women who seek abortions — Are they just lazy?

Sometimes aborting women are taking the well-being of the children they already have into consideration. Generally, aborting women are considering the potential well-being of the fetus.

You're right and it's fortunate that abortion isn't murder.

 

Thats your problem. At least thats what most conservatives I know will say.

It seems to me that conservatives only care about your baby up to the point that its born. After that, especially if your a single mother on welfare, your now considerd a plague on society. And a slut to boot.

 

While there may be some truth to your criticism, that does not negate the fact that in a perfect world there would be no abortions.

 

And that does not negate the fact that the rest of us here live in reality and realize that we will never live in a perfect world, until, perhaps, after we die and it turns out there really is a heaven or 'perfect afterlife' of some kind. rofl

 

More evidence that women who seek abortions are usually just lazy:
Most women who are seeking abortions for their convenience never even bothered to make sure the man was wearing a condom.
While 72% of women who were getting abortions had not used condoms with their sexual partners, 46% of the women had not bothered to use any form of contraception!
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html

 

Or war, Or poverty. Or murder. Or theft. Or.... i could go on and on and on and on.

The world will never be perfect. Sometimes we have to accept the imperfections.

 

Oh, being lazy is illegal now is it?

 

Bringing a life into this world, then brutally sending it back into oblivion is. The fact that women do so out of laziness gives them no excuse.

 

Oh noes! God forbid we send a fetus, something that already can't think or feel and doesn't even know of it's existence back into non-existence! How horrible!

 

Pro-abortionists would just love to imagine the fetus is merely a lifeless clump of cells. But the reality is otherwise:
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/265734-echoes-womb.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092726

 

Do they now? Well I certainly don't think a fetus is just a clump of cells. I know what a fetus is and what it looks like and I refuse to use such terms to describe it.

So the fetus has brain waves at some point during pregnancy. So if we say the fetus is a person at this time, it's rights conflict with the woman's rights. Whose rights come first, the woman's? Or the fetuses?

 

A woman loses her sole rights to the uterus during pregnancy. Suddenly it's not just her anymore. In fact, we could make the argument that the woman's organs at that point belong as much to the fetus as to her. Maybe the mother could actually be considered a part of the baby's body, rather than the other way around.

 

You could advance that argument, but you still can't win it that way. If the pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies also. If the fetus dies, the pregnant woman still lives. A woman still has the right to say whether a zef can occupy her uterus, and women have retained that right through illegality and legality of abortion.

 

I detest abortion I find it morally wrong and unjustifiable. However these thread titles are baiting and do not help to change anyones mind on the issue. They make pro-lifers look like bigots, uncaring, and insensitive. Through reason and logic we should be trying to convert those who support the right to abortion. I believe the pro-life argument is far superior in everyway we do not have to resort to being offensive to those who disagree with us. We will not change hearts and minds by condemning and insulting those who do not currently agree with our position.

 

exactly. at some point.

which is AFTER the point when the majority of abortions are performed.

well after.

 

the pro life (or anti choice) argument IS NOT superior. It is often based in ignorance, and fed by manipulation of emotions.

I will have respect for the pro life position when it is genuinely pro life, and those who argue this point of view care as much for the children they so desperately wish to be born AFTER they are born as much as they do in the first trimester of their mothers' pregnancy.

And are prepared to put their money where their mouths are to prove it.

 

I would love to see them put hand in pocket for UNICEF or some other children's charity dealing with preventing child deaths among the third world

 

Just because most abortions are not late-term does not mean that the number of late-term abortions is insignificant. Especially if we include fetuses older than 18 weeks.

And the "pro choice" argument is based on partial truths and, not infrequently, outright lies.
Supporters of abortion have to go to great efforts to downplay or ignore the humanity of the fetus.

Mothers should not be allowed to hold their own unborn babies for ransom.
If pro-life starts giving payouts to pregnant mothers, droves of them will start coming forward threatening to abort their babies unless the recieve a payment. If not everyone can be given a payout, some of them might actually go through with their threat who would not have got abortions before.

And there is already the phenomena of welfare mothers - women who have babies out of wedlock just so they can get welfare checks. What will happen when these women realise they can also hold their own unborn babies for ransom too?

 

so ... are the anti choice lobby only trying to prevent late term abortions?

or all abortions?

why is the percentage of teenage unwed mothers less in northern european countries with generous welfare provisions than in the US, which has a dark age mentality towards welfare?

why don't women who have abortions in those countries choose to continue a pregnancy instead?

 

Of course the pro-life argument is superior. Those who support and agree with abortion base their argument on something that is completely arbitary. Who is to say when a human life has more or less value than another human life?.
Science proves the new life in the womans' womb is exactly that a new human life. Personhood is arbitary, it is not fact, no one can point to an exact moment and say now that lifeform is a person. The most reasonable assumption is to say it is a person at conception.

 

What are you trying to say exactly?, that people who are against abortion are uncharitable?. Please elaborate your point.

 

The main purpose of the pro-life movement is to ensure that the fetus is born and it generally stops there, completely, at least in the US it does. Which ultimately you could say that is more pro-birth than pro-life. Conservatives and right wingers tend to be the ones who are against abortion but are also against people using the state's resources to help them and their children or families in times of poverty. They expect women to be forced to give birth and then to also take care of her child without the aid of anyone, at least certainly not them. We have a lot of single mothers here, that is a fact, people can wail and cry that they shoulda-coulda-woulda been married, but the reality is we have many single mothers. When you have a baby there is a period of time where she takes maternity leave to be with that baby too.

Just recently I overheard my mangers at work discussing a few potential new hires and one of them said, "Yeah she seemed good but she's due to have a baby soon so she'll have to take maternity leave..."

It is a fact that employers discriminate against pregnant women here as well, they might not be allowed to do that legally, but it's done under the table all the time. It has already got to be very difficult for a pregnant woman to find a job if she doesn't have one when she is pregnant.

I know you live in another country and it may be different how pro-lifers treat and help women who are single parents or who live in poverty with their families, but here we have one side of the issue telling women they have to give birth but when doing so puts the woman and her child in a position of potential poverty they refuse to help them. What's the point of bringing children into the world just so they can live in squalor and not ensure that they have all the things they need to live and to get ahead in life?

As pro-choicers we believe women should rightly have the option to space how many children she has apart so that she is better equipped to raise them when she finally does choose to have more. You have healthier families when you have children spaced apart properly and when their parents have the means to feed, clothe and house them. Quality over quantity.

I wish to see more desire to help children in need from conservatives and right wingers who also make up the majority of pro-lifers, but you rarely if ever see this here in the US...

 

this post suggests ignorance about the reasons why a woman would have an abortion, and a total lack of respect for the woman who feels that this is the choice she needs to make.

it suggests that a first trimester foetus has more rights than the woman, and sometimes than the children she may already have.

every year, approximately 68000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions. often their existing children are left without a mother.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsafe_abortion/article_unsafe_abortion.pdf

for most of those women who die as the result of an unsafe abortion, this would not be the decision they would make if they knew the child they would bear, and other children they may already have, would not be condemned to a life of poverty.

the anti choice argument represents an inferior position which is based on a black and white view of the world.

 

But that's exactly it; the woman feels it is a choice she needs to make. But she doesn't need to make it; at least not in the vast majority (well over 90%) of situations where abortions are carried out.

Maybe it does. The woman brought the life into this world by her own bad decessions. The little human life has no choice in the matter.

Here is a 10 week old embryo, still in the first trimester, take a look at its little feet


Here is a 12 week fetus, right at the end of the first trimester


These are not zygotes we are talking about.

If there is no abortion, the woman is inconvenienced. If there is an abortion, the fetus is killed. So even if the woman's rights to life slightly outweigh the fetus, the argument can still be made that abortion violates the fetus's rights more than it gives the mother rights.

Then they should not be getting abortions.

Supporters of abortion often try to make appeals to the well-being of the children that are already alive, but the truth is that no mother that really cared about any of her children would ever make the choice to terminate one for the well being of the others.

 

Dhave you ever had to make a choice based on the least harm option?

you would be better off looking at medical/scientifically based sources to get an idea of what foetal development is like at ten weeks.

what is your defintion of inconvenience?

you should read the report I linked to

the truth is that you have no idea of the reasons why people make the choices they do. If you did, you would know that people will make choices that you may not agree with, but through talking to them you can get to understand the reasons for their choices.