No matter how many times you state it, someone's going to say that "Abortion doesn't emotionally scar EVERY woman that has one."

Apart from pure sociopathy, I really don't see how it can't.

And if you're saying that it does, yet want it to be legal... well, I just don't know what to say to you.

Legalized abortion sanitizes it. It says, "Hey, this is regular." Having to go to the underground to get it done was more of a picture of what you're really doing to yourself, and your baby.

No matter how many times you state it, someone's going to say that "Abortion doesn't emotionally scar EVERY woman that has one."

I love that argument.  And you hear the same people saying it that would yowl at saying something like "Torture does not emotionally scar EVERY person that is subject to it."

Everything that is emotionally scarring should be illegal? That seems a stretch. I'd also venture to guess that carrying, giving birth to, and raising an unwanted child can be emotionally scarring.



Jythier- You seem to be stating that you would rather that a woman put her life own in danger by going into a back alley with a coat-hanger than have a safe medical treatment. Why is the life of the fetus more important than the life of the woman in your mind?

Having an unwanted pregnancy is a "lose-lose" no matter what.  I've known girls who've had abortions and I've known those who gave the baby up or even those who kept the baby.  There is scarring all around for the child and family.

I agree with shades. A back alley is no place for an abortion.

Abortion is detestable to me as well. But I believe the solution is in taking the profit motive out of abortion, not consigning women to the fate of predatory quacks in filthy facilities.

Jythier- You seem to be stating that you would rather that a woman put her life own in danger by going into a back alley with a coat-hanger than have a safe medical treatment. Why is the life of the fetus more important than the life of the woman in your mind?

It's not a fetus, it's a "pre-born" child.  ~rolling eyes.  and yes, the anti-choicers think that the fetus's life is much more important than the mothers, only until it's born then they don't care again.

This is the outcome of enabling middle schoolers to have sex."

I agree that junior high kids should not be having sex.  I believe abortion is the outcome of stick our heads in the sand and teach abstinence only.  Abstinence only education is proven not to work.  Seventeen is the average age of first sexual experience.  If you want to prevent abortion, sexually educate teenagers and make birth control cheap and easily accessible.  I'm not saying that abstinence shouldn't be part of sexual education, I'm saying abstinence only education is the wrong direction to go. 

The reality of abortion is that there are just as many abortions in countries in which abortion is illegal.  The diffrence is the access of poor women and the safety of the procedure. 

 

I really wish you would stop spewing these talking points, Loca. You're smarter than that.

I believe that it's true. You may disagree.

It's not a fetus, it's a "pre-born" child.

I scoff at this distinction, for it makes no sense. It's redundant.

As for abortion, I'm no fan of it...but if people feel the need to do it, then they might as well have a medical professional do it instead of some freak in a van or alley or wherever God awful place.

~Zoo

And you talk about judging others, Loca? You've just accused me of having a complete lack of compassion for children after they're born. Nice.

Now you see why I can't have civil conversations with you. When you attack people with a stereotype like that, you attack ME right along with them.

ANd save the "well, you're an exception", because if that's the case, I've talked to a HELL OF A LOT of "exceptions" over the years.

And you talk about judging others, Loca? You've just accused me of having a complete lack of compassion for children after they're born. Nice.

Okay, I take it back.  I shouldn't talk in generalities but this subject raises my hackles.  I do believe that in general those who are vocally anti-choice care more about fetuses than the people who are living, breathing and walking around. 

You might want to actually back up that with data, or as Gideon says, stop spouting mindless talking points and think for yourself.

Well, I think the anti-abortion crowd that you're speaking of cares as much for the mother's life as the mother cares for the baby's life, so what's the problem?

As for me, I care a lot more for the mother than for the baby. If the choice is mother or baby, I'd save the mother. The baby, even the dead baby, is going to be fine. Straight to heaven without having to bother with the whole Earth part? That's quite a deal, you ask me.

Yeah, an unplanned pregnancy is scarring in and of itself, but normalizing the behaviour that turns it into the worst case scenario is evil. Women who, if it were illegal, would never even consider it now have abortions.

I think the 'right' stance on abortion is legal abortion for special cases (such as life of the mother at risk) but no more convenience abortions.

No, an alleyway is not the place for an abortion - because there is NO place for one.

It's not a fetus, it's a "pre-born" child. ~rolling eyes. and yes, the anti-choicers think that the fetus's life is much more important than the mothers

I shouldn't talk in generalities but this subject raises my hackles. I do believe that in general those who are vocally anti-choice care more about fetuses than the people who are living, breathing and walking around.

I wouldn't say that Pro-Lifers care less about the mother than the child; they simply recognize the sanctity of life, and the need to protect it regardless of circumstance or personal convenience to the mother.

The trouble is, by attributing zippy monikers such as "anti-choicer" in reference to those who oppose abortion desensitize us, deceiving us (or as the case may be, our teens and tweens) into believing it is indeed our choice to make. Thus, if one is "anti-choice", they somehow infringe upon an individual's rights to make decisions, when in fact isn't the exact opposite the truth? Aren't Pro-Deathers (do you mind if I use that term?) infringing upon the rights of the unborn by giving parental "rights" to it's life or death?

I have always been tickled by the pro-choice argument that a woman should be allowed to choose what she does to her body. While I agree, she should have every right to her own body, the inevitable truth is, in regard to abortion, her body has never been the one in question - has it?

I tried to be anti-choice once. I learned that nobody is anti-choice, and it's a bad idea to make that argument. Therefore, the name 'anti-choice' can no longer refer to the abortion movement, as it can now only apply to that moment of wrongness I concocted.