Not just to make this movie bomb, but to try to stifle any conversation on the topic of abortion. If people really think about it, they’d have to be stupid or willfully blind to realize that a baby that can kick and move in the womb has to have nerve endings that register pain. Would we, as a nation, tolerate people advocating that we tear apart puppies and kittens limb from limb? And yet we allow abortions!
shareFirst; we as prolife advocates must accept that, many who oppose us honestly feel that animals have more rights than people.
as for myself, I see abortion as a "necessary evil" in society. For those here who actually SAW the movie, they should realize that the woman who is the main subject of the movie, worked in the "planned parenthood" industry for many years. She had 2 abortions of her own and had been lied to about what to expect. She in turn lied to clients as well.
I saw her as a hypocrite.
It was when the rules changed and they wanted to turn the clinic into an abortion factory and extend the length of time in which an abortion could be performed; was when she really wanted OUT.
Like you said, the later the term of pregnancy, the more of a life it becomes and is capable of feelings as well as viability.
I am NOT comfortable with that. IF a late term abortion is supposedly "needed" there should be a damn good compelling reason.
If and when you remove the sacred aspects of human life, it simply becomes "disposable" in peoples minds. Why people should regard animal life as something MORE "scared" than human, is in itself, INHUMAN.
"Like you said, the later the term of pregnancy, the more of a life it becomes...." Actually I didn't say that. A child growing inside a womb is always a life. Terminating that pregnancy is always killing that child.
If I have to start with the concept of late-term abortions being monstrous, I'll start there, because that's where most people can see the immorality of it. No child should have to get the death penalty for the actions of another. And in this day and age, very rarely does a child have to be aborted to save the life of the mother.
First; you DIDNT say a particular point of time as far as the term of pregnancy.
What you did mention was "they’d have to be stupid or willfully blind to realize that a baby that can kick and move in the womb has to have nerve endings that register pain".
This in itself would reference a particular stage of development.
I dont pretend to be an expert of what point a functioning nervous system is developed enough to feel pain etc.
I understand and respect your views that it is life after conception.
I defined abortion as a "necessary evil". Believe me, I wrestle with my ideas a lot. There is no "one size fits all" neat and tidy answer to what is necessary and when.
In cases or rape or incest I feel there is a right to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy and as soon as possible. I feel it holds particularly true if the victim is young, although the trauma of an abortion in this situation is also very scary as well.
What I particularly take issue with is something that is discussed in the movie. Abortion is a money making "industry" and this comes from an organization that is considered non profit. It removes incentives to find alternate solutions for the pregnant woman.
As for a woman's health vs giving birth.
This is also a complicated judgement call. While it is fairly rare that a woman's LIFE is in jeopardy, one must also factor in a persons mental health as well. Its one of the main reasons I feel as I do about rape and incest victims. However there may be other factors. This again is why I say, if you are going to abort, the sooner the better.
I dont think I like the name "planned parenthood". Its a place to go when the "planning" failed. If people PLANNED and acted accordingly, a lot of the problems would go away.
Some groups seem to rally against "birth control". I certainly dont. Better to not get pregnant until you are ready than to deal with the consequences later.
I hope this clarifies my position. I respect yours as well.
So many times people would suggest counseling if mental health is at risk. You make a good point, though, and I’d almost be with you except in a recent Miss America contest, one of the girls — bright and beautiful — was the product of rape. Her mission was to prove to people that every child deserves life.
It’s a difficult decision that I’m glad I never had to face. A friend of mine helps with an outreach to women who are “victims of abortion.” One doesn’t think of it that way, generally. I’ve known people who have had several abortions and think of it much like removing a hangnail. But for many others, it haunts them for the rest of their lives. Like suicide, it’s a final solution that one can’t undo.
Thank you for the discussion. You raised some good points.
