“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?” - Abortion Survivors Testify on Capitol
128 replies, posted
[url="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-planned-parenthood-hearing-abortion-20150909-story.html"]LA Times[/url]
[url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/planned-parenthood-misleads-women-testify-congress/?page=all"]Washington Times - other video[/url]
[b]NSFW VIDEO WARNING -> 0:30 - 0:45 (Burnt Alive Fetus)[/b]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Wwgh7kdKM[/media]
[quote]Two women who survived abortions told a congressional hearing that Planned Parenthood, which is being investigated over its abortion and fetal tissue activities, already misleads people about what it does.
Planned Parenthood says it is for women’s rights, said Gianna Jessen, who showed pictures of her burned body when she was born at 7½ after a failed saline abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in 1977.
“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?” she said.
“I have to say, as a woman who survived an abortion survivor, there is something wrong when health care and women’s empowerment is based on someone’s life ending,” said Melissa Ohden, founder of the Abortion Survivors Network. Ms. Ohden was also almost killed in a 1977 saline abortion, but she lived, thanks to two nurses who made sure she got medical care instead of being dumped “into a bucket of formaldehyde.”[/quote]
Welp. No words. No winners.
Ah yes, the classic appeal to emotion, with bonus "scary pictures" tagged on. Sorry, but prior to being fully developed and being able to survive outside the womb on your own, you aren't really a human being.
Brain doesn't form until around 8 weeks right? Before that you're a fucking sack of meat sucking nutrients from your mom.
[QUOTE=ghghop;48657920]Brain doesn't form until around 8 weeks right? Before that you're a fucking sack of meat sucking nutrients from your mom.[/QUOTE]
The brain doesn't function till around 22 weeks I believe.
I think even that small cluster of cells is important human life. That's why I think people should have responsible sex by using contraceptives.
That's nice, lady. Nobody's ever argued in favor of late-term abortions, so your point is 100% irrelevant. Now stop dragging emotions into politics and think logically about this.
[editline]11th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=cqbcat;48657937]I think even that small cluster of cells is important human life. That's why I think people should have responsible sex by using contraceptives.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, and they should still have recourse if those contraceptives fail. Nothing's perfect. You could have a vasectomy, she could have her tubes tied, you could have a rubber on, she could have the pill on, and life will still find a fucking way around it. Tubes reconnect all the time, especially with vasectomies, condoms break, and the pill isn't always reliable either. Saying 'lol just use contraceptives' isn't enough, there needs to be a backup plan.
I draw the line on 'Can this child be reasonably expected to survive outside of the womb', as for the cutoff date. Varies fetus to fetus, of course, but that's the nature of biological things innit? If the kid's still too undeveloped to survive being born right then an abortion is legal and available, if it is then a c-section at term followed by immediate listing for adoption is the best solution.
[QUOTE=TestECull;48657956]That's nice, lady. Nobody's ever argued in favor of late-term abortions, so your point is 100% irrelevant. Now stop dragging emotions into politics and think logically about this.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that. 32% of Americans that knew about the court case banning partial-birth abortions, an even more horrific type than late term, were opposed to the decision. ([URL]http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/2007/April%20Dailies/partialBirthAbortion.htm[/URL])
I also believe that Planned Parenthood supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.
Jesus fuck, to actually be an abortion baby. I didn't know this was possible.
I've always been torn between pro-life and pro-choice. I'm PL on if you have sex and don't use anything to stop the impregnation, and I'm PC when it comes to things like rape. As someone who has lost a child to miscarriage,I know it's not the same, but I can say that losing something like an unborn baby is extremely hard on both parties. We just need to find a common ground on this.
My friend who was almost aborted has no problem with it whatsoever. If he was aborted, he wouldn't be around to care. It wouldn't have affected him because there would be no him.
You cant force women to have babies they don't want.
Better the process is decriminalized and regulated, instead of being performed by unlicensed criminals in back alleys.
That's where i am on the issue.
[QUOTE=Daddy-of-war;48658037]I've always been torn between pro-life and pro-choice. I'm PL on if you have sex and don't use anything to stop the impregnation, and I'm PC when it comes to things like rape. As someone who has lost a child to miscarriage,I know it's not the same, but I can say that losing something like an unborn baby is extremely hard on both parties. We just need to find a common ground on this.[/QUOTE]
The common ground is that pretty much everyone thinks that in a perfect world abortions wouldn't happen, but the next best thing is to limit the number that occur. So far the literature suggests that allowing legal, safe abortions and easy to obtain birth control helps cut down on the number of abortions per year, whereas banning said things causes the number to go up, and especially causes the number of illegal, back-alley sort of abortions to occur (which are dangerous for obvious reasons).
Around 1% of all abortions are late term, and even then they're done to [i]save the life of the mother.[/i] Unborn children have a lower moral status than already established humans, and on top of that you can't legally force someone to donate their body parts [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp](even if doing so would save a life)[/url].
[QUOTE=St33m;48658080]You cant force women to have babies they don't want.
Better the process is decriminalized and regulated, instead of being performed by unlicensed criminals in back alleys.
