posted on December 6, 2000 09:28:18 PM
I hate this issue, I really do. I try to see the pro-choice side of the argument. I just can't understand the pro-choice. The argument of it's my body and my right to decide just never washed with me. Most everyone knows how pregnancy happens. If you choose to have sex you know the possiblility of getting pregnant. There are numerous forms of birth control readily available and cheap, if not cost free. Once a woman is pregnant, there is a life there, one hour, one day, one week it doesn't matter once you are pregnant there is life. If you take that life, it is murder. I can't legally or morally kill my son at 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, 20 years or any time during his life. How can it be legal to take his life in the womb?
I've heard the arguments: I'm not ready to be a mother, the child will not have a good childhood, there are too many unwanted children already. The life within the mother never gets a choice or a chance. To all women who say it is their body and their choice, you are right, it is your body but the child deserves a chance and a choice also.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:28:50 PM
i would think that even the most liberal feel that the partial-term abortion is one of the most gruesome things imaginable. does anyone know if these are done more with younger mothers? if so, could there be a correlation between the obvious age-related pressures to abort an unwanted but otherwise healthy fetus and the actual number performed? how many doctors acknowledge performing such procedures? p.s- kenny- be nice.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 6, 2000 09:32 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 09:29:35 PM
spazmodeus: You are right (to me anyway) on every count, but you know what? We won't be able to change it so why don't we work on changing the truly heinous laws like Partial Birth Abortion.
The HMO and Insurance arguement does not work, woman can get Birth Control Pills free in any state and almost any city. There is no excuse for not being protected. I was in an abortion clinic once, the only place I could get a procedure like I needed to have done. I must have spoke with 30 women that day. Not a one of them was feeling bad about what they were about to do, none used birth control either. 90% were college and high school students.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:56:42 PM
TTH, "I can't legally or morally kill my son at 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, 20 years or any time during his life"
Actually, that is not correct. If your son was actively threatening your life (and I'm not suggesting that this would occur), you could legally defend yourself, even to the point of ending the life of your son.
I'm also not suggesting that every abortion is performed because the life of the mother is threatened, and therefore the abortion is justified on the basis of 'self-defense'. That would be naive.
I would also not belittle or question the reasoning behind a woman's personal choice to have an abortion. I have no business, actually...no right, telling another woman what is the "right" choice for her. I am not in her mind, her body, her soul, her life. And I am grateful that the opportunity for such intrusion into such a personal choice was removed from the legal landscape 27 years ago.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:10:31 PMThe HMO and Insurance arguement does not work, woman can get Birth Control Pills free in any state and almost any city.
With any free health-care services, there are income factors. Not everyone qualifies. There are insurance companies who won't cover the pill, let alone Norplant or Depo.
There is nothing pleasant about abortion, and to suggest women have them, nonchalantly, as if getting a flu shot, is naive.
Again, this should be left between a woman and her doctor. Why do people have difficulty with that?
posted on December 6, 2000 10:11:32 PM
Self defense, now there is one argument for abortion I've never seen. As to the rights of the mother, I guess they outweigh the rights of the child.
"I would also not belittle or question the reasoning behind a woman's personal choice to have an abortion. I have no business, actually...no right, telling another woman what is the "right" choice for her. I am not in her mind, her body, her soul, her life. And I am grateful that the opportunity for such intrusion into such a personal choice was removed from the legal landscape 27 years ago."
The mother has a choice, the child does not.
[ edited by TTH on Dec 6, 2000 10:14 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 10:13:05 PM
To say that a fetus may be actively threatening the life of the mother is to impart individuality to the fetus.
If an individual, are rights attached?
A line from the movie "Dirty Dancing" (of all places) goes:
"this is MY dancespace, that is YOUR dancespace. You don't enter mine and I don't enter yours" (WTE)
If a fetus is a life, an individual, without the curious defining periods of life currently used to establish the point at which abortion is no longer permissable under the law, then how can one individual be given a right to end the life of another?
posted on December 6, 2000 10:18:54 PM
If you cannot afford the $20 a month for birth control (which ANYONE can get it free in my state, regardless of income) or a couple of bucks for a box of condoms you should not be having sex. I am hardly naive. If you are not smart enough to have sex in a safe manner you should have "Too Stupid to Breed" tatooed on your forehead. Get real, things happen, mistakes happen. But to kill a baby because you were too irresponsible to use birth control? I am not talking about babies who are grossly deformed, those pregnancies that result from rape or incest, or when the mother's life is in danger, that is a whole different subject.
