I believe I am now fully Pro-Life.

Previously I was pro-choice when it came to legality. And pro-life on a personal level. But I think that has changed. Due in part to those on the left side of the spectrum.

For years I believed that I didn't have a Right to tell a woman what she could and couldn't do with her body when it came to abortion. This was based on the belief that I didn't have a Right to tell a woman what to believe about what it was inside of her. This was based on the nebulous idea of what made a human being, a human being. But I have come to realize that that does not matter. That that is just sophistry used to confuse the issue.

Know what made me realize that? Leftists saying that it was not "alive" and that it was not "human". All while arguing that those on the Right were racists and thought of black and brown people as "less than human". They often point towards our past when black people were thought of as less than human.

Now, I'm no racist. No way in hell do I think of black people or any other human as somehow being less than me. But when I saw leftists saying that a ZEF is not human, or alive, I couldn't help but do a double take. Going "wait...what?".

According to biology a ZEF is most certainly alive. You will never see it describe a ZEF as being anything other than alive.

And then there is genetics. According to genetics a ZEF has its own distinct DNA pattern that is separate from its mothers and fathers DNA. Meaning that it is unique. It also recognizes that that DNA is human DNA.

Combine both the science of Biology and the science of Genetics and they both end up saying that a ZEF is a living human.

So, why are we arguing over whether or not a ZEF deserves to live or the woman deserves to abort? Because the argument isn't about whether or not the ZEF is a living human. Science already tells us that it is. The argument is about whether or not it is a human BEING.

But that argument is just sophistry. Why? For the same reason that its wrong to think that black people are not human. Whether or not blacks were human beings was never an argument proposed. Whether or not they were human at all is what was discussed. Blacks were considered at best as a sub-species of humans. At worst, as not being human at all.

So, why are we discussing human "being"? In a secular country we shouldn't be. "Being" denotes something "extra". Something "metaphysical". Something "spiritual". Yet leftists and pro-choice still rely on it in order to argue FOR abortion. That doesn't make sense to me. They're always talking about the separation of church and state clause. Yet "Being" is all about something spiritual or supernatural. So why are they making the argument? They shouldn't be. Not if they truly believe in the separation of church and state clause. The only argument that I can think of is to make it a political issue. To make it a divisive issue in which to garner votes for their other causes.

Do all of them think this? No. Of course not. Some of them really do believe that a woman should be able to choose. I should know. I was one of those people. But after all this consideration I have to change my mind.

So, after all this consideration I had to consider other things also. Does a woman have a Right to Bodily Autonomy? Well...yes. Everyone should. However as those on the left have pointed out, that Right to Bodily Autonomy has its limits. Hence why they believe that mandating the vaccines is allowable. It saves human lives they say. Ok. So applying that same logic to abortion means...If you guessed banning it, you were right. Its already established that per science a ZEF is a live human. So banning abortion would save lives. And no one has the Right to take another's life. So there is that also. That makes a pretty good case for why a Right to Bodily Autonomy should be limited in the case of pregnancies also.

There is of course some ground for allowing SOME abortions. Using the same logic. For instance since no one has a right to take another persons life, and that ZEF puts the mothers life at risk, an abortion can be had in the name of protecting the life of the woman. Additionally there is a period, right after conceivement that the sperm, combined with the egg has not yet developed into its own separate DNA. Usually right before it attaches itself to the uterine wall. IIRC that takes up to a week to accomplish. As such an abortion before then is acceptable. Or to put simply allows for the use of the "morning after pill".

And to think, this was all due to leftists arguments. I guess thanks are in order. So, Thank You.

 

So…..why is someone who spent a lifetime saving people pro choice like me?

Because I have worked in Maternity Critical Care and I have witnessed with my own eyes how fast things can go bad and how fast we have to intervene. This was in a Catholic hospital. Wherever possible we tried everything we could possibly do to save the foetus but sometimes……. And it was HARD. A grieving family losing a wanted pregnancy and you KNEW a without a doubt in your heart that there was no other option. There just is not the TIME to muck about asking for second opinions and government blessings or court appointed this or that.