That's where i am on the issue.[/QUOTE]
The fact that something will still happen isn't an argument for making it legal. For example, by making theft illegal you're forcing people to threaten, and often hurt those who they want to steal from. If you were to just make it legal, then no one would be getting hurt. Everyone acknowledges that this is a terrible argument because they believe theft to be wrong on it's face.
The issue is whether you believe that the fetus is human, and therefore has rights, or not.
[QUOTE=Levithan;48658084]The common ground is that pretty much everyone thinks that in a perfect world abortions wouldn't happen, but the next best thing is to limit the number that occur. So far the literature suggests that allowing legal, safe abortions and easy to obtain birth control helps cut down on the number of abortions per year, whereas banning said things causes the number to go up, and especially causes the number of illegal, back-alley sort of abortions to occur (which are dangerous for obvious reasons).
Around 1% of all abortions are late term, and even then they're done to [i]save the life of the mother.[/i] Unborn children have a lower moral status than already established humans, and on top of that you can't legally force someone to donate their body parts [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp](even if doing so would save a life)[/url].[/QUOTE]
That too, I've told my girlfriend now, that if we were to have a kid, and the doctors told me she was to die giving birth, and that the only way was to abort the child, I'd have to abort the kid, I know it'd be hard, but losing the woman I love over it vs giving it time and trying again or adopting, the later seems like the better route for me. I guess personally I just don't have a real opinion on this, seeing as I can go back in forth on my beliefs about it.
[QUOTE=TestECull;48657956]That's nice, lady. Nobody's ever argued in favor of late-term abortions, so your point is 100% irrelevant. Now stop dragging emotions into politics and think logically about this.
[editline]11th September 2015[/editline]
Indeed, and they should still have recourse if those contraceptives fail. Nothing's perfect. You could have a vasectomy, she could have her tubes tied, you could have a rubber on, she could have the pill on, and life will still find a fucking way around it. Tubes reconnect all the time, especially with vasectomies, condoms break, and the pill isn't always reliable either. Saying 'lol just use contraceptives' isn't enough, there needs to be a backup plan.
I draw the line on 'Can this child be reasonably expected to survive outside of the womb', as for the cutoff date. Varies fetus to fetus, of course, but that's the nature of biological things innit? If the kid's still too undeveloped to survive being born right then an abortion is legal and available, if it is then a c-section at term followed by immediate listing for adoption is the best solution.[/QUOTE]
You're right, but I think with proper use of a primary and secondary contraceptive, unintended pregnancy can become statistically insignificant. Insignificant enough that we doesn't really need to be a nation conversation or policy.
Obviously make provisions for rape or life endangerment though.
If a pill + condom or whatever else you use both fail, then congratlations! You're proton torpedo directly entered the exhaust port. You are true Jedi Master!
[QUOTE=cqbcat;48658260]You're right, but I think with proper use of a primary and secondary contraceptive, unintended pregnancy can become statistically insignificant. Insignificant enough that we doesn't really need to be a nation conversation or policy.
Obviously make provisions for rape or life endangerment though.
If a pill + condom or whatever else you use both fail, then congratlations! You're proton torpedo directly entered the exhaust port. You are true Jedi Master![/QUOTE]
I would be almost willing to agree with you if the society was able and willing to ensure social and economical security of both the mother and the child. If you happen to be a single mother and end up with an unwanted child you are fucked with a capital F and nobody gives a damn about you needing a carer for the kid, money to feed it and clothe it, and nobody cares your work career has been interrupted by it and you need support to become competitive in the job market again.
For many people ending up with an unwanted child is literately a life ruining event, and until the society can ensure that won't happen anymore (in sake of both the mothers as well as children), star wars references are rather inappropriate.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48658120]The fact that something will still happen isn't an argument for making it legal. For example, by making theft illegal you're forcing people to threaten, and often hurt those who they want to steal from. If you were to just make it legal, then no one would be getting hurt. Everyone acknowledges that this is a terrible argument because they believe theft to be wrong on it's face.
The issue is whether you believe that the fetus is human, and therefore has rights, or not.[/QUOTE]
Legal theft would be a detriment to the function of society. Abortion is a question concerning the right of autonomy concerning a woman's own body. You cant compare the two. Idiot.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=sgman91;48658120]The issue is whether you believe that the fetus is human, and therefore has rights, or not.[/QUOTE]
A human foetus is indeed human, but I believe I have more rights on my body than a foetus.
i think the issue is abortion [B]survivor[/B]. it should be near-instant, 100% fatal and as noninvasive as possible. some of the shit they do to terminate a fetus is ridiculous and barbaric; medicine is far more advanced than abortion shows.
there shouldn't be an adult with "mommy tried to kill me" issues. if the job was done properly there wouldn't be.
(as for abortion itself, well that's up to what the people involved can live with. if they can get over the fact that they terminated their own child, then it's obviously important enough to be done.)
[QUOTE=ghghop;48657920]Brain doesn't form until around 8 weeks right? Before that you're a fucking sack of meat sucking nutrients from your mom.[/QUOTE]
Shame it never formed on these people at all.