People have difficulty with that because that is YOUR opinion, not mine and not everyone elses out there. People take no responsibility for their actions anymore. The best excuse in the world that everyone can use "Its not MY fault."
[ edited by snowydays on Dec 6, 2000 10:21 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 10:23:27 PM
Does anyone recall the incident about a year ago when a 12 year old girl from Michigan, I think, was impregnated by her older brother? I believe it was the adults legal wrangling for several months that caused her to have to request the partial-birth abortion. I can't help but feel pity for all involved in that one, and cannot really whip up enough outrage to brand her a murderer.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:26:41 PM
I can understand people being against abortion, especially late term abortion but can anyone tell me why someone would be against the "morning after" pill, RU486?
posted on December 6, 2000 10:32:01 PM
If we are depending on people who are not smart enough to make the right choices then I guess it is no loss. Everyone makes mistakes, I certainly have made my share as has everyone else I know, but we should be smart enough to not repeat the past, most people are not. Abortion is too easy, whu don't more people think of adoption? Let me tell you why, because it is "too hard" on them knowing they have a baby "out there". I guess it is easier to kill it. People no longer have basic morals and there has been a general breakdown of society. People just don't CARE anymore, and I find that very upsetting.
Adding: Rawbunzel, I am all for that pill. The same thing can be done with birth control pills though, doctor's have been doing it for years.
[ edited by snowydays on Dec 6, 2000 10:33 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 10:39:43 PM
Rawbunzel, I believe that RU-486, like IUDs, injections or implants of certain chemicals (Depo-provera, Norplant, etc.), and even the conventional "pill" are not true contraceptives, but are actually abortifacients. That is, conception takes place or can take place, but implantation is prevented through one or another mechanism, triggering a very early "abortion."
posted on December 6, 2000 10:40:29 PMBut to kill a baby because you were too irresponsible to use birth control?
And women who use birth control *never* get pregnant? What about them...do they fall into your criteria for when it is OK, by you, to abort? And women who are careless and get pregnant, they should be "taught a lesson" by being forced to carry to term? I bet that'll teach 'em, huh?
Please.
With abortion you alway's get to see hypocrisy at its very finest. The same one's screaming for a ban on abortion are the same one's who cheered on welfare reform, which heavily gutted programs that were beneficial to women and children. Yep, they love embryos and fetii, but actual living, breathing, needy children, they detest and spit upon. These are the same hypocrites who scream like banshees at any mention of government intrusion, *except* for when it comes to telling women what to do with their bodies. Why is that?
Get used to it. Abortion has been around for centuries, and isn't going anywhere. Gone are the days where YOU get to decide what happen's to a woman's body.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:49:00 PMSnowydays, "I am not talking about babies who are grossly deformed, those pregnancies that result from rape or incest, or when the mother's life is in danger, that is a whole different subject."
Seriously, I don't understand that...if abortion is "wrong," if it is murder, then how do the circumstances of conception (i.e., rape or incest) or the potential detriment to the health of the mother (i.e. "life in danger" ) or the potential for serious disability of the child (i.e. "grossly deformed" ) change abortion to a contemplatably acceptable act?
If the argument is that "the child has no choice" (of life or death), (and therefore putting the choice solely in the hands of the mother is wrong), do those who are opposed to abortion except under certain circumstances (such as rape, incest, gross deformity, and endangered mother) believe that the child (if able to form such a concious life/death choice) would say, "Oh well, hell no! I don't want to live...I'm a child of rape!"
I've made my opinion (pro-choice, of the primary person who is able to make such a choice) clear. But I admit--I'm curious about the thought process that makes circumstantial abortion acceptable while advocating generally that abortion is tatamount to murder.
edited for facking parenthetical smilies
[ edited by hellcat on Dec 6, 2000 10:58 PM ]
edited again because I misaddressed my remarks...my apologies
[ edited by hellcat on Dec 6, 2000 11:00 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 10:49:28 PMGone are the days where YOU get to decide what happen's to a woman's body.
