I consider myself pro choice...

[AbAbber2k]

I consider myself as having a fairly moderate political and moral viewpoint, though I'm aware I lean to the left. As such, I've always supported a woman's right to chose to abort a pregnancy. This, however, comes under the stipulations that the pregnancy be terminated as early as possible, or under the condition that the mother's life is in danger.

Editted for Hypothetical Context... thanks Aisengard

Hypothetically speaking: You are a young woman who comes from a long line of women who have incredible difficulty bringing children through birth. This is not a case of simple infertility/inability to conceive, you are a woman who has conceived MANY more children than she was birthed, and those lost are often not due to simple subclinical miscarriage. Knowing that more than half of your conceived children will die before they are born, you go on over a 10+ year period to eventually give birth to 4 children, losing 6, 8, possibly even more in the process, many of which are difficult and traumatic experiences for you.

Now...

Call me a hypocrit all you want, but this seems incredibly wrong to me. Knowing that more than half of your conceived children will die in the process, but going and and trying to have 4 or more regardless seems incredibly unethical to me. I'm sure the hardcore ProChoicers will stick to the "her body, her choice" line, and the ProLifers will say something like "God wants you to bear children, but it was by his design that some of them died etc etc..." If I was in her position, and REALLY wanted a child, I might try for 1... maybe 2... but after that, why go through the continuing loss? Why not accept that maybe you just weren't meant to/aren't fit to.

I guess my question is. How do people on either end of the spectrum feel about this in relation to abortion? As I said, I'm ProChoice, but for some reason I just wouldn't be able to justify THIS to myself (knowing that more than half of my unbirthed children would die, some not til after 5 or 6mo). For me at least, it brings up something of an ethical paradox which has forced me to question my stance on Choice vs Life.

Please take note: I do NOT advocate legislation to strip women of their right to give birth due to genetic/misc factors, nor am I opposed to a woman's right to abortion as I have stated previously.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
I consider myself as having a fairly moderate political and moral viewpoint, though I'm aware I lean to the left. As such, I've always supported a woman's right to chose to abort a pregnancy. This, however, comes under the stipulations that the pregnancy be terminated as early as possible, or under the condition that the mother's life is in danger.

Recently, a woman in one of my classes wrote about her difficulty in conceiving a child. One of her parents came from a long line of highly fertile mothers, and the other from a line of mothers who've always had extreme difficulty conceiving... guess which side she took after. My classmate goes on to write that it took her half a year to conceive her first child, which was then lost only a month or two before she was due. After about a year later she finally conceived and birthed a child. All in all she had something like 4 or 5 children... but lost significantly more than she delivered.

Call me a hypocrit all you want, but this seems incredibly wrong to me. Knowing that more than half of your conceived children will die in the process, but going and and trying to have 4 or more regardless seems incredibly unethical to me. I'm sure the hardcore ProChoicers will stick to the "her body, her choice" line, and the ProLifers will say something like "God wants you to bear children, but it was by his design that some of them died etc etc..." If I was in her position, and REALLY wanted a child, I might try for 1... maybe 2... but after that, why go through the continuing loss? Why not accept that maybe you just weren't meant to/aren't fit to.

I guess my question is. How do people on either end of the spectrum feel about this in relation to abortion? As I said, I'm ProChoice, but for some reason I just wouldn't be able to justify THIS to myself (knowing that more than half of my unbirthed children would die, some not til after 5 or 6mo). For me at least, it brings up something of an ethical paradox which has forced me to question my stance on Choice vs Life.

1. If you're pro-choice, and you think this is a moral dilemma over this, then you're not pro-choice.
2. If you're human, and you think this is a moral dilemma, then you need some psychiatric help.

If you've had a liver transplant, and it failed... then you had another one, and it failed too - maybe you should stop then... why go through the pain, God obviously wants you to die.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Meuge
1. If you're pro-choice, and you think this is a moral dilemma over this, then you're not pro-choice.
2. If you're human, and you think this is a moral dilemma, then you need some psychiatric help.

