develop and through our experiences, we gain understanding and knowledge. An unborn child has none of that, and so when you speak, you are not speaking for the unborn child. It's a nice idea, but it IS ultimately a falsehood. You are lying to yourself when you claim to speak for the unborn. You are speaking to influence and gain control of another human being. That is the antithesis of personal responsibility, an ideology which you preach, but do not practice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3adLns91_SQ

OK, just to be absolutely clear on this one - I have given thought to the woman and the unborn child in the scenario where the woman does not want to become a mother, and so therefore the man is not relevant to the equation because he is not yet a father until the child is born. If the child is not born, then the woman does not become a mother, and the man does not become a father. The State does not force the man to pay maintenance for a child that does not exist.

I really shouldn't have to explain to you the possible consequences of forcing a woman to bring an unwanted child into the world because she was forced by her partner against her will to do so. I think you're all too aware of the possible consequences of that scenario. Think of the effect not just on the couple's relationship, but also the effect that has on the father, the mother, and think about how the effect on them will have an effect on the child. The consequences come up negative each time. There are no positives in your scenario that pay any due diligence to the relationship, nor the mental health of the mother, the father, nor the child.

This IS about a woman's choice to end her pregnancy, and as I said before - if you care at all as much about humanity as you claim, then you would understand that the best thing you can do for the woman, for the unborn child, is to see that she is assisted by whatever means necessary, by whatever means you have at your disposal, to end her pregnancy in a manner that is as safe, humane and dignified a manner as possible, to minimize the risk to the woman's physical and mental health, as well as afford the unborn foetus the respect in death that should be afforded to it as we would any human being.

I really hope you're getting this by now - this is not about children born at 30 weeks. It IS about a woman who is pregnant, who does not want to continue her pregnancy, and does not want to give birth, at ANY stage. It wouldn't matter if you could airlift that baby out of there David Copperfield style. The only facts that are relevant, are that the woman does not want to continue her pregnancy, and does not want to give birth. That is her personal responsibility, her choice, and that is not something you, I, nor the State, will take from her if she chooses to end her pregnancy by whatever means she feels are necessary. For her welfare, and for the welfare of the unborn child, it is in both their best interest that you help her to do that safely as possible and with as little traumatic effects as possible to both the woman, and the unborn child.

Take away hope from who exactly? You? So that you can sleep easier at night knowing you took away hope from two human beings?

I think you'll live.

"Abortion is murder!" Emotionally charged word? Check. Used on a situation where it technically applies, but which is quite different from the typical case? Check. The typical case of murder is Charles Manson breaking into a house and shooting someone. Abortion differs in that the victim is an embryo or fetus with less biological complexity and intelligence than the average rabbit. I'm not trying to make a pro-choice argument here; there are several perspectives from which one could argue that despite the fetus' lack of development killing it is still morally wrong. But saying "Abortion is murder!" doesn't illuminate any of those perspectives. It just tries to get us to subtract the information that this particular murder wouldn't cut short anyone's dreams and aspirations, or leave behind a grieving spouse and children, or do any of the other things that make murders bad when Charles Manson does them.