Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Freddie Dodge · 10-05-2014 09:36AM

Those who wish to kill their offspring are probably better off out of the gene pool in any case. Sterilization of the anti-lifers would be a better option though.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 09:38AM

tritium wrote: »

Then we (mostly) agree I guess

Don't get too excited; I've been fighting here for days.

Grayson · 10-05-2014 09:39AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

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?

We didn't do any of that. The people arguing against it are the people who had that connotation. Every last person arguing for the use of the term has states that it is nothing more than a technical term. We keep saying that and people keep telling us that's not what we mean.

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 09:41AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Those who wish to kill their offspring are probably better off out of the gene pool in any case. Sterilization of the anti-lifers would be a better option though.

Wow, you just convinced me, no abortions for anyone, ever -no matter what!

Grayson · 10-05-2014 09:43AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Those who wish to kill their offspring are probably better off out of the gene pool in any case. Sterilization of the anti-lifers would be a better option though.

Anti lifers.... See, although I think it's perfectly possible to be anti choice and be rational about it, you're the reason most people think of rabid religious nut jobs when they think of the anti choice movement.

GalwayGuy2 · 10-05-2014 09:54AM

We didn't do any of that. The people arguing against it are the people who had that connotation. Every last person arguing for the use of the term has states that it is nothing more than a technical term. We keep saying that and people keep telling us that's not what we mean.

Hmmm, I find it a tad unbelievable.

This is an argument between people who are arguing over whether abortion is or is not the taking of life.

And an emotively loaded term like 'parasite' is only seen as a technical term? I'm sorry, but I found that hard to believe.

Freddie Dodge · 10-05-2014 09:57AM

Grayson wrote: »

Anti lifers.... See, although I think it's perfectly possible to be anti choice and be rational about it, you're the reason most people think of rabid religious nut jobs when they think of the anti choice movement.

Nope, no religion of any sort here. Just an abhorrence to killing defenceless babies, and a strong belief that humanity is better off without the anti humainty element within it.

Chattastrophe! · 10-05-2014 09:59AM

If I never read the word "parasite" again, it'll be too soon! :P

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:00AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, I find it a tad unbelievable.

This is an argument between people who are arguing over whether abortion is or is not the taking of life.

And an emotively loaded term like 'parasite' is only seen as a technical term? I'm sorry, but I found that hard to believe.

Grayson did try to reconcile this by suggesting 'parasitic' as an adjective to describe the unborn, but no, let's get bogged down over a term. Oh look, someone above me has just called it killing babies - how's that for an emotionally loaded term?

GalwayGuy2 · 10-05-2014 10:02AM

Muise... wrote: »

Grayson did try to reconcile this by suggesting 'parasitic' to describe the unborn, but no, let's get bogged down over a term. Oh look, someone above me has just called it killing babies - how's that for an emotionally loaded term?

That's expected off the pro-lifers. The emotional manipulation on that side is fairy well documented at this stage.

But, I was honestly surprised to see the pro-choicers be that manipulative.

Penny Tration · 10-05-2014 10:04AM

Wow, I caused some drama with my use of the word 'parasite.'

It may be an emotive word, but so is 'murder' and 'killing' when it comes to abortion.

And what's with people saying 'anti-choice,' 'anti-life,' 'pro-abortion' and all that other ****e? Are pro-choice and pro-life not enough?

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:04AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

That's expected off the pro-lifers. The emotional manipulation on that side is fairy well documented at this stage.

But, I was honestly surprised to see the pro-choicers be that manipulative.

Hardly manipulative - why would we set out to upset you in a discussion? What's the point of that?

Penny Tration · 10-05-2014 10:06AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Those who wish to kill their offspring are probably better off out of the gene pool in any case. Sterilization of the anti-lifers would be a better option though.

For what it's worth, I'd fcuking love to be sterilised. Funnily enough, it's not bloody easy to come by.

Chattastrophe! · 10-05-2014 10:07AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Nope, no religion of any sort here. Just an abhorrence to killing defenceless babies, and a strong belief that humanity is better off without the anti humainty element within it.

I'm pro-choice. I'm not anti-life, I'm not anti-humanity, I'm not pro-abortion. For what it's worth, abortion would never have been a choice that I'd have made for myself, or that I'd ever make in the future.

I'm pretty sure most pro-choicers would love an ideal world where no one ever had to choose abortion. Where unplanned and unwanted pregnancies just didn't happen.

