I'm sorry you've been through some truly horrible shit,
@Zephyn.
If you read what I wrote in this thread, I believe in the rape/incest exemption. Also (like
@TripSitterNZ) I don't think abortion should be illegal. I just think it should be regulated. The situation you described with painting I AM HAPPY on the wall in miscarriage blood, that would qualify. Killing your baby sheerly out of convenience would not qualify. People should - at the very least - need to seek the approval of multiple medical professionals. There is no sensible argument against this.
There is a process for euthanasia. There is a process for trans surgery. There should be a process for abortion. I'm not saying it shouldn't be accessible at all. I never said that.
Zephyn said:
You can't tell me that a week into a pregnancy that's a fully formed child.
No I can't. I said life begins at conception. I didn't say babies exist at conception. It would be pretty painful (and weird) if guys shot babies out of their dicks. I don't think anybody would ever fuck if this was the case. I'd certainly tone down the pornography I jerk off to, just in case the first thing my children see when they come into this world is an inter-racial BDSM gangbang.
Zephyn said:
But you said the left wants the "right to kill babies", in more applicable terms to countries that already have some semblance of women's rights, its more like "the left doesn't want the right to take away women's bodily autonomy to fit their narrow minded and religious conservative worldview"
Abortions aren't performed at conception.
Or is this what you meant when you said the right wants free speech. By all means, you have the right to guilt trip traumatized people.
Free speech is fundamental. People (in my opinion) have the right to say all sorts of offensive shit. The question of whether or not saying certain things is ethical is not the same question as to whether or not they it should be legal to do so. It is not the government's right to dictate speech, unless the speech is directly inciting violence.
I am of the persuasion that at a certain point, if the mother is not willing, the soul of the child does not die, but finds another host.
That's convenient.
Why is it right wing folks want the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, but don't give a fuck what the "baby" she's carrying will experience after birth, with no health insurance, homeless, or living in poverty?
The most anti-abortion person on this thread (
@JessFR) is pretty far left wing. But nobody - including her - is telling anyone what to do with their body.
As for health insurance, homelessness and poverty: there are many wealthy caring people that would be thrilled to adopt the child. So, I don't consider that to be a particularly valid argument. It only makes sense if the mother refuses to give the child up. This is selfish. They either want to kill it because they can not (read: will not) care for it... or they want to insist upon it having a terrible life rather than someone else caring for it?
The vast majority of people who are impoverished in the Western world can take steps to better themselves. It's hard - trust me, I know - but it's possible. Countless people throughout history have made extraordinary sacrifices for their children and accomplished great things motivated by the need to feed, house and otherwise sustain their offspring. If (for some reason) the parents are totally incapable of doing this, adoption is an option.
If there was more of a thorough process that people had to go through to get an abortion, perhaps more women would decide to put their children up for adoption... or go to rehab... or receive support payments, etc.
.