I'm sorry you Americans are incapable of showing compassion in the same way to children out on the street with their families. Let me guess, they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right? but the sweet little fetuses must be ''saved''. The interest only evaporates as soon as its born.. then it's ''not my problem''.
shareThe proceeding remark comes from one who is incapable of showing any sort of compassion for "Americans" or U>S as she has referred to us in previous posts.
Also attacks on Christianity and heaven knows what or who else.
Now we must rely on kellycallie to do our thinking an speaking for all of us as we as Americans all apparently are lacking any sort of feelings or compassion whatsoever.
I dont know what country kellicallie is from but I wonder if it is one of the many countries that the US is the first one to come and help in a crisis? I wonder if she/he is one who would refuse help from one of the many Christian organizations who helps homeless, victims of natural disasters, crime and any number of disasters that might occur.
I wish i could say that I have compassion for hate filled people such as kellicallie, but sadly I am a flawed human being and I like to support those who at least act like a respectable human toward me and others.
YOU are not MY problem. You make your own problems.
Funny, we in Canada sent relief to New Orleans including divers and outreach workers when you did not. When has the U.S ever helped us? Never.
shareThere are many programs to help children, both governmental and run by churches. People who use that argument are simply ignorant of the facts.
shareSuppose you save some random person from drowning. That person happens to be homeless. You're then responsible for that person the rest of your life?
shareWould we, as a nation, tolerate people advocating that we tear apart puppies and kittens limb from limb?
The point being, though, that there would be universal outrage if we tore apart a viable cute little kitten or puppy. Unborn babies, on the other hand, don't get the kind of attention that social media would give unborn puppies and kittens. "Wobblies," kittens with a neurological disease that makes them unable to walk properly or be properly coordinated, can often get their own special Twitter and Facebook page. Neurologically damaged or retarded children are fair game to be murdered in the womb.
There is simply more value placed on puppies and kittens than on human life -- if that human life isn't "wanted." Aa wanted child is suddenly almost universally seen as a baby in the womb. Ultrasounds are shared and the blessed event is looked forward to as the parents have already named the baby yet to be born. Unwanted, and New York for example, wants to kill it up to the moment of birth.
Spaying while pregnant is done all the time.
"Wobblies" get euthanized eventually. They don't get aborted because: 1. it doesn't get diagnosed until they're born, 2. it destroys the entire litter. Aborting a baby that, under natural conditions, would not be able to survive on its own is a humane thing to do. We also live in a world where people, who normally wouldn't be able to have children, do have them due to in vitro, hormone therapy etc. Unfortunately, we don't live in the wild anymore, where the "neurologically damaged or retarded children" would be recycled as food for predators.
Just because today we can sustain the naturally unsustainable life, doesn't mean we should.
Maybe someday they’ll decide to euthanize heartless people. I get the feeling you'll only care if it's your life that's in danger.
shareNikola Tesla, one of the greatest minds in history, son of a priest, a fairly religious person himself, noted that, around the 22nd century, human kind will be forced to resort to eugenics, because its emotions will prevent them from doing what is natural, thus creating a weaker species. This may sound Hitlerian, but it is, nevertheless, true.
sharePeople worship Tesla. People worship Steve Jobs. People worship Obama. People worship Trump.
We need to get over that whole cult of personality worship thing.
And yes, that sounds Hitlerian because it is Hitlerian. It doesn’t have to be true. Life can have worth and dignity at any stage. And since I’m likely older than you (my generation doesn’t revere Tesla), unless you’re in the healthcare professions, I’ve probably watched more people die than you. Life is worthwhile.
Once we start deciding who’s going to be our next Charlie Gard, you may be shocked to find it’s you. We’ve already started to decide that some thoughts aren’t to be tolerated. Can re-education camps be far behind? And if those don’t work, well, we need to cleanse society from those who simply can’t learn, amirite?
You think it couldn’t happen? Back in the ‘70’s, even those who were advocating abortion never dreamed we’d be seeing lawmakers demanding abortion up to the moment of birth. Society has become the monsters we were promised they could never be, and there’s no putting the lid back on it.