It is all very well to say “Oh! It is only a handful of women” very very different though when you are doing your best to support a grieving husband (and they often feel very guilty because they got her pregnant - reassurance on reassurance was needed) scared children who knew their mother was very ill and were worried she would not live.

we did everything we could to save those babies but sometime they were just too little to live or were too malformed to ever be viable

Then there were the Emergency Department “frequent flyers”. Women strung out on drugs working the streets. Talk to them - treat them as human not as trash. Often they got “on the game” because they were kicked out of home at 15 and found themselves on the streets. Pimps will ensure women like that become addicted as it is a way to control them to keep them working. No home - can’t get a job - can’t get a decent education and yet many remained hopeful that one day they would escape

So why am I “pro-choice” - compassion. Compassion for women trapped in circumstances. It is not just the young sex workers but so many many other stories that led to the choice. Abusive partner, too many mouths to feed, disabled children requiring 24/7 care already leaving no ability to add another child

But if you truly care about reducing the number of abortions then make LARCs affordable and free. They are offered free here to many young women, as is welfare benefits and payments and perhaps too much but it is still better than forcing birth only to see starving children

 

As someone that is pro-choice, I have no problem with you choosing not to have an abortion.

 

Even Alabama, which has the strictest laws against abortion, has an exception for when the mothers life is in danger. Your last line there obviously has nothing to do with abortion. But I am sorry that you have to go through those things. Sucks. But it is a part of life.

I have no problem with schools teaching 13+ about various homeless shelters and ways to get help if you're living in the streets. Such would be good for both females and males anyways. Also, what you describe there is called child abandonment. Put the kid in a foster home and charge/imprison the parents. Or perhaps even better, put the parents to work in the foster home providing for the needs of everyone living in that home. Any valid complaint and they go straight to jail. Either way, I'm sure something can be worked out for the situation you describe. Abortion need not apply.

There will ALWAYS be those that live in horrible circumstances. That doesn't mean the compassion you talk about should stop at pregnancy. In fact, where's your compassion for that live human inside the mothers womb?

As for LARCs, go for it. I have no problem helping out with children, even if that means helping people to prevent pregnancies to begin with.

 

Out of curiosity...did you even read what was wrote? Or are you just spouting typical talking points? Because that's all that I see.

 

I did read what you wrote. You have your reasons for changing your position. I can respect that. And so, because I am pro-choice and I have literally no problem with people choosing birth or adoption over abortion, I have no problem with you choosing not to have abortions either.

 

what is LARC?

 

Good, as someone that is pro-choice you will also have no problem with me choosing to vote in those that want to ban abortion and encouraging them to do just that. Or even voting directly for a ban on abortion if such ever comes up in my State for the public to vote on. And if such a law is enacted you will have no problem with it because the voters chose (either by themselves or through their representative) to ban abortion.

 

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception

 

I would have a huge problem with people voting to take away the same choice you yourself are allowed to make. There's a difference between respecting your choice to be pro-life, and having no issue with you using your vote to elect those who want to take that choice away from others. You yourself once held that position, and not too long ago if I recall. It's also the same position my wife has. You were able to discern the difference between choosing pro-life for yourself and removing that choice for people that aren't you.

 

So what happened to Democracy? The Will of the Majority?

And yes, I was pro-choice. But not for the reason that you gave. I detailed why I was pro-choice in the OP.

I never really bought into the whole "can't take away someone's choice" spiel. Such happens all the time in society. For instance AA laws prevents a persons Freedom of Association. IE: A persons choice on who to let into their privately run store or not. And there are MANY MANY products which are banned thereby removing a persons choice to have that product or not. States and cities can even ban protesting in certain areas or certain times for valid reasons. Thereby removing the persons choice of when and where. There are laws against a persons choice to wear clothes or not in public even. There are literally hundreds of things that we have no choice in the matter because society has deemed that we shouldn't have a choice in those matters.

