Women who hate the fetus – Where's your outrage over neonatal spending?!

Radical pro-abortion choicers have insisted that the fetus has the brain of an animal, and as such is not a person, neither is the fetus due any of the respect and dignity of a human being.

So tell me, where is your outrage over all the money being spent on neonatal care? After all, according to your perspective, is this not all just a huge waste of money? It's just a meaningless piece of tissue after all. The woman can just try for another pregnancy, no big loss.

And where is your outrage over men who get sentenced for murder when they assault a woman and cause – either intentionally or unintentionally – her pregnancy to be aborted ? Is this not an injustice and grossly excessive punishment?

You claim it's not a baby, so why only push this claim when the woman is getting an abortion??

Huge ammounts of taxpayer money are being "wasted" on saving worthless fetuses. Where is your outrage, pro-choicers?

Can a pregnant woman smoke and drink all the alcohol she wants if she is planning on getting an abortion anyway? Why not utilize human fetuses for medical testing? Women who wanted to get abortions could be recruited and paid to postpone their abortions by one month. Experimental drugs could be injected into the fetus to see if there are any ill-effects. Heart attacks or liver damage could be induced into the fetus to test experimental treatments, just like researchers now do with animal specimens.




No, fact is you only care when it gets in the way of you having an abortion. You will believe anything to try to convince yourself and others that abortion is perfectly okay.
The funny thing is, when you try to trivialize the life of the fetus, you run into all sorts of other inconsistencies that are not so easy to explain away...

 

I'll leave you to wallow in outrage, your ridiculous hyperbole and total lack of facts.......

 

Because unlike the conservative lifers we are actually interested in women's rights, their right to abort and their right to achieve the best neonatal care possible if they plan to carry to term. Most of us believe in quality of life and anything to give that potential person the advantage to a healthier life the better. We have no issue with her choosing to achieve this. It is still her body, she should receive the best medical care possible to assure she carries a healthy pregnancy to term if she so chooses.

Perhaps you are not paying close enough attention then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Most pro-choicers DO oppose laws that would otherwise give the fetus personhood, because we realize that laws like this are a slippery slope that may conflict with a woman's right to choose abortion for herself.

A baby is just a vague and emotional term people use for bonding purposes. It has no place in a medical debate where you need to be specific with what you are discussing. If a woman wants to refer to her fetus as her baby I could seriously care less. If my mom wants to continue referring to my 16 year old brother as her "baby" I could also care less about that too. And every time a pop singer sings, "Baaabay, baaabay, ooooo~ baaabay~!" I will still not care.

Read the response to the top comment.

Sure. She can even do this if she is planning to carry to term, although I would not recommend it.

I dunno, why not? Stem cell research is helping to make great strides in medicine.

Ok.

Unsupported opinion.

Like what?

 

Funny how it's all about WOMEN, and their supposed "rights". They have the right to get taxpayer money for expensive neonatal care IF THE WOMAN WANTS, but the woman also has the right to have the fetus aborted if she wants?? (a taxpayer funded abortion, by the way, but that is another issue)
So the woman has the right to whatever she wants, to make the fetus live or die, depending on how she feels about it?

Why are we spending so much money to try to save some fetuses with serious health problems, while other perfectly healthy fetuses are being aborted in droves?
Obviously it is not because you feel the fetus has any inherent value of its own.

It's all just about whatever the woman wants, isn't it? Any time, any reason.

We have already gone over this. It's not just her body. In fact, abortion targets the fetus, not the woman's body.

And that is the issue here, "if she so chooses". The unborn baby only matters if it is wanted by the woman. And therein lies the inconsistency of your position. Why does the fetus's life only matter if the woman wants it ?!

 

Why is that so funny? I find it funny that you seem to think men can become pregnant.

I take it you don't really care about women achieving the highest and healthiest neonatal care possible so that they can bring healthy children into the world? Because I do and many choicers do.

Duh. Why is this so baffling a concept to you? You've been here in this forum for how long now and you still are amazed that women can choose to end a pregnancy if they want to?

It is and the Hyde Amendment covers which kinds of abortions they will cover, basically that measly 1% you guys hate so much, you know, the rapes and the health and life of the mother.

YES.

Who is we? Many women who give birth have health insurance and their health insurance covers this cost if necessary.

Do you not want to save premies? Because from what I understand you want to induce women into labor at 20 weeks if she's thinking of abortion. You would have to have some extensive neonatal care to assure the premie survives if born that early.

I only value the woman's choice. If that involves her placing value over her fetus because she wants it and wants to bring it into this world I fully support her choice and right to do so.

I have said this many times before, the fetus only has as much value as the woman gives it.

Sounds like you're finally catching on.

Actually it does target her body. If she takes an abortifacient it will cause her to experience uterine cramping and other symptoms similar to a heavy period, if she goes to have it surgically performed the doctor must dilate her cervix, he must put his instruments into her uterus and scrape the placenta away from the uterus.

Bingo!

Because the fetus only has as much value as the woman places on it.

Quite frankly society is not involved in women's pregnancy to begin with. Her whole pregnancy is a matter between her, her physician and whoever else she wants to involve in it. If the fetus is important to her then it will go on living and she will give birth to it, so in essence the fetus has some value, to HER.