Being a vet, I have not only seen death, but I have also taken life. And being in this profession, I have also learned that, in order to preserve life, not all life should be saved.
shareYou’re a vet and you say all “Wobblies” are euthanized eventually? A friend of mine has a “Wobbly,” and she has no plans to euthanize it. Unless you want to say that we all eventually make the decision to euthanize our pets when their lives become untenable. Then yes, we do. But we’re talking about people, here, not animals.
If we say that someone can decide to take the life of a human being because it doesn’t meet some standard, then we will have a society where one day a doctor may be standing over you saying, “We could spend months on therapy to get her back on her feet, or we could spend those resources on someone younger. Withhold food and water and put her on morphine.” Yes, it’s just a little Hitlerian. BTW, that’s not a good thing.
But does it happen? All the time. Should right and wrong enter into questions of life and death?
Before a vet saw my cat, she had to put down a dog whose owner had no idea that was coming when he brought his dog in that day. She asked my pardon for the tears she was wiping out of her eyes, and explained the story. I told her that personally, I thought everyone wanted a vet like her. Then again, you probably don’t act in front of your clients the way you’ve presented yourself here. You wouldn’t have much repeat business if you sounded like Lilith from Cheers.
Emotions are normal. No one said we should be cold and heartless. But keeping a suffering person alive because of our emotions is just idiotic. I was lucky enough my mother died before her cancer got her to the point when I'd wish I could ease her suffering. But, helping out in a hospice, I've seen plenty of those cases.
Our goal should be to preserve life, not A life.
People are animals. And due to scientific research, we live longer and there is more and more of us. So, if we want the people who come after us to be born healthy and live in a sustainable environment, we should be a bit colder.
What's "suffering"? Having Downs Syndrome? Being on the Autism scale? Having bipolar disease? Inheriting Alzheimer's? Just being old and frail, and the medical community -- as they often do -- bungles a case? I knew a woman who had a bungled case and was forced to spend a year between the hospital and a nursing home. When my husband and I came in to read Scripture to her one day, she said, "Oh, thank you! I was beginning to feel so down!" Mercy! A year in institutions and she was just beginning to feel down! I was there when she died. It never dawned on anyone to starve and dehydrate her -- or as Oregon is now fond of doing, simply kill her. Her family thanked me for visiting her every day. It was my pleasure! She uplifted our hearts.
I knew you'd go to the "People are animals" argument. Well, they're not vegetable or mineral, but if, as a vet, you can't see the difference between a human being and a cat, dog or hamster, I feel sorry for you.
Again, you're smug about this because you think people are going to gauge the quality of a human life the way that YOU want them to. Have a child they want to kill because the I.Q. misses by a point, they have a condition that is hereditary, or the thought police don't approve, and you might change your stony cold attitude toward human life.
There's no talking to you. You're frozen in your attitudes as you are frozen in your emotions. And heaven help the poor man who has to put down his beloved dog and hopes to get comfort from you. "It was time. You did the right thing. Some animals need to be put down. This was one of them. Excuse me. I have another patient."
I can absolutely see the difference between the humans and animals. They know how to co-exist.
Caring for the old is different than bringing a child to this world that you know is going to suffer. Do you think Charlie Gard's parents would have had him, had they known he'd be sick?
You have millions of people worldwide, who shouldn't be alive due to some genetic disorder, which would have killed them when they were children. But, due to modern medicine, they live. And have children. Who carry the same disorder. Now, I'm not for euthanizing them, of course, but I am for teaching those people that having children, in their case, is wrong. For them, for those children and for the society.
People are unaware. And you may say about me whatever you like, but what you are selling is more self-centered and selfish than anything I say.
A zygote can not ''kick''.
shareIt can grow. Please do not say something moronic like, “So can crystals.” We’re not talking about crystals. We’re talking about someone with their own separate DNA.