However it's not a perfect world, and I fully support the right of every woman to have the choice, to have that control over what happens to their own body and their own life.

I myself had an unplanned pregnancy, for us we never considered an abortion as we were (are) in a good stable relationship and have the means to provide for a child. However I can say that having a baby has a massive impact on your body, it changes it forever, and the idea that (as suggested earlier in the thread) you should just carry a baby for nine months and then hand it over for adoption and get on with your life is laughable, and not a realistic option in the vast majority of cases.

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 10:07AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, I find it a tad unbelievable.

This is an argument between people who are arguing over whether abortion is or is not the taking of life.

And an emotively loaded term like 'parasite' is only seen as a technical term? I'm sorry, but I found that hard to believe.

It is just a technical term. Maybe because I'm doing science I just take terms objectively and don't get concerned with the emotive connotations, because with technical terms, that's just what it is. Simple as that. There's no need to bring emotive baggage into this when it's not being implied, it's the other side who taking that step.

To term was used to shatter the idea from some anti-choice posters that it is some romanticised, straightforward, sunshine and rainbows experience, when it's not.
It is a very taxing experience both physically and emotionally, often very much so for some women. If the end result is a child they wanted, then that whole process is all worth it, and that's great, but for other rational and legitimate circumstances where the woman isn't able for it, physically, mentally or circumstantially, then you really need to look at it for what it is.

It's tough, this is something that drains you and takes a lot out if you. In purely objective and technical terms, it is a parasitic process.

deseil · 10-05-2014 10:08AM

I think she may regret doing this video some day. Imagine if she does have kids someday a simple google search of mum will show them this video and she ll have to explain why they were the chosen one.
As much as I know I could never have an abortion I believe women should be able to make their own choice but videoing the whole ordeal is a step too far.

Freddie Dodge · 10-05-2014 10:14AM

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

I'm pro-choice. I'm not anti-life, I'm not anti-humanity, I'm not pro-abortion. For what it's worth, abortion would never have been a choice that I'd have made for myself, or that I'd ever make in the future.

I'm pretty sure most pro-choicers would love an ideal world where no one ever had to choose abortion. Where unplanned and unwanted pregnancies just didn't happen.

However it's not a perfect world, and I fully support the right of every woman to have the choice, to have that control over what happens to their own body and their own life.

I myself had an unplanned pregnancy, for us we never considered an abortion as we were (are) in a good stable relationship and have the means to provide for a child. However I can say that having a baby has a massive impact on your body, it changes it forever, and the idea that (as suggested earlier in the thread) you should just carry a baby for nine months and then hand it over for adoption and get on with your life is laughable, and not a realistic option in the vast majority of cases.

Great, so you wouldn't kill your OWN baby then. But no problem what others do?
Tell me, would you have a problem if someone killed a 2 year old down the road, or would you be pro choice in that instance as well unless it was YOUR two year old?

GalwayGuy2 · 10-05-2014 10:14AM

Eh, I think I'll agree to disagree on the parasitic term.

In my head, it's used in the same way as murder is used. And I don't believe anybody can ignore the connotations of it, even if they are in science.

But whatever.

Penny Tration · 10-05-2014 10:17AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Great, so you wouldn't kill your OWN baby then. But no problem what others do?
Tell me, would you have a problem if someone killed a 2 year old down the road, or would you be pro choice in that instance as well unless it was YOUR two year old?

There's a massive difference between a 2 year old, and a foetus.

Chattastrophe! · 10-05-2014 10:18AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Great, so you wouldn't kill your OWN baby then. But no problem what others do?
Tell me, would you have a problem if someone killed a 2 year old down the road, or would you be pro choice in that instance as well unless it was YOUR two year old?

It's not that I have no problem with what others do, it's that I understand that not everyone has the same circumstances as I do. As I already stated, I'm really not comfortable with what this woman did and how she went about it, and I don't think it's right. However she does have the right to control over her own body, and I respect that.

Of course killing a living breathing child is completely different to ending a pregnancy long before it gets to a stage where the cells become a baby. You'd have to be pretty thick not to see the difference between ending a pregnancy in the early stages, and killing a two-year-old. Why compare the two?

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 10:21AM

deseil wrote: »

I think she may regret doing this video some day. Imagine if she does have kids someday a simple google search of mum will show them this video and she ll have to explain why they were the chosen one.
As much as I know I could never have an abortion I believe women should be able to make their own choice but videoing the whole ordeal is a step too far.