If you've had a liver transplant, and it failed... then you had another one, and it failed too - maybe you should stop then... why go through the pain, God obviously wants you to die.

:roll:

I'll think about responding when you can do something other than post fallacious arguments.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Meuge
1. If you're pro-choice, and you think this is a moral dilemma over this, then you're not pro-choice.
2. If you're human, and you think this is a moral dilemma, then you need some psychiatric help.

If you've had a liver transplant, and it failed... then you had another one, and it failed too - maybe you should stop then... why go through the pain, God obviously wants you to die.

:roll:

I'll think about responding when you can do something other than post fallacious arguments.

I just don't see the paradox. The woman wants to have children. Let her do whatever. Who the ****** do you think you are to decide that she can't have any, because of whatever medical issues she may be having?

Spontaneous abortions are there for a reason - they usually indicate that something is wrong with the fetus... usually something so major that it essentially self-destructs.

So I think that what YOU posted is disgusting, where you essentially accuse this woman of being a murderer, because of her body's physiology. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Foo, I feel dirty after reading this, so I am going to take a shower.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I just don't see the paradox. The woman wants to have children. Let her do whatever. Who the ****** do you think you are to decide that she can't have any, because of whatever medical issues she may be having?

Spontaneous abortions are there for a reason - they usually indicate that something is wrong with the fetus... usually something so major that it essentially self-destructs.

So I think that what YOU posted is disgusting, where you essentially accuse this woman of being a murderer, because of her body's physiology. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Foo, I feel dirty after reading this, so I am going to take a shower.

I should have known that some extremist would make this personal... but I was hoping the FIRST reply wouldn't start it. Whatever.

The problem isn't that there's something wrong with the fetus, it's that there's something wrong with her UTERUS which makes it inhospitable and UNSUITABLE FOR CHILD BEARING more than FIFTY PERCENT of the time. If more than half of your unborn children die by the 6th month that is your body telling you that you shouldn't be having children. At least that is how I see it.

Now try and stay on topic. Instead of attempting to pass moral judgement on me, why don't you just behave and give me your fvcking opinion on the MATTER AT HAND. I do NOT consider this the same as abortion, HENCE my moral dilema. If you think it's the same, then fvcking state that. Say "I'm ProChoice and I have no problem with it, here's why." Don't be a bitch about it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
I consider myself as having a fairly moderate political and moral viewpoint, though I'm aware I lean to the left. As such, I've always supported a woman's right to chose to abort a pregnancy. This, however, comes under the stipulations that the pregnancy be terminated as early as possible, or under the condition that the mother's life is in danger.

Recently, a woman in one of my classes wrote about her difficulty in conceiving a child. One of her parents came from a long line of highly fertile mothers, and the other from a line of mothers who've always had extreme difficulty conceiving... guess which side she took after. My classmate goes on to write that it took her half a year to conceive her first child, which was then lost only a month or two before she was due. After about a year later she finally conceived and birthed a child. All in all she had something like 4 or 5 children... but lost significantly more than she delivered.

Call me a hypocrit all you want, but this seems incredibly wrong to me. Knowing that more than half of your conceived children will die in the process, but going and and trying to have 4 or more regardless seems incredibly unethical to me. I'm sure the hardcore ProChoicers will stick to the "her body, her choice" line, and the ProLifers will say something like "God wants you to bear children, but it was by his design that some of them died etc etc..." If I was in her position, and REALLY wanted a child, I might try for 1... maybe 2... but after that, why go through the continuing loss? Why not accept that maybe you just weren't meant to/aren't fit to.

I guess my question is. How do people on either end of the spectrum feel about this in relation to abortion? As I said, I'm ProChoice, but for some reason I just wouldn't be able to justify THIS to myself (knowing that more than half of my unbirthed children would die, some not til after 5 or 6mo). For me at least, it brings up something of an ethical paradox which has forced me to question my stance on Choice vs Life.

Topic Title: I consider myself pro choice...
Topic Summary: ...but I found this sad and almost disgusting.

