Question for 'pro-lifers'

Post Reply New Topic

No it isn't, that's the risk entailed. It isn't punitive, it's a protection of life. To kill should only be done in self defense, anything else is murder. Abortion on demand out of convenience or burden is murder.

Protection of the baby's life is not as important as the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

The risk of child bearing is not entailed as there are ways to easily abort.

As already explained, terminating an unwanted pregnancy is ultimately self-defence; you're protecting yourself from this risks the unwanted parasite within your body poses to you. It has the potential for severe medical complications and unless one freely chooses to accept these risk no one can be forced to carry them.

Every minute of every day, somewhere in the world, most often in a developing nation, a woman dies from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Since you seem to be either unfamiliar or unconcerned with the risks:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss or increased facial/body hair
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
changes to breasts
increased foot size
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates

Those are just the common ones that all pregnancies carry.

Occasional complications and side effects:

complications of episiotomy
spousal/partner abuse
hyperemesis gravidarum
temporary and permanent injury to back
severe scarring requiring later surgery
(especially after additional pregnancies)
dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
gestational diabetes
placenta previa
anemia (which can be life-threatening)
thrombocytopenic purpura
severe cramping
embolism (blood clots)
medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
hormonal imbalance
ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
hemorrhage and
numerous other complications of delivery
refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
severe post-partum depression and psychosis
research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

peripartum cardiomyopathy
cardiopulmonary arrest
magnesium toxicity
severe hypoxemia/acidosis
massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
(like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
malignant arrhythmia
circulatory collapse
placental abruption
obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:

future infertility
permanent disability
death.

How dare a woman defend herself against the risks to her health that an unwanted pregnancy carries. How selfish she is to not endure the risks. Who cares that she's a person? She's a slave to her fetus now.

Most pregnancies carry no significant risk, the right to life trumps everything. Murder is wrong.

There isn't much point arguing it, it comes down whether or not you believe it is a human life. If you don't then your views make sense, I find the people that do consider it a life and find it personally immoral yet still support it to be the most distasteful.

So the rape restriction policy would be improved if the only requirement was self-reporting. It's not really that bad of a thing if people lie to get an abortion. It's much better than a rape victim being forced to carry the child due to a lack of a conviction. Then if there is little or no penalty for being caught lying (how can you prove someone lied anyway?) it's even better. This would mean that abortion is really legal in practice even when it's technically illegal.

For a lot of people it comes down to if you see it as a human life 'personhood'.

You're still pretending the side-effects of pregnancy don't happen. You can keep doing it, but you're wrong.

androbot01 and I are both arguing that's not even the real issue. The real issue is 'does the woman own her body and therefore have the right to deny any entity, including a person, access to it under the conditions pregnancy requires'. This is probably why you and I (and androbot01) are less debating each other so much as arguing two different ideologies. Our points are almost irrelevant to each other's core argument.

I will agree on one thing, I don't understand the 'pro-life, but pro-choice' position very well. Other than it seems to reflect the trait a lot of people have of preferring to split the difference on an issue and then claiming they have the best position of all.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 05 Nov 2014, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The only issue with that is that it would create an incentive to falsely claim rape.

Additionally anti-choicers would likely insist at the very least a police report be filed (compounding the problems caused by false reports, not to mention wasting police resources and making them less likely to take rape claims seriously). And then they'd start trying to insist that a conviction be sought. And then you're back to the nightmare.

The fact still remains that most pregnancies carry no significant risk to the life of the mother, the maternal mortality rate in this country is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. There are side effects and risks involved but the same is true for abortion. One brings life into this world and the other destroys it.

Human life is human life, I dislike this notion of personhood because that implies that some humans aren't people and you could extend that logic to other groups. The saying is 'your rights end where mine begin' so a woman's right to kill her child because "its her body" does not seem like valid justification. It ceases being just her body, she created a new life which is entitled to the same protections as all humans are given. Murder is always wrong, to kill should only be done in self defense. Do you agree? I'm sorry if I have to keep repeating myself and I get your point of view if you don't consider the unborn to be human life, I just don't agree with it.

