Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Paramite Pie · 09-05-2014 11:23PM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

However, statements like "I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby" hardly help the pro-choice movement. Referring to a foetus as a 'baby' is exactly what rabid pro-lifers do, and announcing that you are in 'awe' of the fact that what you were carrying was a 'baby', which you then chose to abort, again, doesn't help the pro-choice argument.

In fairness, people who are pregnant never say "oh the foetus is kicking!" and use the term baby when they want to keep the baby. But when someone decides not to carry the pregnancy (their business), are you saying they can no longer use the term if they wish?? Merely because of other peoples pro-life connotations??

I'm pro-choice but it seems childish to criticise anyone who uses non medical terms such as 'baby' as if there's a clear distinction. It's not exactly clear on when a foetus becomes a 'baby' since one term is scientific and the other is not. Therefore a foetus can never become a baby in that respect.

The latter term has been around long before scientific knowledge and has long been used to refer to both pre-natal and post-natal offspring so it's not a conflict in my mind to call a foetus a baby. Scientifically, a foetus is the unborn offspring from 10weeks until birth. So at 8 months your still carrying a 'foetus' in medical terminology. A born foetus is a 'neonate' not a baby.;)

The most important debate about abortion is whether or not an oblivious, dependable, cluster of human cells has the same rights to life as a slightly less oblivious, more developed cluster of human cells that can survive outside of the female body. The debate is not about what we call 'it'.

Grayson · 09-05-2014 11:39PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Do all of you who believe that a embryo should not be considered a separate entity until the point of birth believe then that Scott Peterson should only have been charged with one count of murder and not the two?

it goes embryo -> foetus -> baby

At 8 months, 3 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, that's a technically a foetus, but lets face it, you could call it a baby. The only difference between a baby/foetus at that stage is a technicality. However, at 4 weeks, that's a clump of cells.

being in favour of removing a clump of cells is not the same as wanting to kill a baby.

If you can't tell the difference between some cells that are beginning to split and a human being, then that's your fault.

btw, as for the legal bit about scott petersen, well...that's a legal thing. It can be examined to see what criteria they use, but it can't be taken as fact because lets face it, the law is different from one place to another

Paramite Pie · 09-05-2014 11:52PM

Grayson wrote: »

it goes embryo -> foetus -> baby

Actually it's embryo -> foetus -> neonate

Baby doesn't come into it at all in medical terminology. Traditionally the word 'baby' can be used quite early on during development as it has no medical definition.

(see my post above yours for more on this)

nullzero · 09-05-2014 11:55PM

Sorry to get off track from the subsequent discussion that is ongoing at the moment, but that video was a bizarre few minutes to say the least. I feel abortion should be available in circumstances where it is medically necessary, the "I'm not ready to have children" argument hills no water in my eyes. It seems to me that if a young woman gets pregnant in the USA and the pregnancy is unplanned there would appear to be a divide along racial/ethnic /economic grounds. Essentially if a young Hispanic girl from a poor neighbourhood gets pregnant she will end up rasing a child, where as a rich white girl will be more likely to take the option of an abortion. Essentially like all healthcare options in the USA the persons ability to pay for the care /procedures they require will affect their chances of availing of them.

For those with polarised opinions on this subject certain things will lend their opinions weight. And all this video seems to do is paint abortion as a cool way of prolonging a rich white girls promiscuity and party days at the expense of an innocent child's life, the whole thing is just bizarre and veers as far away from a balanced discussion of abortion as it possibly can.

suicide_circus · 10-05-2014 12:00AM

Its funny the way folks on both sides of the argument become pedantic or use floral language depending on what theyre trying to justify.

Whatever helps you sleep at night!

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 12:41AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's not a claim. It is what the word means, simple as. It can be a symbiote - in which case it would contribute to the living system's body, give-and-take - or it can be parasitic - in which case it's one-way. A foetus does not contribute to the woman's survival. It's therefore parasitic. Wanted or not, a happy event or not, that's the nature of the relationship.

This is what these terms mean. It's not subjective, they're quite straightforward concepts. They don't stop being accurate just because they don't sound very nice, and they won't stop being accurate even if you plug your fingers in your ears and throw tantrums about it.

I'm sorry if the biological reality of a pregnancy upsets you gentlemen, but I hope this helps you understand what a daunting prospect it is to a woman for whom there is no upside.