Save The Cells, Save The Cells!!! :roll:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
The problem isn't that there's something wrong with the fetus, it's that there's something wrong with her UTERUS which makes it inhospitable and UNSUITABLE FOR CHILD BEARING more than FIFTY PERCENT of the time.

Really? Two questions then:
1. Where did you get your MD, and specialized in OB/GYN?
2. When did you examine this woman, and where is the proof of this statement?

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
If more than half of your unborn children die by the 6th month that is your body telling you that you shouldn't be having children. At least that is how I see it.

Boy, you are not just stupid, you're also arrogant, judgemental, and stubborn.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Fact: There is no guarantee when she gets pregnant that the baby is not going to live to term. (Obviously she can deliver to term and has done so)

Fact: Every pregnancy carries a risk of losing the child.

So the real question you are struggling with is, where do you draw the line in regards to the risk to the fetus? 50%? 25%? 10%? And that could loosely be called "playing God".

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
The problem isn't that there's something wrong with the fetus, it's that there's something wrong with her UTERUS which makes it inhospitable and UNSUITABLE FOR CHILD BEARING more than FIFTY PERCENT of the time.

Really? Two questions then:
1. Where did you get your MD, and specialized in OB/GYN?
2. When did you examine this woman, and where is the proof of this statement?

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
If more than half of your unborn children die by the 6th month that is your body telling you that you shouldn't be having children. At least that is how I see it.

Boy, you are not just stupid, you're also arrogant, judgemental, and stubborn.

So you're saying there's no way a woman with a family history of miscarriage, not to mention personal loss of more than half of her unborn children, could POSSIBLY be genetically unfit to be a mother? :roll:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
The problem isn't that there's something wrong with the fetus, it's that there's something wrong with her UTERUS which makes it inhospitable and UNSUITABLE FOR CHILD BEARING more than FIFTY PERCENT of the time.

Really? Two questions then:
1. Where did you get your MD, and specialized in OB/GYN?
2. When did you examine this woman, and where is the proof of this statement?

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
If more than half of your unborn children die by the 6th month that is your body telling you that you shouldn't be having children. At least that is how I see it.

Boy, you are not just stupid, you're also arrogant, judgemental, and stubborn.

So you're saying there's no way a woman with a family history of miscarriage, not to mention personal loss of more than half of her unborn children, could POSSIBLY be genetically unfit to be a mother? :roll:

I am saying that the very fact that you're utlizing the word "unfit" in this context, makes any discussions with you irrelevant.

P.S. Rate of miscarriages when you factor in subclinical pregnancy is >50% for the general population.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
The problem isn't that there's something wrong with the fetus, it's that there's something wrong with her UTERUS which makes it inhospitable and UNSUITABLE FOR CHILD BEARING more than FIFTY PERCENT of the time.

Really? Two questions then:
1. Where did you get your MD, and specialized in OB/GYN?
2. When did you examine this woman, and where is the proof of this statement?

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
If more than half of your unborn children die by the 6th month that is your body telling you that you shouldn't be having children. At least that is how I see it.

Boy, you are not just stupid, you're also arrogant, judgemental, and stubborn.

So you're saying there's no way a woman with a family history of miscarriage, not to mention personal loss of more than half of her unborn children, could POSSIBLY be genetically unfit to be a mother? :roll:

Men that speak this crap are IMO unfit to have their dicks. :|

It should mandated they be surgically removed.

 

[sandorski]

Umm, what? I don't see the dilemna for either side in this. It's not like she decided to abort late in the pregnancy for some odd reason repeatedly. If she wants a child it's her right to have one whether she has to try 1 or a dozen times.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

So you're saying there's no way a woman with a family history of miscarriage, not to mention personal loss of more than half of her unborn children, could POSSIBLY be genetically unfit to be a mother? :roll:

See my post above.

You can't make decisions/judgements like this for/about other people. And you certainly don't make them based on a possibility that something might go wrong.

 

[Aisengard]

AbAbber2k, you post an interesting dilemma. If your body is 'unfit' for children, should you have the right to have children?

I would expect pro-choice people to support her right, and anti-choice people to legislate her, based on the fact that pro-choice philosophy is "her body, her choice" and anti-choice is "baby's body, government's choice".

This is a bit different though, because if the baby is perfectly healthy, and the problem is with the mother, what do you do? I say let the mother try and have her children. It is a horrible thing to force a person not to concieve just because your own moral views consider every zygote a living breathing human being.

If I was in her position, and REALLY wanted a child, I might try for 1... maybe 2... but after that, why go through the continuing loss? Why not accept that maybe you just weren't meant to/aren't fit to.

I guess my question is. How do people on either end of the spectrum feel about this in relation to abortion? As I said, I'm ProChoice, but for some reason I just wouldn't be able to justify THIS to myself (knowing that more than half of my unbirthed children would die, some not til after 5 or 6mo). For me at least, it brings up something of an ethical paradox which has forced me to question my stance on Choice vs Life.

I am one of those people who considers abortion a right, but would never do it if it were my choice. This is also a thing where yeah, I would stop after 2 children and how many miscarriages, if only because I wouldn't want to go through all that heartbreak. But I would NEVER EVER try to force my views on someone else, especially my own (speculative) wife. I would tell my wife my feelings and expect her to consider them, of course, but the final decision would be, and should be, hers.

 

[AbAbber2k]

I never said I would boycott this woman's right to bear children, I believe I stated that I couldn't justify it to myself. That's why it's considered a fvcking opinion, and why I asked what other people thought about it.

"P.S. Rate of miscarriages when you factor in subclinical pregnancy is >50% for the general population. "

General population meaning the all countries? Just the United States? Metropolitan areas? Be more specific. Obviously if the rate is THAT high then this women is extremely misinformed of her "condition" which has given me a skewed perception on the what "norm" actually is.

Again, my intention was to state that I could not justify having children if I were in her shoes, and to ask what other people thought about this issue. That is, continually attempting to have children even when [some significant value] are lost in the process. For me, this woman's rate of loss is significant. That doesn't mean I assume it is to all people... HENCE MY FVCKING QUESTION.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
I never said I would boycott this woman's right to bear children, I believe I stated that I couldn't justify it to myself. That's why it's considered a fvcking opinion, and why I asked what other people thought about it.

"P.S. Rate of miscarriages when you factor in subclinical pregnancy is >50% for the general population. "

General population meaning the all countries? Just the United States? Metropolitan areas? Be more specific. Obviously if the rate is THAT high then this women is extremely misinformed of her "condition" which has given me a skewed perception on the what "norm" actually is.

Again, my intention was to state that I could not justify having children if I were in her shoes, and to ask what other people thought about this issue. That is, continually attempting to have children even when [some significant value] are lost in the process. For me, this woman's rate of loss is significant. That doesn't mean I assume it is to all people... HENCE MY FVCKING QUESTION.

General population meaning the U.S.

Rate of clinical pregnancy ending in miscarriage is about 20%, and when you factor in subclinical, it rises to >50%, because most spontaneous abortions occur within the first 3 weeks of pregnancy... and usually are unknown to the woman, save for a delayed period, and more intense bleeding than usual.

P.S. And while you certainly do have a skewed version of the "norm", I think you have much more apparent problems with the argument than that... not to mention some issues with reasoning.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
AbAbber2k, you post an interesting dilemma. If your body is 'unfit' for children, should you have the right to have children?

I would expect pro-choice people to support her right, and anti-choice people to legislate her, based on the fact that pro-choice philosophy is "her body, her choice" and anti-choice is "baby's body, government's choice".

This is a bit different though, because if the baby is perfectly healthy, and the problem is with the mother, what do you do? I say let the mother try and have her children. It is a horrible thing to force a person not to concieve just because your own moral views consider every zygote a living breathing human being.

If I was in her position, and REALLY wanted a child, I might try for 1... maybe 2... but after that, why go through the continuing loss? Why not accept that maybe you just weren't meant to/aren't fit to.