Society is getting to the European point where they start deciding whether another person’s quality of life is really worth sustaining. Of course, it’s someone else who gets to decide whether your life is worthwhile. We always assume it’s not going to become monstrous. They told us, back when abortion was just being hotly debated, that only a monster would use abortion as a means of birth control. Now we all know at least three monsters.
You may trust society to do the “right thing,” but I’ve lived a little longer. I know society has lost the sense of right and wrong.
Ah, a fetus/embryo is completely dependent on the mother's blood supply for survival. It is dependent on a woman's diet for survival. It depends on the mother breathing for its breath. The solution is to abolish sperm since that is the thing that creates this "life". Some right-wing/religious nutbars want to say an egg itself is conception. It is not. That egg is expelled every month by a woman in her period. That is not a pregnancy. It is a menstrual cycle. Read this tweet thread and tell me if this woman doesn't have the right to make MEDICAL DECISIONS OVER HER OWN BODY.
https://twitter.com/pinkrocktopus/status/1111847344415363073
And to further this, the mother's body considers a pregnancy an invasion to the body. That is why a miscarriage happens. Are you going to charge a woman with having a miscarriage?
My reply to your second paragraph, only a monster would force a woman back into a backstreet clinic to abort an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy....or force her to use a clothes hanger.....
Have none of you people heard of adoption? We’re hearing people advocate for abortion up to the moment of birth. Back in the day, we used to hear people say they couldn’t adopt out, because if they carried to term, they’d have to keep the baby, even if it wasn’t in the best interest of the child. Now they’re willing to carry the child until it’s viable — an age that gets younger all the time — and then kill it.
I’m all for a woman having control of her body, but that means something different to me than it does to you. There’s no absolute right to having sex. Mature people don’t have to use abortion as a means of birth control, because they either use contraceptives, or they don’t have sex until they’re ready to have children.
I know of no religious group that considers the egg itself to be “conception,” seeing one requires sperm to conceive. If you’re just going to rave, make strawman arguments, or create false dichotomies, I’m not addressing your “arguments.” It would be pointless to do so.
Have you heard of it's my body my choice? Statistics prove there are more children in the system than parents/couples to adopt them. Most parents want white newborns, not toddlers who will max out in the system by age 16.
Here's my solution to this whole argument, let's make laws that restrict what a man may or may not do with his penis, testicles, and scrotum. From here on end he must adhere to strict laws that require him to register his penis as a lethal weapon because face it, it's used to rape women. So from now until the end of the world men need to stop producing sperm since it's the spark that starts off the process.
News for you, contraceptives fail. There is no complete success rate for The Pill, condoms, IUD.
Well in response to your "strawman" comment, here's truth. Religious zealots consider the egg the beginning of conception. They also consider a period to be dirty and therefore a sign of a woman's sin. So until you address them and their crazy myths, you certainly don't have a grasp of the truth.
No need to rave, Christians do that pretty good all on their lonesome. Not to mention they believe in a mythical sky god and talk to themselves regularly. Here's the truth, I don't tell Christians where they can go to pray or talk to their sky god, nor do I picket their houses of worship, nor do I tell them they're not allowed to believe in their imaginary sky god. So here's the deal THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY AND TO BOMB CLINICS AND ASSASSINATE DOCTORS WHO PERFORM NEEDED HEALTHCARE SERVICES. There, that didn't hurt a bit now did it?
Have you heard of it's my body my choice?
--- ---- -- ---- --
It's your choice when it suits your terms. So, because contraceptives "fail", or have side-effects, then dont' bother since that would be too inconvenient and untimely.
And the man also has the choice to NOT wear a condom since he is not the one physically carrying the child, and gets to decide to "choose" when that fateful day comes. So, the woman gets the choice to dictate who uses the contraceptive, then has the choice to conceive, while very often burdening taxpayers (insurance rates increase) when she aborts and cannot afford to pay. Yes, people and THEIR choices, indeed.