That is just it...I couldn't care LESS what a woman does with HER body. I care what she does with a baby fetus' body. Just because the fetus can't express 'Please don't kill me'...doesn't mean it's ok to do it.
Now that killing babies has become so matter of fact...a generation has been raised for instant gratification and no remorse.
So what is next? Why euthaniasia(sp?) of course. If a person becomes less than perfect, handicapped, old, useless we'll simply abort them!
posted on December 6, 2000 10:51:47 PM
Sorry, but I am fertile, had both of my children while I was on birth control. And yes, kick them off welfare, make them get a job, have some pride in yourself instead of having 10 kids with 10 different fathers. Work at McDonald's if you have to to take care of your children. If you can't then the state should feed your children for you. You are making an awful lot of generalities there. I donate toys and food to children's programs all of the time, and if I were able I would take in Foster Children. I was not able to have more children and would dearly love to have more of them. Didn't I already say abortion was here to stay? You must have missed that one.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:54:31 PM
In a very nearby city here having babies is big business. More mouths, more welfare money. But the kids aren't fed with the money.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:59:31 PM
Pareau, I still don't understand how anyone can be against a morning after type pill. After all a conception may or may not have occured [more likely not] and even if it has it would be so very early that there would be no more than a dividing cell.Not unlike a cancer cell. Certainly not a fetus,not a baby.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:05:39 PM
krs: I am not a right-to-lifer, would never stand at abortion clinics and protest, nor would I bother a woman who went in to have one. I have gotten off the subject also. Abortion IS here to stay, like it or not. I doubt there is much of a middle ground, people are either strongly for it, or strongly against it. I think since we have to have it, women could at least have one done in the first 3 months, or use RU486. It is a shame there are so many unnecessary
abortions.
"In a very nearby city here having babies is big business. More mouths, more welfare money. But the kids aren't fed with the money." KRS: Sad but true, that is why I say that we should make sure the children are fed, welfare does nothing but create dependence.
Thought I would take a stab at answering your question. I believe abortion is wrong, but I also believe it should be the choice of the woman or sadly the girl in the case of Rape/Incest (which is rape) or the life of the mother.
The life of the mother is fairly easy to explain. There is one life going to be lost no matter what you do so that decision should be left up to the woman. No saving them both in this case.
In the case of rape. My basic belief is in choice. I don't think anyone should be forced into anything. In the case of rape there was no choice on the part of the woman. No choice to use birth control. No choice to not have sex. No choices at all.
I don't know that I think abortion would be the correct decision in this case but I don't think it would be a wrong one either. A horrible thing to have to go through and a gut wrenching decision to have to make.
Nice to see you in any case
Always a pleasure no matter what the topic
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on December 6, 2000 11:35:43 PM
Apparently there is no middle ground.
Some random thoughts:
How about a 3 strikes and you're out policy? Or should it be 1? Can we not apply it to all humans who fail to provide for their children? A man who begets child after child he can't/won't care for should deserve sterilization the same as any woman. Also, any woman who has abortion after abortion does not seem to meet the basic criteria for mothering an innocent, do you agree?
Do we all have the right to procreate? In past times, mentally defective people underwent sterilization irregardless of their level of functionality. Farther back, imperfect members of the society were put out of the group to live or die on their own, "As God wills." Today, all life MUST be preserved, modern nutrition and medical care demands it...suicide is still illegal in most states and considered evidence of incompetence.
Today we even try to predict the future. Some people protest a woman in California who offers $500 cash to women drug addicts who agree to sterilization, so fewer crack babies will be born. "They might be temporarily incapacitated! What if they turn their lives around and regret this youthful decision!" What, indeed!
Another example is a child molestor who begged to have his testicles removed. Others want Depo-Provera shots to fight their own desires, yet they are denied so no one can cry "cruel and unusual" punishment!
Yes, babies are big business. If I wanted to make a living having babies, I would contact rich and childless couples from the classified ads, who offer BIG money if you will only help them fulfill their dream of a newborn. (Why settle for older or imperfect children? Dr. Laura says those are for the gays and lesbian couples to adopt.) The HECK with welfare!
Sorry for rambling so much, but there is so much to decide!