Although I don't particularly agree with the tone of this particular video, just because her reaction was slightly odd to me, I do think that videos like this can be beneficial when executed properly.

It's good to be aware of the process and for a woman to be able to do it and not feel shame about, to do what is right for them in their particular circumstances. Instead off glossing over the subject like it's taboo and something shameful that should be hidden away. A video or short documentary depicting the decision process that lead up to a woman having an abortion and the process afterwards would be very beneficial to women in similar circumstances, I think anyway.

An impartial experience directly from a woman who had an abortion would allow a woman to make a better, more informed decision, whether that means deciding to have one or not.

Freddie Dodge · 10-05-2014 10:22AM

green_screen wrote: »

There's a massive difference between a 2 year old, and a foetus.

Ok then, lets get to the point.

Whats the difference between killing a 38 week prenatal baby and a 1 week old postnatal baby ?

fullaljackeen · 10-05-2014 10:23AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

It is just a technical term. Maybe because I'm doing science I just take terms objectively and don't get concerned with the emotive connotations, because with technical terms, that's just what it is. Simple as that. There's no need to bring emotive baggage into this when it's not being implied, it's the other side who taking that step.

To term was used to shatter the idea from some anti-choice posters that it is some romanticised, straightforward, sunshine and rainbows experience, when it's not.
It is a very taxing experience both physically and emotionally, often very much so for some women. If the end result is a child they wanted, then that whole process is all worth it, and that's great, but for other rational and legitimate circumstances where the woman isn't able for it, physically, mentally or circumstantially, then you really need to look at it for what it is.

It's tough, this is something that drains you and takes a lot out if you. In purely objective and technical terms, it is a parasitic process.

They're just parasites. - They're not even human. - They don't deserve rights - It's their fault - etc...

Blaming someone else, taking their rights from them, absolving your responsibility, rationalising your behaviour and reinforcing it with mob mentality.

Every civil rights issue since history has begun has had people like this trying to topple them

*insert expletives here*

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:23AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Ok then, lets get to the point.

Whats the difference between killing a 38 week neonatal baby and a 1 week old antenatal baby ?

Nurse! Another dictionary, STAT!

Penny Tration · 10-05-2014 10:27AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Ok then, lets get to the point.

Whats the difference between killing a 38 week neonatal baby and a 1 week old antenatal baby ?

Since when is it common for women to have abortions at 38 weeks? That's a ludicrous question. Most abortions are carried about before 24 weeks.

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 10:28AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Great, so you wouldn't kill your OWN baby then. But no problem what others do?
Tell me, would you have a problem if someone killed a 2 year old down the road, or would you be pro choice in that instance as well unless it was YOUR two year old?

I'm in favour of abortion before 12 weeks. 12 weeks marks the begins of basic neural function.

Up until that point, it is a cluster of cells, some differentiated, some not. What that is is not human. It does not possess the qualities and characteristics that define a human begin. It is a potential for life, just as egg and sperm cells are. It is not a baby.

Equating the life of a fully developed, living, breathing child to that of a blastocyst or very early foetus is nothing short of sensationalist and not comparable at all.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:32AM

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?

Then late stage abortions are all right because they are parasites?

Chattastrophe! · 10-05-2014 10:32AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Ok then, lets get to the point.

Whats the difference between killing a 38 week prenatal baby and a 1 week old postnatal baby ?

Your comparisons are getting more and more ridiculous.

How many pro-choice people do you know who support abortions at 38 weeks? Seriously? What an absolute joke.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 10:33AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I'm in favour of abortion before 12 weeks. 12 weeks marks the begins of basic neural function.

Up until that point, it is a cluster of cells, some differentiated, some not. What that is is not human. It does not possess the qualities and characteristics that define a human begin. It is a potential for life, just as egg and sperm cells are. It is not a baby.

Equating the life of a fully developed, living, breathing child to that of a blastocyst or very early foetus is nothing short of sensationalist and not comparable at all.

That's extremely hypocritical. Why not after 12 weeks?

Muise... · 10-05-2014 10:34AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then late stage abortions are all right because they are parasites?

It's a description, not a policy-making argument.

As has been pointed out numerous times, an abortion of pregnancy at 38 weeks is the same as an early induced delivery.

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Comments