Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Post Reply New Topic

Just recently I saw someone post a link on here where women posted admitting how they hate being a mother and wish they never had their kids.

I had an abortion and never regretted it and am not ashamed of it. My only regret is that I didn't have an abortion the first time I was pregnant. I don't like kids, never wanted any (I gave the one I had up for adoption), and never wanted to go through a pregnancy.

http://www.secret-confessions.com/hate/hate-being-a-mom

In the future all children will be adopted into the commune.

Hatched. All children should be hatched.

agreed

Thirded.
Or they could be born thumb-sized and then carried in a pouch.

The religious right will oppose hatcheries because it will promote sexual promiscuity. However hatcheries will solve the abortion problem.

Let's see where the hypocrisy lies here...

(typical pro-choice logic)

Case 1:

"Do you think unborn babies should be given rights?"

> No.

"Do you think woman should be allowed to smoke/take other drugs whilst pregnant?"

> No.

"So you think unborn babies SHOULD have rights, but not regarding whether it should have the chance to live or not, just regarding marginal changes in their quality of life?"

> ...

Case 2

> Yes abortion is a horrific and dire process, but women should be allowed freedom of choice.

"Do you think it's acceptable for woman to leave their house naked?"

>No.

"Do you think that public nudity is bad enough to contend with such a, in your own words, "horrific and dire process"?"

> ...

Case 3

> Men are entitled to their opinions, but they shouldn't be allowed to effect woman's decisions.

(over to the Haven, whereas a female is threatening to kill herself...)

> DO NOT KILL YOURSELF! I have notified the police, but don't do anything untill they turn up.

Case 4

> Stopping people from having an abortion is like forcing people to donate body parts.

"Considering that we are taking away people's right to steal, does that mean we should now force everyone to donate to charity?"

> ...

Lastly here's a more general one to do with feminists at a whole:

(In area's whereas men and woman already had equal rights such as in the workplace and parenthood)

> Pushes the rights blatantly in womens' favour, paying women for their prolonged paternity leave while forcing men to ironically leave their children a home and work to look after them, and ignoring men's point of veiw when it comes to abortion or other issues of parental consent such as the recent case of the mother who could have been allowed to deny her son of cancer treatment dispite the farther's disapproval.

(In area's where society is blantently sexists towards woman i.e. the whole idealology that if a woman has or talks about sex a lot it's okay to call her a "slut" or "whore")

> Forms "the SlutWalk".

Last edited by robo37 on 21 Jan 2013, 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is not doing much to change my belief that the vast majority of anti-abortion sentiment has little to do with concern for fetus or children, but almost everything to do with a grudge against feminism and a fair bit of sexual frustration.

BTW, "Slutwalk" isn't hypocrisy. It's a middle finger.

You mean eggs, zygotes, and fetuses. As I mentioned I will not allow any instance of lexical warfare go unpunished. They are NOT "unborn babies".


If we go by most constitutions people are not "given" rights, but they get them at birth.



Yes. What should not be allowed is to give birth after harming a fetus with smoke and drugs. So, I think an abortion should happen shall this be detected.


I do believe it would be wrong to do it. But making it illegal to smoke while pregnant would be unenforceable and dumb (there is no person to protect)

So, your syllogism has failed.


As any other surgery. You are not opposed to appendectomy, I hope.


Far more than freedom of choice. Freedom to decide what happens in THEIR OWN FREAKING BODIES.


Sure, why not?





I wouldn't call the police. This is a BS extreme case anyways.

This is the most stupid attempt at an argument I have ever read. Congratulations.

Stealing is forbidden because of the social contract that state has created. It is a complete convenience that benefits everyone.

Stealing affects other people's right to property. Whereas abortion is the mother exercising her own right to decide what happens in her body.



Which areas? I have not heard of any country in the world in which there is no payment gap between genders. You seem to be talking of a mythical place in which equality has been completely achieved.




Ookay...
First of all, men don't give to birth. Women do. This is the reason why maternity exists in the first place.

Second of all, women lactate and men don't. So there is a need for a maternity leave.

Of course, since this is the real world we are talking about. Being pregnant increases the chances the women will be fired before getting any such maternity benefit.


You cannot have 50% of a pregnancy. It is completely impossible to give half decision power to a person regarding abortion. So we should give 100% to someone... Why not the one that actually risks:
- Losing her job.
- 9 months of vomit and farting.
- Dying.
Among other things?



Neither of the parents should be able to deny treatment for the children.

Once children are hatched in artificial wombs abortion will be obsolete.

Vexcalibur, if I may, that is the wrong hill to die on. (metaphorically speaking)

A fetus is a living organism, by any biological definition of that term. And it is human--it's typical presentation of 46 chromosomes is sufficient to meet that criterion. So if it's living and human, why not acknowledge that?

Instead, create your argument in a way that renders that fact irrelevant. Call it an unborn child, an unborn human or call it a bagel for all I care. Nomenclature does not change the fact that for the first 20 weeks of gestational age, this organism has a 0% likelihood of survival outside the uterus. So long as fetal viability is 0, the fetus does not have divergent interests from those of the woman who carries it.

I mean organisms capible of conscious judgement which occurs at the latest at the 16 when they understand how to move their body parts to perform desired actions.



If we lived a few centuries back you could argue that the slave trade is acceptable, as most constitutions denied slaves' rights.




Except you're suggesting authorities should try to detect smoking and drug taking with pregnant woman and somehow get them to take abortions. Didn't you say it should always be up to the woman to decide whether to have an abortion?



No, because it doesn't involve killing anything.



Yet you completely ignore the greatest type of freedom, freedom to live when it concerns the second body involved.



I see that kind of thing happen quite often in the Haven actually. I fully respect the person's involved fundamental rights, but as with abortion when there's the fate of a life involved there comes to a point where there's no other way to solve the issue other than limiting these rights.



"benefits everyone" - not the thief, who wants or needs the money. If your pro-choice view wasn't just limited to abortions you would allow them to steal, as long as the the victim can't defend him/herself.




My point being not all babies are born under a perfect relationship. Quite often they are raised by a single parent, and if that parent is a man a) getting to rights to look after the baby on his own and b) providing an income while looking after the baby is a whole lot harder.



You're forgetting this is the farther's potential child, to have an abortion denies him of a son/daughter.



Yes it was an dispute between the court and the woman for this case. The fathers opinions were completely disregarded.

Oh so they're organisms now? Rights for organisms!



If we go back a few centuries you would have been burned as a witch.







Darling you're sounding hysterical.



What the hell kind of freedom is that?



Now we have the ugly little Nazi fine print: 'We will tell you what to do with your body because...well just because.'





No, its the second most stupid.



Well in the real world they call that tough luck.

I have a hard time remembering that considering both times I was pregnant the father took off once they found out and wanted nothing to do with their potential offspring.

It's sad if the father wants the baby and can't have it but I still don't believe in forcing women to suffer through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth.

I will consider father's rights to have a child against the mother's wishes when the embryo can be safely harvested from the uterus and implanted into an artificial womb inside the father's gut.

Until then, if I ever get pregnant, I'm not having it. I wouldn't be in a long term relationship with a man who wanted children. The wishes of a casual fling don't matter. He doesn't even need to know and likely doesn't care. As for anyone else... it is not their business. It's a giant red herring, anyway. I'm convinced that most active anti-abortionists don't really care about embryos or "the sanctity of life."