Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: I Had an Abortion. Itís None of Your Business Why.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 6:56 AM
    Posts
    10,642
    Post Thanks / Like

    I Had an Abortion. Itís None of Your Business Why.

    Research says...……. the outstanding after-emotion is one of relief...………...

    read:https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...?cd-origin=rss
    ever forget that the right should always be ours, no matter the reason for our choices

    I am not my abortion. Everything I am, however, is because of that abortion. (Photo: John Flores/Flickr/cc)
    Last week, I attended a local Day of Action rally to support abortion rights. Along with pleas for donations and participation on the ground, the organizers asked those who had benefited from having an abortion to share their stories. The organizers theorized that by speaking about our experiences, we could personalize the act, humanize it. That perhaps, like sexuality or gender, we should define ourselves by our abortions.

    My social media feeds are filled with the stories of brave souls offering their traumas in sacrifice to the justification for abortion. For many, there is a profound emotional element in the decision to abort. They confess every reason for their decision as if begging for forgiveness. Rape victims. Incest victims. Abuse victims. Unviable fetuses. Potentially fatal complications for either mother or child.

    My heart aches for them, truly. I believe their motivations are noble. But their stories shift the focus from how this argument should really be framed.

    What about those of us who aren’t victims? What about those who simply happened to find ourselves pregnant? Abortion doesn’t have to be motivated by trauma.
    I had an abortion. I’m not going to tell you how old I was or what my circumstances were at the time. I won’t mention whether birth control was used or whether it wasn’t. I’m not going to tell you whether the guy is or is not still a part of my life, whether it was a one-night stand or a long-term relationship. I’m not going to discuss the health of either party involved in the consensual or nonconsensual sex, nor the viability of the embryo. None of those details are pertinent. I got pregnant. I didn’t want to be pregnant. I had a medical procedure to remedy the situation. Full stop.

    I am not my abortion. Everything I am, however, is because of that abortion.

    I won’t tell you whether I’ve gone on to marry and have kids years or decades later. Whether I have regrets or whether I’ve never given it a second thought. The details are for me and me alone. They are not relevant. Knowing them should have absolutely no impact on the validity of my choice. My choice. Mine.
    I am an adult of sound mind and body. My government has decreed me capable of voting, of operating motor vehicles, of purchasing firearms, of paying taxes. Why is this irrational line drawn at body autonomy?
    A rhetorical question, obviously. Not all body autonomy is created equal.

    Continued at link
    Last edited by Lady Marva; Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 at 9:20 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 9:59 PM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    Commie Dreams? Figures.
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Commie Dreams? Figures.
    Funny how you discount the content based on where it was published; I'm almost certain I've seen you deride other people for that very thing.

    She's absolutely correct:

    I have the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Unless I give express permission, no one can remove an organ from my body ó even to save the life of another person. Even after death, no one can perform research upon or remove parts of my body without prior consent.
    Emphasis mine.

    We can't take a vote to compel you to donate a kidney, nor even enlist the government to force everyone to donate blood to save a leukemia patient, even though donating blood takes nothing more from the donor than about an hour of time.

    Why stop with compelling women to carry an existing pregnancy to term? Surely if a woman can become pregnant, we should be able to compel her to carry a baby for some poor woman who can't. How dare she contribute to the scarcity of adoptable babies?
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    Funny how you discount the content based on where it was published; I'm almost certain I've seen you deride other people for that very thing.

    She's absolutely correct:



    Emphasis mine.

    We can't take a vote to compel you to donate a kidney, nor even enlist the government to force everyone to donate blood to save a leukemia patient, even though donating blood takes nothing more from the donor than about an hour of time.

    Why stop with compelling women to carry an existing pregnancy to term? Surely if a woman can become pregnant, we should be able to compel her to carry a baby for some poor woman who can't. How dare she contribute to the scarcity of adoptable babies?
    Competing imperatives are hard to resolve.

    The fun thing is how the conservative answer is found in coercion of the State and the liberal answer is the sovereign of the individual.
    Reporters ask me what I feel China should do about Tibet. Who cares what I think China should do? I'm a fucking actor!

    ~ Brad Pitt

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Friday, September 13th, 2019 @ 4:42 PM
    Posts
    10,397
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    We can't take a vote to compel you to donate a kidney, nor even enlist the government to force everyone to donate blood to save a leukemia patient, even though donating blood takes nothing more from the donor than about an hour of time.

    Why stop with compelling women to carry an existing pregnancy to term?
    Because the "existing pregnancy" is another human being.



    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    Surely if a woman can become pregnant, we should be able to compel her to carry a baby for some poor woman who can't. How dare she contribute to the scarcity of adoptable babies?
    "What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."

    link

    Time will tell.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Friday, September 13th, 2019 @ 4:42 PM
    Posts
    10,397
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    Competing imperatives are hard to resolve.

    The fun thing is how the conservative answer is found in coercion of the State and the liberal answer is the sovereign of the individual.
    The disgusting this is how the liberal is "pro-life" and yet champions for every Abortion Barbie that comes along. Hey I get it, your views are complicated... but don't pretend that you are actually against abortions when you vote for them every single time.

    At least Celeste is honest. You? Not so much.
    "What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."

    link

    Time will tell.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:14 PM
    Posts
    9,095
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    She's absolutely correct:

    I have the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Unless I give express permission, no one can remove an organ from my body — even to save the life of another person. Even after death, no one can perform research upon or remove parts of my body without prior consent.
    Emphasis mine.

    We can't take a vote to compel you to donate a kidney, nor even enlist the government to force everyone to donate blood to save a leukemia patient, even though donating blood takes nothing more from the donor than about an hour of time.
    Something rings false here, quite beyond the appalling moral implications.