 

So you’ve become authoritarian by wanting to push your beliefs onto everyone else.

 

I've had almost the opposite journey here. The events of the past week have only reinforced and hardened my position on the right to self-proprietorship that is so eloquently expressed by the English Leveller Richard Overton and quoted in my signature. Over the past decade I have witnessed an unrelenting assault on that right from both the Left and the Right and I am beyond fed up with ALL of it.

I, too, am disgusted with the abject hypocrisy, disingenuousness and dishonesty of the Left on this subject but I'm not about to let that influence the way I think, speak and act, and I'll tell you why: If you don't believe individuals have the right to self-proprietorship then you don't believe individuals have ANY rights at all. I guess we all have to take a stand somewhere and I've chosen to plant my flag here and live or die on this hill.

We may have arrived at different places but I respect your decision to take your own principled stand where you have chosen, and if you decide to continue down that path, godspeed on your journey.

 

But you don’t give a **** about men trapped in circumstances. They’re just supposed to suck it up and deal with it lol

 

Is it authoritarian to prevent one human from killing another human? Of course not. In fact we have laws preventing such right now. You don't holler about those being authoritarian do you? Of course not.

And at least my belief is based on science. Do you deny science?

 

What the? Compared to a critically ill woman what does some guy with a sore pinky have to do with anything? I mean THAT was the image I got from you post. A woman ventilated, every line possible inserted monitor alarming and some guy grizzling that the hospital should make better coffee

We are talking women’s LIVES a here

 

Individuals do NOT have a right to self proprietorship in this country. Hence mask mandates, drugs laws, nudity laws etc etc

 

Only if it IS a “human being” but tell me when does that start and even when does that end?

 

Would you like to compare how many womens lives are ACTUALLY at risk as opposed to how many babies have been murdered?

Don’t pretend you care about human life when you support abortion not just for the health of the mother or for rape or incest but just because they don’t feel like having a baby. Because if you ACTUALLY cared about human life you would support abortion in circumstances of rape and incest and health of the mother but not just because the mom doesn’t want the baby.

 

Sorry, I already addressed this in my OP.

"Being" is not something that our government, being a secular government, should take into account.

 

When does that apply? What criteria defines “life endangerment”?
This is exactly my point. And do not tell me it will not happen because it already HAS. Her name was Savita Halappavanar
On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was ultimately discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down," and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]: 22–26 [8]: 29 [9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]: 33 [10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors' efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, at the age of 31, and died.[8]: 53 [8]: 44–46 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
Anti abortion laws can and do cause hesitation at a time when hesitation costs lives.

.

We have a LOT more social networks in place than America has and we still have homeless teens. So no there is no “magic cure”

It is overridden by compassion for the living breathing actual person in front of me.

 

Right we do have laws against killing a living viable human. What does that have to do with allowing women a choice?

 

Overridden would imply that you have ANY compassion for the baby. Which you CLEARLY don’t as where is your compassion when a woman wants to have her 6th abortion just because she’s ghetto trash who won’t stop getting knocked up?

You don’t have any. You say she should be able to kill as many babies as she wants just because she feels like it.

 

We have laws against killing a fetus too. Go assault a woman and make her lose her baby and see how fast you get charged for murder.

So if it’s murder for you to kill the fetus, on what grounds do you assert isn’t it murder when she does it?

 

Nope! You waffled on about ZEFs but failed to give a definitive time line. Is a conceptus a “human being”? Is it only a human being after implantation? Many religious texts talk of ensoulment as being when “quickening” occurs others when the first breath is taken

This is important because there is legislation that will grant “personhood” to fertilised eggs with destruction of same punishable by charge of murder

Pity the poor person working in a fertility clinic who drops a test tube