I guess my question is. How do people on either end of the spectrum feel about this in relation to abortion? As I said, I'm ProChoice, but for some reason I just wouldn't be able to justify THIS to myself (knowing that more than half of my unbirthed children would die, some not til after 5 or 6mo). For me at least, it brings up something of an ethical paradox which has forced me to question my stance on Choice vs Life.

I am one of those people who considers abortion a right, but would never do it if it were my choice. This is also a thing where yeah, I would stop after 2 children and how many miscarriages, if only because I wouldn't want to go through all that heartbreak. But I would NEVER EVER try to force my views on someone else, especially my own (speculative) wife. I would tell my wife my feelings and expect her to consider them, of course, but the final decision would be, and should be, hers.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for not jumping to conclusions, and simply responding to my question. Perhaps I worded my initial post poorly... which means you're the first one to "decipher the code" and not jump down my throat simply for stating my opinion and asking for that of others.

I agree, I would NEVER attempt to force a woman not have children, this includes direct influence to those I know, or attempting to use legislation to strip them of their RIGHT. As I said before though, I could not justify continuing to "roll the dice" myself. Also, while I support the right to abortion, I would be hard pressed to go through with it myself were I in such a position.

 

[Aisengard]

I think, AbAbber, why people are getting so pissed, is that you posted that you knew this woman had something wrong with her, something you cannot know, and therefore cannot judge her on. People are getting pissed that you are judging her based on a situation you know absolutely nothing about.

You should have posted hypothetically.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I think, AbAbber, why people are getting so pissed, is that you posted that you knew this woman had something wrong with her, something you cannot know, and therefore cannot judge her on. People are getting pissed that you are judging her based on a situation you know absolutely nothing about.

You should have posted hypothetically.

Bullcrap

Men have no business deciding what women can and cannot do with their bodies real or hypothetically.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I think, AbAbber, why people are getting so pissed, is that you posted that you knew this woman had something wrong with her, something you cannot know, and therefore cannot judge her on. People are getting pissed that you are judging her based on a situation you know absolutely nothing about.

You should have posted hypothetically.

Bullcrap

Men have no business deciding what women can and cannot do with their bodies real or hypothetically.

I wasn't talking to you. I'm saying he should have posted his question hypothetically. He even said he doesn't want to legislate women, or anyone based on this.

 

[Corn]

If this supposed female was able to birth 4 or 5 normal children, I think your opinion that she wasn't "meant to/aren't fit to" have children is obvisouly baseless and without merit. 6 months to conceive also is nothing. It took my wife and I 4 years to conceive our son who is now 5 months old and pretty darn healthy so far, 95th percentiles across the board--probably because he inherited my appetite........

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I think, AbAbber, why people are getting so pissed, is that you posted that you knew this woman had something wrong with her, something you cannot know, and therefore cannot judge her on. People are getting pissed that you are judging her based on a situation you know absolutely nothing about.

You should have posted hypothetically.

I guess I can understand that. But it still stands that in this case there is a family history of incidence which was part of the basis for my feelings. If my post was poorly worded such that people assumed I was trying to pass judgement on this woman, or insinuate that she should be revoked of her rights, then I sincerely apologize as that was NOT my intention. If you go back and read my first post, you might notice that when speaking on this issue I refer to it under the context that the event is my own, and never once do I say "she shouldn't" or any variation there of.

Plus... people have a tendancy to lose it when presented with such scenarios.

 

[Future Shock]

AbAbber2k,
You do not, cannot, and never will understand the emotional IMPERATIVE for many women to actually have a child. To MANY women, if they don't have a child then they consider their lives an abject failure, regardless of whatever else they do on this world. I am currently dating a woman, who at 40 is facing that same dilemma. It tortures her terribly that she has not concieved, and she is truely despondent over it. After three goes with sperm donors (pre-dating our relationship), she has since been told that at her age it's IVF or nothing...and it costs a hell of a lot each attempt. Yet she will still probably do it...for despite being successful in every other aspect of her life, she still considers her life meaningless...

Future Shock