 

And what about the value the man places on it ?!?

Your argument that the woman has the right to whatever procedure she wants because it's her body, does not apply here. The woman's body has nothing to do with the value of the fetus.

You're forgetting someone...

You are evading the question. Anyone can care about the fetus: the mother, the father, some pro-lifer trying to block the woman from entering an abortion clinic. You have not presented any reason why the fetus becomes valuable only when the mother cares about it.


Let me ask you this: What should the punishment be for someone who slips a hefty dose of estrogen into a woman's drink without her knowledge? Suppose it has no effect, other than causing her period to come two weeks early. Maybe it should be punished. But it would be relatively trivial.

Now suppose there was an abortion pill that could cause abortion at 12 weeks. Suppose it was perfectly safe, no risk to the woman's health, but it would cause her fetus to be aborted. Now, how would that be any different from just giving slipping an estrogen pill to a woman who was not pregnant?

You say the fetus has no inherent value, other than what the mother gives it. In other words, you would have us believe the fetus has no value, and it's all just women's emotions playing tricks on them. Or perhaps you believe that a woman somehow has the capability to confer innate rights onto an inanimate object other than herself? I would really like to hear your logical argument for this one.

 

for the same reason foresters apply fertilizers to tree seedlings. they aint worth much at the time, but most of them will be when they become trees

 

So why not cut the funding to neo-natal care? After all, saving a fetus is very expensive. It would be much easier if the woman just had another one.

We can't be spending all this taxpayer money just because some women have silly emotions over something that does not really matter.

 

because they wouldn't know if it was defective until it had reached at least age 3 and by that time its too late to trade it in on a new one.

- - - Updated - - -

because they wouldn't know if it was defective until it had reached at least age 3 and by that time its too late to trade it in on a new one.

 

What about in the majority of the cases where the medical condition can easily be corrected later (and more cheaply) if it does not kill the fetus first ?
Many conditions (like the umbilical cord wrapped around the fetus's neck) are not the type that could lead to future defects if the baby survives.

 

if the condition is not threatening in any way, why risk another pregnancy and the chances of downs syndrome and all sorts of other complications that could happen. if it aint broke, don't fix it. besides, many medical conditions may be able to be physically corrected later but who knows what damage might be doe to brain development? no one does

- - - Updated - - -

if the condition is not threatening in any way, why risk another pregnancy and the chances of downs syndrome and all sorts of other complications that could happen. if it aint broke, don't fix it. besides, many medical conditions may be able to be physically corrected later but who knows what damage might be doe to brain development? no one does

 

like I said, why risk another pregnancy?

 

What about gender selection? If the woman really wants a girl, why not just keep aborting until she gets what she wants?

 

because each abortion damages the woman and each pregnancy involves risk. but in china, they do that. in many cases they just wait till the baby is born to get rid of it

 

The point I was trying to make is that pro-choicers are trying to trivialize the life of the fetus, but the ridiculousness of their argument becomes obviously apparent when you try to use it on pregnant women who are NOT getting abortions.

 

Yes it does because her body is the only thing sustaining it's life and her health and life are at being put at risk to bring the fetus into the world.

Who? If you mean the father the woman is not obligated to even tell him about her pregnancy. That's why I specifically said, "And whoever else she wants to involve in it."

Because only she can carry it to term! What part of that are you not comprehending?

If they are caught it would be drug facilitated assault.

Same thing, drug facilitated assault if they are caught.

The fetus is technically a part of her body until it leaves her womb. She is providing nutrients and complete life support for it. She owns her fetus and may do what she wants with it, whether she values it or not is up to her. She is not magically conferring any legal rights to it really except the right to continue to use her body with her permission and she is fully within her own legal rights to do so as it is her body. She may allow whatever she wants into it or remove whatever she wants from it. Society still does not recognize the fetus as a person and will not confer personhood until birth.

 

And you're doing a terrible job of it aren't you? We don't have to trivialize anything, if the woman values her fetus then society will respect that and allow her to give birth if she chooses to.

It is the lifers who must continue to trivialize pregnancy and childbirth as a mere inconvenient bowel movement.

 

What I am just unable to understand is why we as a society spend so much money saving little unborn babies with severe health problems and defects, when perfectly normal healthy ones are being aborted right and left. Seems like our society is willing to make any sacrifice, all so the mother can have her 'choice'. Just more woman worship.

 

Typical pro-lifer, once it's born it's just sucking up all the money and is a waste of space to you. Pft...

 

So it's okay to kill your child just because I do not want to have to be the one to pay for him?

You got yourself pregnant... now it's time to incubate.
I, on the other hand, made no such action that would obligate me towards taking care of the child.

 

It's ok to have an abortion for this reason yes.

Stupid loaded questions. Try to not to be so vague in what you're referencing.

Or have an abortion.

And yet you want to force all women to give birth against their wills. Odd.

 

The woman has already had her baby. The question is now what is she going to do with it? Give birth, or ABORT ?

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock.

And pro-lifers want to force women to give birth, they don't want women to be allowed to have any other options.

 

Is there another option that doesn't come at the expense of a human fetus? If there is, I'd like to hear about it.

 

Nope. None at all. =)