The fact is that all pregnancies cause health side-effects, just ask any woman who's had a baby. She chooses to make that sacrifice. It doesn't have to be 'imminent risk of death' in order to count as an undue burden. Abortion carries lower risks than carrying to term until fairly late in the pregnancy.

You're right, one's rights end where another's begin. The fetus' rights end where the mother's begin. It has no right to demand the woman provide it with access to her body, especially given the burdens this access places upon her. Her choice to have sex doesn't entitle it to make these demands upon her, the fact that conception occurred doesn't oblige her to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

Forcing her to endure labour (even ignoring the significant other burdens leading up to this point) against her will is making an undue demand upon her. Effectively it's insisting women be forced to endure labour no matter the measures they took to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. She has every right to try to limit the possibility of becoming pregnant and she has every right to ensure a pregnancy is terminated should those measures fail.

I disagree, in cases of self defense the imminent risk of death or at least the reasonable belief in such is the primary determining factor in whether or not it is justified. Given that the % of serious complications, I don't think it is is reasonable belief on its own. Doctors should make that decision if it needs to happen, I don't believe this is relevant in the vast vast majority of abortions. You can bring up outliers and extreme circumstances but I just don't find them relevant in the majority of cases. This child hasn't taken any aggressive action against its mother, it's there because of the decision the mother made. Killing your child is not a right, it's not just your body anymore even if they're dependent on you for survival. Dependency does not stop at birth. I believe you should be responsible for the life you create, I think it is right that a man is obligated to support his child and I think that responsibilities applies to mothers as well. Do you think men should be obligated to support children that they've fathered?

I was conceived out of wedlock, my parents got married largely because of this and had 3 more children. They made their life together because they felt obligated to support their children to the best of their abilities. These are the values I come from and I am thankful for them because I would not exist or at least would of had a much harder life otherwise. I have a family member that was a product of rape, I didn't know this obviously growing up but they weren't any less of a family member or any less loved by his mom or his dad. I think it says a lot of about the kind of people they are and that's the type of person I want to be.

The very nature of it's existence imposes upon her. It's an unwanted parasite occupying her body. If she wants it out she's entitled to that.

You keep talking about 'decision', but ignoring the fact that consent to sexual activity isn't consent to become and remain pregnant. Someone using birth control is quite clearly indicating they do no consent to such an outcome. Yes, sex carries a risk of pregnancy, and just like other behaviours with risk people take measures to limit exposure to risk. If I'm skateboarding, this carries the risk of injury, but if I'm injured I'm entitled to take measures to recover from this injury. If I am hurt society doesn't say 'oh, you deserved it, now deal with it', they say 'oh, you need medical attention'. If one has sex they should wear protective equipment, but don't deserve to be left without recourse because the equipment failed. They need medical attention, either support for their pregnancy they are choosing to continue or support for terminating the pregnancy they are not choosing to continue.



I'm split on the idea of child support, but generally in favour of it. I fail to see how this has to do with bodily autonomy. Men paying child support aren't obliged to carry a parasite that makes them nauseous and constipated, suffer from bloating and yeast infections, abdominal cramps and headaches. Child support doesn't require you to have a baby pushed through your genitals or to gain significant weight. Child support doesn't f**k with your hormones and emotions, it doesn't cause morning sickness or sore, swollen breasts. Child support doesn't leech minerals from your bones, increase your risk of Alzheimer's or cause permanent physical changes. Child support doesn't tear your genitals. This is all part and parcel of carrying a baby. To compare paying child support to forced pregnancy is deeply flawed.

I'm not sure you're aware of the burdens of carrying a child, both mental and physical. You might want to look into this. It is quite an ordeal.


True, one does not have a right to kill one's child. But ... my body is always just my body. If I have to terminate a pregnancy for my own health, I have the right to do that. It is irrelevant if the baby is not trying to cause me harm. If it's presence is harmful, I have the right to take measures to protect myself.

The first sentence is clearly a straw man, indeed it contradicts what I said about respecting persons. The vast, vast, vast majority of humans are persons, including those who need 24 hour care. The unborn are not. Arguably newborns are not. Some people in the advanced stages of degenerative illness might not be.