It's not the biological reality. It's your opinion of the biological reality. You're using zoological taxonomy to describe reproduction.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 12:41AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Its funny the way folks on both sides of the argument become pedantic or use floral language depending on what theyre trying to justify.

Whatever helps you sleep at night!

True!

jill_valentine · 10-05-2014 01:37AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's not the biological reality. It's your opinion of the biological reality. You're using zoological taxonomy to describe reproduction.

The relationship of a foetus' body to that of the mother is parasitic. This is not a comment on how good or bad reproduction is. It is not at all an opinion. It's a description of that biological relationship, between the hosting organism and the beneficiary. It's not an opinion - it's a literal definition of that dynamic. It is not a term used often, because it would be considered insensitive, but it is absolutely accurate. Obviously, reproduction is generally a good thing.

People don't like the word "parasitic" because it punctures the fantasy of pregnancy as this fabulous floaty, fluffy carebear loveliness - that happens to other people - before, lo and behold, a baby appears. It's not - it's a nearly year-long physical ordeal that, for some people, is worth enduring because of the psychological, spiritual or social reward of having and ultimately raising a child. Again, it's not - the foetus is not bringing anything to the party here. That's just a fact. Whether that's a sacrifice worth making is subjective, but the fact of it is not.

The real kerfuffle here actually started when somebody tried to insist that giving birth is "symbiotic"; as if it is it's own biological reward whether you're prepared to be a parent or not. This is simply not true. It is, in fact, bewilderingly untrue.

It is absolutely not a symbiotic dynamic by any possible definition of the word. This isn't rocket science - to grow another human body off your own is going to cost calcium, iron, protein and so on, and that process is one way. You don't come out of a pregnancy with an adamantium skeleton or nightvision or something. This is, in no way, a mutually beneficial physical process.

This is not a question of semantics, and this is why I get hung up on it. What I absolutely object to is posters - and by 0% of a coincidence is it almost always male posters - romanticising this process beyond recognition in this context. If you are going to cast shade on any woman's decision to have an abortion, you do not get to massage the realities of the alternative into some blissful fairytale spa treat for the sake of convenience. People die doing this. People live with permanent changes to their bodies after undertaking it.

If they choose to roll that dice in the process of bringing a life into the world, then that isn't just extraordinary - it's no less than heroic. But recognise it as such, and give that woman's decision its due weight either way. It's possible to be shot with less physical implications, but I suspect people wouldn't be so quick to glibly minimise that in their philosophical debates with the prospective shootees the way they do with this.

GalwayGuy2 · 10-05-2014 02:34AM

Its funny the way folks on both sides of the argument become pedantic or use floral language depending on what theyre trying to justify.

Whatever helps you sleep at night!

Yes, it is actually incredible. I think the pro-lifers use words like murder?

But it's kind of funny how the pro-choicers are starting to sound like people who are about to commit genocide. Classing something as a 'parasite' or 'a clump of cells', it really is mental acrobatics.

Although, I think people are just arguing an intellectual point at this stage.

Turtwig · 10-05-2014 02:52AM

But any human body, physically speaking, is a clump of cells. That includes me. The whole mention of the cells is redundant. This debate is primarily about a philosophy of rights I.e whether a foetus is entitled to the same rights as it's mother or father but father is generally a removed dynamic for obvious reasons. His health and well being is indirectly affected. The mother's is directly affected.

It's also perfectly accurate to describe a foetus mother relationship as parasitic. Does a mother maintain the same mental and physical functions when she becomes pregnant? If the answer is no then she was drained of some potential. What do parasites do?

Galwayguy35 · 10-05-2014 02:59AM

Turtwig wrote: »

But any human body, physically speaking, is a clump of cells. That includes me. The whole mention of the cells is redundant. This debate is primarily about a philosophy of rights I.e whether a foetus is entitled to the same rights as it's mother or father but father is generally a removed dynamic for obvious reasons. His health and well being is indirectly affected. The mother's is directly affected.

It's also perfectly accurate to describe a foetus mother relationship as parasitic. Does a mother maintain the same mental and physical functions when she becomes pregnant? If the answer is no then she was drained of some potential. What do parasites do?

A father loses in both scenarios, if he wants a kid and the mother doesn't he has no say because she is carrying the baby which is fair enough, but if he doesn't want it and she does he has to pay for the next 18 years for a kid he never wanted in the first place.

COYVB · 10-05-2014 03:12AM

Grayson wrote: »

That's not her problem

Yeah. I never said it was

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:18AM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

A 25 year old woman from the US has uploaded a video of herself announcing she is pregnant, then discussing the fact that she is going to have an abortion.

The three minute clip then includes the actual procedure, caught on camera, as well Letts' feelings post-abortion.

She says the following:

“I don’t feel like a bad person. I don’t feel sad. I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life. I knew that what I was going to do was right ‘cause it was right for me and no one else.”

Now, as someone who is very pro-choice, I am ambivalent about this video. On the one hand, I feel people should have the right to upload pretty much whatever they want to YouTube, as long as whatever's happening in the video is legal (which this was). And I don't at all think Letts was wrong to have an abortion.

However, statements like "I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby" hardly help the pro-choice movement. Referring to a foetus as a 'baby' is exactly what rabid pro-lifers do, and announcing that you are in 'awe' of the fact that what you were carrying was a 'baby', which you then chose to abort, again, doesn't help the pro-choice argument.

Just when you thought there was a rock bottom, the online world reaches a new low.

COYVB · 10-05-2014 03:25AM

I'm not understanding why people are being so offended by the use of the word parasite here? Any negative connotations you draw from the use of the word is your issue, it's just a word used to define the way something exists. Christ, every single one of us went through a parasitic stage. Words are agnostic. If you've got a problem with a word that defines something that an early stage pregnancy is, then that's precisely that... your problem. You're the one making it negative.

It's like those people who look around and whisper "black" when talking about a black person because they think it's a negative word rather than a descriptive one

Galwayguy35 · 10-05-2014 06:11AM

COYVB wrote: »

I'm not understanding why people are being so offended by the use of the word parasite here? Any negative connotations you draw from the use of the word is your issue, it's just a word used to define the way something exists. Christ, every single one of us went through a parasitic stage. Words are agnostic. If you've got a problem with a word that defines something that an early stage pregnancy is, then that's precisely that... your problem. You're the one making it negative.

It's like those people who look around and whisper "black" when talking about a black person because they think it's a negative word rather than a descriptive one

The word parasite hints at something that is out to do us harm, how is new life growing inside the womb out to do the woman harm?

It was brought about through no fault of it's own.

fullaljackeen · 10-05-2014 07:02AM

COYVB wrote: »

I'm not understanding why people are being so offended by the use of the word parasite here? Any negative connotations you draw from the use of the word is your issue, it's just a word used to define the way something exists. Christ, every single one of us went through a parasitic stage. Words are agnostic. If you've got a problem with a word that defines something that an early stage pregnancy is, then that's precisely that... your problem. You're the one making it negative.

It's like those people who look around and whisper "black" when talking about a black person because they think it's a negative word rather than a descriptive one

You were a "parasite" once. Can we now refer to you for ever more as COYVB the parasite? What offense could it possibly cause Mr.Parasite?

Grayson · 10-05-2014 07:58AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The word parasite hints at something that is out to do us harm, how is new life growing inside the womb out to do the woman harm?

It was brought about through no fault of it's own.

That's all in your head. It's just language. And for what it matters, most biological language isn't pretty. Most biological functions that you or I perform on a daily basis are pretty horrendous.

fullaljackeen wrote: »

You were a "parasite" once. Can we now refer to you for ever more as COYVB the parasite? What offense could it possibly cause Mr.Parasite?

You can call me that. just so long as you call yourself any everyone else that. It's true. We all were. You, me, everyone...

I could also say you create sh1t. you do and you probably deposit it in a toilet twice a day. As does everyone. If I happen to state that everyone produces waste, then I'm hardly insulting the whole human race, am I?

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 08:35AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The word parasite hints at something that is out to do us harm, how is new life growing inside the womb out to do the woman harm?

It was brought about through no fault of it's own.

Welcome to the world of science, where terms are sometimes blunt. The word may be offensive to you, but that's the correct biological terminology for it. It's best to be objective with words and terms like this, not emotive.

Gael23 · 10-05-2014 08:37AM

I find this repulsive and offensive to people that cannot have children.