They should reverse the policy back to the good old days where (according to Suzanne Somers' bio) you have to tell a doctor that you will kill yourself if you dont' have an abortion. All she had to do was say the words with no explanation or emotion. You're not as special as you think you are-- and you have no right.
MY BODY MY CHOICE FULL STOP!
A man does have the choice not to wear a condom, however, he stands a greater chance of no pregnancy by wearing one. You might find it astounding but I'm one of those women who believe that if a woman gets pregnant through trickery she and only she should pay for that child. I don't believe a man should be forced into paying child support if he does not want to. And that woman needs to own up to her own ish. She made that choice, she needs to stand by it. It's not a man's burden if she wants to be a single mother. The courts also need to stay out of it in terms of not enforcing men to do so. If it's proven she lied to get pregnant, sorry babe. The man is not a meal ticket.
Insurance pays for Viagra for erectile dysfunction. Imagine that, insurance companies pay for Viagra, penis pumps, and blow up dolls if that's what a guy needs to help his willy. Women on the other hand have to pay for their own birth control because right wing nuts won't allow it to be part of a comprehensive healthcare package that also includes....the aforementioned erectile aids. Women also must pay for their own abortions. Due to the religious right's comprehensive attack on women's reproductive rights. Yes, mmmh, people and their choices....indeed.
Well I'll also agree with you on the "not special part". I'm again one of those very few old school feminists that believe a woman has to make it on her own merit, not expect hand outs when it comes to jobs etc. She has to earn it just like men. However, Third Wave Feminism want exceptional status, not equal status.
So there's my stance. It's still MY BODY MY CHOICE and that is incontrovertible.
Well, I respect you for agreeing that women should be responsible with the things you mentioned.
shareIf women want to be equal to men they must share equal blame. That's why I do not and never will support that ridiculous cult of MeToo or TimesUp. If women have to form a cult in order to take out men who have made it on their own merit, then this is not equality they want. However, the one place men absolutely have no place in is a woman's right to choice. Her rights over her own body and body parts are hers and hers alone. The right to carry or terminate a pregnancy belongs to her full stop.
sharesee new topic
share[deleted]
Read this tweet thread and see if you can ignore or deny this woman's story.
https://twitter.com/pinkrocktopus/status/1111847344415363073
Is this a "human"?
https://www.advancedfertility.com/images/zygote.jpg
Nope. Not even close. It's a single celled organism that may not implant and be sloughed off in a miscarriage or period. Learn biology please. That picture is not kicking, or moving, it does not have nerve endings. In fact people are advocating for murdering wolf pups in the den and killing their mothers while nursing. They're called hunters. As for abortions, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. That difficult decision is between a woman and her healthcare provider. I'll stay out of your religion so please stay out of my body and my personal decisions.
Honestly, your types are obsessed with humonculuses. However, you balk at having your tax dollars put toward the various programs that support mothers/families after birth. I'm talking forumla, diapers, pre-school servies. All I hear from your types is "Protect the baby" however, nothing about after birth other than converting them.
The more progressed nations that aren't the United States provide those services for families. Including paid maternity leave for mothers for up to two years. Fathers for a year. France provides a holiday home for the family to bond for the first six months in order to make sure the baby is doing well. Australia and New Zealand also supports families with comprehensive healthcare. The only nation that balks at support for families is the United States. Why is that?
I just want to know why anti-abortion types tend to be pro-war and don't mind seeing brown foreigners blown up at their weddings "accidentally."
sharewhat are u talking about "anti-abortion types". abortion is fucked no way around it. lots of people dont agree with abortions and dont wanna kill brown foreigner at weddings for lulz. i believe it should be allowed only for the first trimester after the baby develops and can feel pain killing it is pure evil. yeah this world has an overpopulation problem and abortions help keep the number of undesirable babies down but its still fucked. even if u agree with abortion u gotta amid it totally fucked up
share