[editline]11th September 2015[/editline]
Also, relevant picture I found on Facebook a few days ago
[t]http://i.imgur.com/vl7jy7Q.png[/t]
(Pardon the JPEG compression, y'know how people do this shit)
[QUOTE=sgman91;48658120]The fact that something will still happen isn't an argument for making it legal. For example, by making theft illegal you're forcing people to threaten, and often hurt those who they want to steal from. If you were to just make it legal, then no one would be getting hurt. Everyone acknowledges that this is a terrible argument because they believe theft to be wrong on it's face.
The issue is whether you believe that the fetus is human, and therefore has rights, or not.[/QUOTE]
The fetus is a parasite for most of its existence and therefore, whatever rights it may have are superseded by the rights of the woman whose body it inhabits.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48658378]I would be almost willing to agree with you if the society was able and willing to ensure social and economical security of both the mother and the child. If you happen to be a single mother and end up with an unwanted child you are fucked with a capital F and nobody gives a damn about you needing a carer for the kid, money to feed it and clothe it, and nobody cares your work career has been interrupted by it and you need support to become competitive in the job market again.
For many people ending up with an unwanted child is literately a life ruining event, and until the society can ensure that won't happen anymore (in sake of both the mothers as well as children), star wars references are rather inappropriate.[/QUOTE]
The amount of friends I have with kids now in their early 20s, completely unable to support them independently, stuck in a shitbox house either alone or with a partner they resent is really depressing.
I get that abortion has a stigma to it, but getting an abortion is a far more logical and practical thing to do than ruin the rest of your life
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48658590]The fetus is a parasite for most of its existence and therefore, whatever rights it may have are superseded by the rights of the woman whose body it inhabits.[/QUOTE]
We're talking about the right to life here, the most basic of all rights. If the mother's rights, other than her own right to life, are more important that the fetus's right to life, then you're basically just arguing that the fetus doesn't have a right to life. I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion.
In what way does the fetus have rights if the mother can take away those rights on a whim?
[QUOTE=sgman91;48658683]We're talking about the right to life here, the most basic of all rights.[/QUOTE]
Hold on here, the question was if they were human, not if they were considered a person, to which rights apply to. And even then, we forego such rights even then, think of the death penalty, war, forced sterilization.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48658683]We're talking about the right to life here, the most basic of all rights. If the mother's rights, other than her own right to life, are more important that the fetus's right to life, then you're basically just arguing that the fetus doesn't have a right to life. I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion.
In what way does the fetus have rights if the mother can take away those rights on a whim?[/QUOTE]
That's the thing, the unborn have a lesser moral status than the person they're inhabiting. You don't see any (sane) country putting people who've miscarried on trial for manslaughter, or doctors being put on trial for murder after performing an abortion. They straight up don't have as many rights as a sentient person.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48658697]Hold on here, the question was if they were human, not if they were considered a person, to which rights apply to. And even then, we forego such rights even then, think of the death penalty, war, forced sterilization.[/QUOTE]
I was responding specifically to the phrase, "whatever rights it may have." I just believe one's position should be clear. Either it has rights, or it doesn't.
Unintended and unwanted babies are more than likely not going to have all the necessities it needs to be raised properly, like a good home and experienced/caring parents.
Human rights or not isn't a big factor for me if they're not going to get a proper chance regardless.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;48658260]You're right, but I think with proper use of a primary and secondary contraceptive, unintended pregnancy can become statistically insignificant. Insignificant enough that we doesn't really need to be a nation conversation or policy.
Obviously make provisions for rape or life endangerment though.
If a pill + condom or whatever else you use both fail, then congratlations! You're proton torpedo directly entered the exhaust port. You are true Jedi Master![/QUOTE]
Not everybody thinks. Not everybody will use these contraceptives, and the fact that there are so many children in care homes, children in abusive households, and neglected children, make the fact that we need legislation on these issues incredibly obvious.
Do you not think that it is better for unwanted "children" to be aborted than potentially be abandoned or neglected by its parents when it is actually concious?
[QUOTE=Levithan;48658698]That's the thing, the unborn have a lesser moral status than the person they're inhabiting. You don't see any (sane) country putting people who've miscarried on trial for manslaughter, or doctors being put on trial for murder after performing an abortion. They straight up don't have as many rights as a sentient person.[/QUOTE]
Whether they do or don't is a different question to whether they should. Also, death caused by total accident isn't illegal. It only becomes an issue when it's caused by negligence. So the equivalent in this case might be a mother who drinks a lot during pregnancy and gives the child birth defects.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48658683]We're talking about the right to life here, the most basic of all rights. If the mother's rights, other than her own right to life, are more important that the fetus's right to life, then you're basically just arguing that the fetus doesn't have a right to life. I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion.
In what way does the fetus have rights if the mother can take away those rights on a whim?[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't, because the fetus, up until the point its lungs become functional and it stops being an obligate parasite, is entirely reliant on the mother to support its life. It is therefore not an independent entity, and the concept of human rights does not apply to it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.