You might describe my views as bigoted and irrational. They might be bigoted, but I'd argue not. They're certainly not irrational, because I have provided a rational argument.

Clumps of cells are alive by definition, but few people believe that all clumps of cells must be conserved and if they did they'd be fighting an uphill battle. The cells in your cheeks are dying all the time, they're undoubtedly alive, should you stop chewing or be accused of murder?

You care more about human life than pigs or apes? To some extent that is fair enough, the vast majority of humans are more intelligent than most apes or pigs. It becomes bigoted when you value all humans - specifically embryos - ahead of adult chimpanzees and pigs.

Again, in the past some people chose race as a dividing line. Slave owners thought that black people were less human and less worthy of life. They had no rational reason for thinking this, they just preferred people who were more like them.

Again, this is no more true of my position than it is of your position or the positions of genocidal maniacs. We all feel some life should be protected more than others. Hitler chose race as a dividing line, you choose species, we choose intelligence (and we set a very low threshold which would include practically all humans.

Which is less dangerous: using common descent to decide who has a right to life, or saying "anyone who is aware of their existence has a right to life, no questions asked"?

I was born in wedlock. My parents split up when I was four (in retrospect I believe it was because of the difficulties of dealing with an autistic child.) My father never gave my mother any money to support me during my childhood and I rarely saw him. As I have never experienced anything that has made my life worth living, I would have been fine with them aborting me.

My point in relating this is that both stories are irrelevant. These are two stories amid ... I don't know how many people are on the planet now, but it must be an inconceivable number when you try to think of them all individually.

It is the mother's choice alone if she brings another child into the multitudes.

let's pretend that a system exists to use a healthy person's body to support a sick person until the latter gets better. The healthy person would be attached to the sick person, and all of the sick person's bodily functions (eating, defecation, urination, breathing, blood circulation, etc) would become the burden of the healthy person's body. A healthy person could consciously volunteer to take on the burden of caring for the sick person with their body, thus saving a life.

Jacoby, do you think that the healthy person should have the right to change his mind if, after 2 months, he discovers that his family is breaking up? Or hat the burden of eating twice as much in order to support the sick person is harming his own children's ability to eat? That the burden of supporting the sick person, even after he or she is detached, would further impact his children negatively? That having a sick person attached is negatively impacting his ability to work and provide for his family, or to go to school and build a better life for his family?

Quite a few replies so sorry if miss any points you guys want me to answer. I understand that pregnancy as a lot of effects on one's health but as far as dependency goes an infant is even more dependent than an unborn one, there are not many people that consider it okay to kill babies but they do definitely exist. I find the idea quit abhorrent. I shared what I shared because I just wanted you guys to understand where I am coming from, obviously it might not be very relevant or interesting to you but hopefully it will clear up how you see my viewpoint a bit. Do you think I believe what I do because I hate women or think that I am a religious zealot?

@LKL, I don't accept your analogy since that healthy person didn't literally create that sick one. I believe you are obligated to take care of your own, you child will grow and hopefully one day take care you. It doesn't always work out there way but I believe in obligation and responsibility towards one's family at least to the bare minimum of preserving life. I am not perfect person, no one is but doesn't mean you have to fall into the trap of moral relativism. To me, abortion is murder and it's the murder of the most vulnerable and voiceless persons there can be. I can't in good conscious support it even tho I can see why it might the easy or I guess maybe even logical decision based on certain factors, it doesn't matter if one might be better off when you're dealing with a life here.

I believe sanctity of life of human beings, I distinguish us over that of animals but doesn't I put no value on them either. There is a difference and people take precedence but I certainly don't want to see animals be senselessly killed and tortured. The more cognitive the animal the more you can see yourself in it, I watched the documentary 'Blackfish' which really changed my opinion on the subject since you can see that these animals feel and perceive in ways very similarly to people. I don't know if I'd say I necessarily believe in all that entails in the concept of animal rights since they're not analogous with people but I do recognize their are certain boundaries that should be respected, I feel I have a reverence for all living things.

Last edited by Jacoby on 06 Nov 2014, 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.