10-05-2014 08:44AM

I really don't see the big deal. It's a medical procedure. I'm actually surpised that so many people are so shocked by it.

Means Of Escape · 10-05-2014 08:52AM

Is that the father of the baby holding her hand in the video ?

Chattastrophe! · 10-05-2014 08:53AM

I'm totally pro-choice, but this doesn't sit well with me. It really seems that she purposely allowed herself to get pregnant, just to see if she could, in the knowledge that she could quickly and easily get an abortion to 'solve the problem.' She seems like a cold, calculating, narcissistic attention-seeker.

And you know, while abortions can be traumatic and upsetting for some women, for others, it's really not a big deal - it's something they just get on with, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the difference is that they'd usually do so with quiet dignity. I don't know why she felt the need to broadcast to the world how little she cares, I'm all for talking openly about abortion, but it's very hard to feel any shred of empathy for her. It's the attitude of basically using abortion as a method of contraception that is so outrageous and wrong. She certainly doesn't do the pro-choice cause any favours.

I still support her right - and every other woman's right - to the choice to have an abortion. I am glad, however, that women like her most likely form an absolutely tiny minority. I wouldn't be surprised if she has some sort of a personality disorder, hopefully if so she is getting the help she needs.

ArtyC · 10-05-2014 09:01AM

Watched the clip and then agreed that she made it seem trivial.

But then After reading through this though I laughed at how trivial the anti choice brigade made carrying to 9 months and having a child was. I dont judge others on their choices. I believe people have the right to have them.

I feel sorry for people who felt they had to get a late bus home, to shove their opinion down other peoples throats. Live your own life

PeteFalk78 · 10-05-2014 09:01AM

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

It's the attitude of basically using abortion as a method of contraception that is so outrageous and wrong.

100% agreed.

tritium · 10-05-2014 09:12AM

Lia_lia wrote: »

I really don't see the big deal. It's a medical procedure. I'm actually surpised that so many people are so shocked by it.

You can apply the "its a medical procedure" statement to many things - some considered socially acceptable- appendix removal, chemotherapy. Some considered socially unacceptable generally- fgm, execution by lethal injection. And some that would be socially controversial- abortion, euthanasia. It really doesn't do anything in terms of advancing the case for or against.

GalwayGuy2 · 10-05-2014 09:19AM

Grayson wrote: »

That's all in your head. It's just language. And for what it matters, most biological language isn't pretty. Most biological functions that you or I perform on a daily basis are pretty horrendous.

But it's not all in his head. The word and connotations of the word parasite have been used for ulterior motives for as long as there have been words.

The Nazi's likened the jews to parasites, the deep south folk likened the blacks to parasites, single mothers were seen as parasites, and 'welfare scroungers' are now seen as parasites.

It's a very dehumanizing phase. In science, sure, it may be correct. But to use it in the political field and deny it's connotations?

Muise... · 10-05-2014 09:20AM

tritium wrote: »

You can apply the "its a medical procedure" statement to many things - some considered socially acceptable- appendix removal, chemotherapy. Some considered socially unacceptable generally- fgm, execution by lethal injection. And some that would be socially controversial- abortion, euthanasia. It really doesn't do anything in terms of advancing the case for or against.

FGM and execution by lethal injection are not medical procedures - they do not remedy or provide therapy to a condition or sickness in the recipient.

tritium · 10-05-2014 09:28AM

Muise... wrote: »

FGM and execution by lethal injection are not medical procedures - they do not remedy or provide therapy to a condition or sickness in the recipient.

There are several different definitions of a medical procedure. For example under the one you've used here abortion is also (mostly)not a medical procedure, nor would any practice intended the lessen suffering through bringing on an earlier onset of death. Many forms of cosmetic surgery would also be outside your definition.

I'm using an (admitidly broad)definition based on a procedure carried out under medical supervision (yes know several on the list ate not always medically supervised)

Muise... · 10-05-2014 09:30AM

tritium wrote: »

There are several different definitions of a medical procedure. For example under the one you've used here abortion is also (mostly)not a medical procedure, nor would any practice intended the lessen suffering through bringing on an earlier onset of death. Many forms of cosmetic surgery would also be outside your definition.

(mostly) fair

tritium · 10-05-2014 09:33AM

Muise... wrote: »

(mostly) fair

Then we (mostly) agree I guess

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Comments