    Perhaps it comes down to equating a baby to an organ or a pint of blood.

    So this is true—"no one can remove an organ from my body—even to save the life of another person"—and I hope it stays so. But it's not true that you have no responsibility for anyone else but you. Apparently you can watch a stranger drown, laughing and live streaming the video of his death all the while, but you can't let your bed-ridden grandmother just starve to death behind a closed door. We make it hard for adults, including mothers, to "neglect" their children, much less starve the tots.

    Not that any of those things would ever, ever happen, right? Yes, I'm kidding, in a grotesque way. We have those laws maybe because your mother or your toddler is not a kidney or a pint of blood.

    We are morally conflicted over the point at which we assume responsibility for care of a child. For abortion absolutists it's obviously crucial that there is no such thing as a "baby" per se until it's outside the mother's body, and even then there's some debate. That this flies in the face of common language, understanding and considered opinion doesn't matter.

    If what's inside is ever allowed to be a "baby," rights ensue, and even more widely known than our Bill of Rights are the "inalienable rights" of our Declaration of Independence, the first of which is the "right to life," without which right the other two, "liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are moot.

    This is the moral foundation of our society, as is the principle, "all men are created equal," and while the architects of slavery, Jim Crow and abortion will point out that the Declaration is not our legal charter, I'll say that like Lincoln's famous house divided metaphor, our free society will not long tolerate shameless contravention of these moral principles.

    That's my rant against abortion absolutism, which the opening rant of this thread supports.

    But I'm not a pro-life absolutist, either. I know it's a human life from the moment of conception, but it's not endowed with full constitutional rights at that instant. It literally grows into them, and we are debating that process.

    These are hard and thorny problems, and not helped by "You're not the boss of me!" tantrums by the abortion absolutists, such as writer Elly Lonon here.

    Not for nothing, I think the move by the Democratic Party to abandon the Hyde Amendment threatens to end an uneasy truce, by which abortion opponents were not forced to subsidize a policy they believe is morally abhorrent. The Democrats are in that way forcing the issue, but I doubt it will come down as I think they want, with the courts ordering abortion opponents to shut up and live with it. And pay for it.
    Last edited by Newman; Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 at 10:16 PM.
    ďThe interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasnít originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.Ē óSaikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff, explaining the Green New Deal for the hard of hearing.

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  8. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  9. #8
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:21 PM
    Posts
    13,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Something rings false here, quite beyond the appalling moral implications.

    Perhaps it comes down to equating a baby to an organ or a pint of blood.
    *record scratch noise*

    No need to read any further. You are already off the rails. Celeste's analogy does not equate a baby to an organ or a pint of blood. She analogizes the fetus with the person whose life would be saved by an organ donation or a pint of blood. One human making a physical sacrifice, and one human life preserved (in both the pregnancy case and the tissue donor case). And she makes the valid point that we do not legally require the physical sacrifice in the tissue donor case.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heartís desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  10. Thanks Celeste Chalfonte thanked for this post
  11. #9
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:14 PM
    Posts
    9,095
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    *record scratch noise*

    No need to read any further. You are already off the rails. Celeste's analogy does not equate a baby to an organ or a pint of blood. She analogizes the fetus with the person whose life would be saved by an organ donation or a pint of blood. One human making a physical sacrifice, and one human life preserved (in both the pregnancy case and the tissue donor case). And she makes the valid point that we do not legally require the physical sacrifice in the tissue donor case.
    How do you read with your eyes closed, Norm?

    Neither Celeste nor Elly Lonon, the author of the opening piece, are analogizing the kidney recipient with anything. The concern is solely with the authority of the donor to say what will or won't be done to her body. "Even after death," Lonon points out.

    Her point is that the donor's authority is absolute. The plight of a dying patient is irrelevant, as are the needs of a research team or a first year anatomy lab. Celeste is agreeing. But Ms Lonon is saying that authority is exactly the same as her authority over a fetus.

    I am saying that is not so because the comparison is critically flawed.

    Or, at minimum, should not be so. The reason it's not so is because an emerging person is not a valid counterpart to any other part of one's body taken or donated for any purpose. Neither blood not organs naturally grow into a new human endowed with attendant inalienable rights, and protected by our constitutional rights as well.

    Ms Lonon's argument would be substantially weakened even if she did mean as you imply to analogize the fetus to an organ recipient, because even that comparison accords some moral value to the fetus/patientóthat's why the example gives the reader pause. She'd be saying such moral value is absolutely overruled by the rights of the donor/mother, but any contrary moral value contrary necessarily compromises the legitimacy of that authority.

    I need to make sure it's clear I am not saying this is Celeste's view. I don't believe she is an abortion absolutist, which is my own term for Ms Lonon and her soul mates.

    Without exception that I can think of at the moment, every other area of lawóthat is, our agreement to coerce behavioróallowance is made for conflicts in moral values. "Mitigating circumstances," "my nose begins," "reasonable man," are but three familiar phrases acknowledging that fact of life.

    Except in abortion. Here the absolutists are promoting a reductio ad absurdum version of moral absolutism that is exactly as flawed, and for the same reasons, as the notorious and laughable "zero tolerance" policies that were briefly in fashion a decade ago.

    Sorry you scratched up some vinyl over such a misapprehension. I hope it was some big-hair band from the '80s.
    ďThe interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasnít originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.Ē óSaikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff, explaining the Green New Deal for the hard of hearing.

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  12. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  13. #10
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:13 PM
    Posts
    11,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are legal limits to what you can do to your own body. If you have 100% legal control, then suicide should be a right.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. Itís the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •