Abortion...

[Rani]

[quote name='Stuie' date='31 March 2010 - 06:53 AM' timestamp='1270047193' post='460994']

Close family friends gave birth to a little boy in October at 20 weeks old. Doctors didn't give the odds of him surviving above 20% because of medical and developmental issues. He passed away 2 weeks ago. Although the family was devastated, I have talked to the family and she doesn't regret her choice to have him. The costs were huge. Plus he had to stay in the hospital in Fort Worth at Cooks Children Hospital and would drive down to seem as much as she could 2 hour drive, because she has 2 little girls at home. So imagine the stress and the pain. She and her husband still think they made the right choice. To paraphrase what they said "Our ability to love Evan for the time we had him, ranks up there with any single most personal accomplishment any person has achieved."
[/quote]

I think this illustrates a really important point and I'm not certain if I can put it into words well. I think an individual persons capacity to love comes into play here as well. I had a discussion once with an older friend who was undergoing fertility to try to have a child. Because of her age, it was recommended that she have amniocentesis for Down's syndrome, etc. She decided not to have the amnio, because regardless of the outcome of the test she was going to have the child. It was part of her to accept a disabled child. To her it would have made no difference and the amnio served no purpose. And I certainly applaud and understand her view. However, what about the person who does not have that capacity? To bring a child into the world that you know you can't love and would indeed do more damage to through your own incapacity to love that child, how then do you make that decision? You know the child will not likely be adopted and have any chance at a happy life, are you instead acting in kindness? It gets even grayer if like me you believe all life is eternal, and that you are not ending a person, you are simply sidestepping this particular turn of the wheel and freeing the eternal person to go on to the next life or incarnation, or heaven or whatever you call it. I'm not certain it's not the more selfish thing to bring a child into the world you already know you can't love and support. Some would consider that child abuse, and a life of abuse cannot be [u]automatically[/u] deemed to be preferable to never knowing life at all.

A couple I know was a high-risk pregnancy. They did pre-natal testing and discovered the child had Cystic Fibrosis, and additional physical abnormalities that would require major surgeries to allow the child to survive at all. The best medical opinions foresaw a life of pain. They chose to terminate the pregnancy believing they were making the best choice. My people believe we choose our parents before birth and that in the case of the pregnancy being terminated, the spirit of the child comes back in the next pregnancy. It's not gone, it's only postponed. I don't know that I completely subscribe to that belief but it offered them enormous comfort. Interestingly enough she became pregnant again only two months later and they now have a beautiful healthy son that they love very much.

This is such a hard thing emotionally. So much so that I honestly believe it's a choice everyone has to make for themselves. I do believe that those who are so pro-life that abortion should never be possible under any circumstances, should be offering more options to those who might otherwise choose abortion. Many people demand a women not have an abortion but wouldn't adopt the child and raise it themselves. I don't see how someone can make the decision for someone if you're not willing to take on the responsibility yourself. As part of this I also believe fathers should have some say so. There have been a few instances where fathers successfully managed to block abortions by delaying the mother from having one through court injunctions, etc. But in those case, the father took on all responsibility for the child and the mother gave up her parental rights.

It's just one of those things where the grey areas abound. And I still believe we need to change our society where it never needs to be a choice.

'Rani

[Venger]

My aunt was born a preemie and has been blind all her life. She met her husband who's story was the same. Both lived on there own before they married and have two sighted kids. Both had great paying jobs and never asked anything from anybody. I don't believe for a minute their lives have been diminished in anyway. If my grandmother had known would she have aborted my aunt.The world would have been a poor place for it.
Ray

[PSU Smoker]

Very interesting points Rani, I havent ever really thought about the ideas of eternal life and reincarnation and the spirit of the child carrying on to the next pregnancy, different gives a different veiwpoint

[thatonethere]

[quote name='Rani' date='31 March 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1270081795' post='461117']

[b]I think this illustrates a really important point and I'm not certain if I can put it into words well. I think an individual persons capacity to love comes into play here as well. I had a discussion once with an older friend who was undergoing fertility to try to have a child. Because of her age, it was recommended that she have amniocentesis for Down's syndrome, etc. She decided not to have the amnio, because regardless of the outcome of the test she was going to have the child. It was part of her to accept a disabled child. To her it would have made no difference and the amnio served no purpose. And I certainly applaud and understand her view. However, what about the person who does not have that capacity? To bring a child into the world that you know you can't love and would indeed do more damage to through your own incapacity to love that child, how then do you make that decision? You know the child will not likely be adopted and have any chance at a happy life, are you instead acting in kindness? It gets even grayer if like me you believe all life is eternal, and that you are not ending a person, you are simply sidestepping this particular turn of the wheel and freeing the eternal person to go on to the next life or incarnation, or heaven or whatever you call it. I'm not certain it's not the more selfish thing to bring a child into the world you already know you can't love and support. Some would consider that child abuse, and a life of abuse cannot be [u]automatically[/u] deemed to be preferable to never knowing life at all. [/b]

A couple I know was a high-risk pregnancy. They did pre-natal testing and discovered the child had Cystic Fibrosis, and additional physical abnormalities that would require major surgeries to allow the child to survive at all. The best medical opinions foresaw a life of pain. They chose to terminate the pregnancy believing they were making the best choice. My people believe we choose our parents before birth and that in the case of the pregnancy being terminated, the spirit of the child comes back in the next pregnancy. It's not gone, it's only postponed. I don't know that I completely subscribe to that belief but it offered them enormous comfort. Interestingly enough she became pregnant again only two months later and they now have a beautiful healthy son that they love very much.

[b]This is such a hard thing emotionally. So much so that I honestly believe it's a choice everyone has to make for themselves. I do believe that those who are so pro-life that abortion should never be possible under any circumstances, should be offering more options to those who might otherwise choose abortion. Many people demand a women not have an abortion but wouldn't adopt the child and raise it themselves. I don't see how someone can make the decision for someone if you're not willing to take on the responsibility yourself. As part of this I also believe fathers should have some say so. There have been a few instances where fathers successfully managed to block abortions by delaying the mother from having one through court injunctions, etc. But in those case, the father took on all responsibility for the child and the mother gave up her parental rights. [/b]

It's just one of those things where the grey areas abound. And I still believe we need to change our society where it never needs to be a choice.

'Rani
[/quote]

Thanks Rani. This is exactly what I was trying to get at. You hit the nail on the head.



I saw the videos, and yes they are very inspiring. Team Hoyt represents the love that people can have for their child. But the fact remains that not all people have that love. As Raini said, a person has to be capable of giving all the love necessary to care for that child. Personally I can't decide if a person should be aborted or not. The questions at the end of my statements are meant for the reader to think about. Again, as Raini said, it is up to the person to decide whether they want to abort their child or not. For the record, I am not interested in genetic cleansing, and I do understand that the circumstances mentioned in my post could make good talking points for that subject. I don't think people blind people, or people who are otherwise capable should have been aborted. I am only speaking about those who are unable to work around their disabilities or rare diseases. I understand abortion is a very hot topic, and discussing it can take on forms of its own.
Antouan. Did you catch any of that?

[thatonethere]

[quote name='antouwan' date='31 March 2010 - 04:37 AM' timestamp='1270031837' post='460974']
[quote name='thatonethere' date='31 March 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1270025319' post='460964']
Sometimes I sit on the fence with this as well. I think if the couple chooses to have an abortion, then so be it. In a lot of cases, the situation doesn't evolve around a couple. It could involve a one night stand, 2 "buddies", rape, or a couple of kids messing around. If the other party isn't involved, then it is the womans choice to go through with it or choose another option. lets take the following options into account:

Adoption:
It is a good option, but lets face it. All of the families interested in adopting a child arent "as loving" as people like to think. There are some really fucked up people with fucked up agendas out there who will do what they have to do to get a kid. There are people out there who will adopt a child for the sole purpose of abusing them physically, sexually, and/or mentally. Some are just in it so they could have someone to claim on their tax return, or to receive welfare. With people like these, there is no guarantee that the child will get the love they need regardless of what home they go to. This sort of thing happens more than people could imagine, and, the social workers have no way of spotting or weeding out these kinds of people. How does the birth mother prevent something like this from happening (assuming she cares enough (depending on the circumstance surrounding the birth) to do so)?

Abortion:
I will forget about the obvious cases discussed already (rape, and danger to the mother's health) and discuss something no one has brought up yet.
Lets say a couple gets together and has a baby. They visit the doctor to monitor the development of the fetus, and low and behold, the child has been diagnosed with a debilitating disease or disorder that won't allow them to grow, or develop properly. They have 2 choices : abort, or keep it. Now if they keep it, the child care expenses will definitely exceed that of a normal child. It will cost millions of dollars to keep that child alive. Assuming they have decent careers or jobs, and have the ability to afford a decent lifestyle, they decide to keep the child. What happens next???? Medical expenses swallow them up and [b]make life extremely hard.[/b] The average person may not be able to afford to raise a child like this, let alone insure they have a semi decent existance. What if the child has to have a special diet and it costs an arm and a leg to feed the child? Their "decent lifestyle" turns into quite the chore. Should they have aborted the child in the first place? [color="#ff0000"]damn, important choices and decisions, in life? what are they doing there? Why should life be hard. Let's make life as easy as it could possibly be, even if it's at the expense of others, or the expense of their life, at the expense of my child's life.[/color] [color="#ff0000"]I'm pretty sure that's the way pretty much every one thought behind a genocide, "damn, these whole group of people really is making my political campaign, realizable world view, political ends (ie life) hard....let's just kill them"[/color] [b]The question at the end of all of my situations are designed for the reader to think about. Notice how there aren't any answers to the questions at the end. That should have been a dead giveaway. Please show me where I have made an answer to these questions.[/b] [b]I never said anything about genocide.[/b]

What if they gave birth to a child/children with deformities (siamese twins, fused together legs, or any other obvious issue)? People like to say that these births are "little miracles" or that children born with extreme mental disabilities are "special'. Sure, that child might have a really high IQ but what good does it do if the child will never be able to communicate or do simple tasks? This child will be cared for until their parents are no longer able to do so. Much worse is that the child gets put in a home designed to care for these special cases. Not all of the homes are staffed properly, and not all of the staff treat the people well or care for them properly. Is it really a good thing to raise siamese twins or the person with obvious developmental birth defects until they are adults so people can gawk at the "freak show"? Will some of these people go on to make babies (it happens sometimes)? What about the next generation? [color="#ff0000"]I love your hypothetical rule where the exception, and indeed the combination of a ridiculous amount of exceptions becomes the rule. Just see above, you're basically repackaging the same argument. "[b]Damn, all of these useless handicaps are running around screwing up shit for all of us obviously more efficient, useful, normal people. Why didn't we just kill them before their useless lives (lives which obviously are not even equal in worth and/or value to ours) even began?"[/b][/color] [b]Talk about taking the ball and running with it. I never said anything about "screwing up shit for all of us ...normal people". What is "normal" anyway? [/b]

It's true that not all of these people will have children, but if we take the Pro Lifer's approach, every aborted child will have a life whether the parents wanted to or not. What happens in the cases mentioned above? Will we end up with a bunch of people who can do mathematical equations all day, but are unable to come to work because they are engrossed in the same math problem they've been working on for three days? Or a person who is so developmentally challenged that they can only make sounds? What about the child who was born to a parent who didn't want them in the first place? Is it right to force the parent to have the child, knowing that child will probably never get the love they should have been receiving since birth? [b]Personally, I would rather have a child brought into a situation where they can be loved unconditionally than to have a child who was brought into this world and was constantly shat on for even existing in the first place. [color="#ff0000"]Notice a pattern here, [u]YOU'RE[/u] the one doing all of the shitting on them.[/color][color="#ff0000"]Why cannot you simply love the child for what they are – whatever that may be? Tall, short, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, black hair, blind, deaf, lame what fault of it is their own? Does someone having a disability mean that their life is worth less than a 'healthy' person's? Abortion, in its practice, tells the child that they MUST be perfect in order to be worthy of love. All of these "psycho pro-lifers" are willing to love the children because they are simply children. They are willing to accept and respect (albeit somewhat imperfectly - but you're not even considering it!) these people simply because they ARE PEOPLE. Equal in ability, probably not. But you, me, and everyone on this board are not equal in ability, does that make the ones who are not as equal less human? By the way you think, you should answer yes to that question. Does that trouble you? I think it should greatly trouble you.[/color][/b] [b]Wrong again[/b]. [b]For your information, I have an autistic sister who was extremely immature for her age, and not developing socially, however she was very intelligent. I took a lot of time and brought her up to speed. As a result, she just received her Bachelor's degree, has friends and is dating. How's that for not loving someone for who they are and considering to respect someone regardless of their imperfections? I have worked with children who were told that they would never be able to read, and were called dumb. I helped teach them how to read gain their confidence and they are doing quite well.[/b]

With that being said, I guess I am for abortion. However, I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control. But then again, if women are using abortion as a form of birth control, do we really want somebody like that to have a child in the first place? But then again, whatever she does is her business, and not mine. I also feel that it really isn't a man's place to tell a woman what she could do with her body. It's the same as a woman deciding to circumcise her baby boy without even considering what her husband/bf/baby daddy has to say.

Does my stance make me a bad person???
[color="#ff0000"][u]Yes, absolutely.[/u] I hope that – as long as you think this way – you lump yourself into the category of the women who use abortion as birth control. i.e. regard yourself as someone whom we really don't want to have a child in the first place.[/color] [b]Again, you have no idea how I think. Your response is ran on pure emotion and not actually thinking out what I was trying to say...Oh well.[/b]
[/quote]
[/quote] Edited April 1, 2010 by thatonethere

[judgeposer]

[quote name='thatonethere' date='30 March 2010 - 05:13 AM' timestamp='1269940430' post='460764']
Since there are more women on this forum, I would be most interested in hearing what you have to say regarding this topic.

Do you believe it's ok? Yay or nay? Why?
[/quote]

I used to be quite a regular poster on the forum's serious threads, but work and life has prevented me some from keeping up. This thread I couldn't resist - as it's topically similar to several I have started and/or kept going. We might all do well do search for those because a lot of what's been said here has been presented and some contended with amply...I think.

Although I am interested in the female perspective on this issue too, let's keep in mind that arguments aren't male or female. While it seems that the OP called for some female perspectives, from what some have posted, we can see that "perspectives" easily turn into arguments, which must adhere to logic and reason. The origin or source of an argument does not have any consequence with respect to the validity or reasonableness of the argument's conclusion. Contending otherwise commits a fallacy logicians call the genetic fallacy, which occurs when someone attempts to hinge the argument on its source, the person making it.

This isn't to say that one's perspective doesn't offer insight, but still, we cannot connect the validity or reasonableness of an argument's conclusion with who makes it. Abortion quickly becomes an argument about gender or sex when really, those qualifications don't entitle someone to a free pass or mean they make a better argument because they're a man or a women.

[quote name='Rani' date='30 March 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1269996199' post='460889']
My problem with the abortion issue and those who are pro-life is they don't deal with the reality. There's a group that regularly pickets the women's clinic about a mile away from me. They offer no alternatives. They don't have a list of adoption agencies, they don't have information on private adoptions, open adoptions, ways to find financial aid during pregnancy, no nothing. They just don't want a woman to make that choice and mostly they're assuming it's an easy decision - which no one I know who's had one ever says it was. And I find that these are usually the same people who refuse to provide birth control information. They generally promote celibacy or marriage. Nothing in between. That's not a realistic view of the human race and the way we operate. Should we be better about it? Of course we should, but we aren't likely to be any time in the near future. What's more because our society tends to view sexuality as an embarrassing rather than natural part of our lives, birth control, and "non-pregnancy possible" sexual activity is kept firmly under the carpet. God forbid for instance that a woman publicly admit she masturbates! She's a slut if she does. All of which ends up with people doing what they do and ending up with unwanted pregnancies.
[/quote]

Then, those are bad activists. But, let's not generalize those activists with the pro-life movement generally, which runs countless charities, information clearing houses, and support services that counsel women on abortion alternatives. Some charities go far as to match women contemplating abortion with suitable and desirous couples seeking to adopt a child, particularly one at risk to abortion. The counter-information and alternatives exist; perhaps they're not marketed well in all instances, but they're out there. From personal experience, local laws and practices sometimes prohibit or severely restrain picketers from interacting or at least initiating interaction with women attempting to gain entry into an abortuary, especially since most also offer general gynecological and/or obstetric care.

[quote name='antouwan' date='31 March 2010 - 06:11 AM' timestamp='1270030298' post='460973']
you choose [b]life[/b] or [b]death[/b] for another human being whose [u]very existence[/u] you and your actions are entirely responsible for.

the above stated about 95% of what i want to say.

the other 5%:
i oppose intentional abortion in every possible way. that being said, if the mother's life is in danger and an operation must be performed in which the life of the child is at risk, even significant that is unfortunate, however killing the child is not the intended act therefore it is not an act of premeditated killing, otherwise known as murder. additionally beyond that, i would not really think too much less of a woman for procuring an abortion in a case of rape, incest, or incestuous rape; that being said, i would highly regard (except so much more, i mean words cannot do it justice) a woman who in the aforementioned circumstance decides to go through with the pregnancy to raise the child, realizing that the child should not have to pay the penalty for either the wrongdoing and/or irresponsibility of others.

--- --- ---

post script: as was stated above, there are so many means of birth control and prevention how can this still be an issue? if there was nothing inherently and objectively wrong about abortion people would not have a problem procuring them, so much attention would not be paid to birth control, and this discussion would not be so ridiculously inflammatory. the discussion is no longer about whether the 'fetus' is a person or not, it's about whether a mother should be able to end the life of her child or not - because it's her 'own body...'

"when the fetus can live on its own..."
point 1: so children/babies aren't really their own people then. can a baby or even a small child obtain its own food, shelter and other necessities of life in order to survive? if i "expose" my child the way that some of the ancients did in my back yard for weeks after it was born and it died, would i not then be committing murder for doing so?

point 2: you and i, let's go down to the local hospital and pull the plugs on all the people who are comatose or on life support. they obviously cannot provide for themselves, so they [i]cannot be people[/i]

paraenesis: just think about this whole thing for more than 30 seconds. and try and use reasoning that wasn't rammed down your throat by our shit-show of corporately controlled pop-media.

@STUIE: Your daughter is ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE. A thousand Congratulations.
[/quote]

I think you've posed something(s) worth considering.

[judgeposer]

The debate about abortion can proceed in two ways: morally or legally. In other words, we can debate two aspects about this issue: 1. Whether it is morally permissible, or 2. Whether it is legally permissible. It seems that most, if not all of us, have attempted to address the first sort of approach, the [i]moral [/i]permissibility of abortion. I would also mention that we can too debate the legal permissibility despite the fact that the practice of abortion currently enjoys legal protection. While it is settled law, so were many now outlawed practices, like slavery, segregation, etc. That a practice enjoys legal sanction does not remove it from the ambit of acceptable debate.

But, on abortion's moral permissibility:

The debate on the moral permissibility of abortion can proceed in these ways:

A. the fetus is a human person, all human persons have a right to life, and thus the fetus has a right to life;
B. the fetus is a human person, but not all human persons have a right to life, and thus the fetus does not [i]necessarily [/i]have a right to life; or
C. the fetus is not a human person, and thus does not have a right to life.

"C" can be expanded:

1. some (or all) human persons have the right to life
2. the fetus is not a human person
3. thus, the fetus does not have a right to life.

All arguments on the moral permissibility of abortion can be categorized into one of these 3 larger arguments. These, however, remain the central questions: Is the fetus a human person? AND Do human persons necessarily have a right to life?

Other arguments that do not take this form, but which attempt to argue something about abortion, which sometimes take the form of a question, all either fall within one of these arguments (A, B, or C) or pose an ad hominem response to them. Some examples are: Why don't pro-lifers adopt the babies they don't want aborted? or for a non-question, The woman has sovereignty over her body and may choose what she wants to do with it.

The first example amounts to an ad hominem response because it attacks the anti-abortion perspective but does not argue against it. Another example of this is the often employed: If abortion were not a protected right, then women seeking abortions would seek abortions in "back-alley" clinics, endangering their health and lives. While not directly ad hominem like the first example, this attempt at an argument still does not refute the anti-abortion argument; it merely attempts to hide the issue, which remains always whether the fetus has rights because it is a person - or not. The second example (The woman has sovereignty over her body and may choose what she wants to do with it), on close examination, falls into categories B or C because it [i]must [/i]assume either that the fetus's rights do not matter or that the fetus has no rights. This argument does not refute A directly, but it [i]does [/i]assume B or C. Even responses like "the debate isn't black and white, there are exceptions!" STILL doesn't refute the anti-abortion argument, it merely hides the ball, so to speak. Even that response/position has to fall within one of those possibilities, probably B or C too. Those "exceptions," or those ways the debate/issue isn't "black or white" implies something about the personhood of the fetus ( C ) or the rights of the mother (B or C). Whatever that person implies or suggests must take the form of an argument and get defended.

I'm the first the admit that arguments can befall to invalidity or unreasonableness through qualifications, but they have to start somewhere and posit some combination of premises, from which follow a conclusion.

[thatonethere]

[quote name='antouwan' date='31 March 2010 - 04:11 AM' timestamp='1270030298' post='460973']
you choose [b]life[/b] or [b]death[/b] for another human being whose [u]very existence[/u] you and your actions are entirely responsible for.

the above stated about 95% of what i want to say.

the other 5%:
i oppose intentional abortion in every possible way. that being said, if the mother's life is in danger and an operation must be performed in which the life of the child is at risk, even significant that is unfortunate, however killing the child is not the intended act therefore it is not an act of premeditated killing, otherwise known as murder. additionally beyond that, i would not really think too much less of a woman for procuring an abortion in a case of rape, incest, or incestuous rape; that being said, i would highly regard (except so much more, i mean words cannot do it justice) a woman who in the aforementioned circumstance decides to go through with the pregnancy to raise the child, realizing that the child should not have to pay the penalty for either the wrongdoing and/or irresponsibility of others.

--- --- ---

post script: as was stated above, there are so many means of birth control and prevention how can this still be an issue? if there was nothing inherently and objectively wrong about abortion people would not have a problem procuring them, so much attention would not be paid to birth control, and this discussion would not be so ridiculously inflammatory. the discussion is no longer about whether the 'fetus' is a person or not, it's about whether a mother should be able to end the life of her child or not - because it's her 'own body...'

"when the fetus can live on its own..."
point 1: so children/babies aren't really their own people then. can a baby or even a small child obtain its own food, shelter and other necessities of life in order to survive? if i "expose" my child the way that some of the ancients did in my back yard for weeks after it was born and it died, would i not then be committing murder for doing so? [b]The fetus can live on its own meaning "outside of the uterus". Of course a child or a baby wouldn't be able to survive without their parent and yes you'd be comitting murder if you left a kid in the back yard, thats common sense. Children and babies are their own people not because they can't obtain food, shelter, etc, but because they are alive and living. The same goes with someone with a disability, or defect, or who is lacking something (vision, hearing, etc).
[/b]
point 2: you and i, let's go down to the local hospital and pull the plugs on all the people who are comatose or on life support. they obviously cannot provide for themselves, so they [i]cannot be people.[/i] [b]I never said these people "cannot be people", however if they wanted the plugs pulled, then that's where Dr Kaavorkian comes in. Have you ever heard of suicide tourists? People choose to do just that by traveling to Switzerland where assisted suicide is legal.
[/b]
paraenesis: just think about this whole thing for more than 30 seconds. and try and use reasoning that wasn't rammed down your throat by our shit-show of corporately controlled pop-media. [b]I don't watch tv or pay attention to "corporately controlled pop-media" so nice try. I've thought about my stance on abortion for quite some time (over many, many years) so I hardly believe anything that "pop media" has to say. Try looking at the argument in an objective manner and not letting your emotions get the best of you. Maybe, just maybe you might be able to add something to the discussion instead of assuming you know me and accusing me of being whatever type of undesirable person you want me to be. [img]http://www.hookahforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img]
[/b]
@STUIE: Your daughter is ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE. A thousand Congratulations. [b]+1[/b]
[/quote]


Stuie: Your daughter is beautiful, and I bet she's a whole lot of fun! Kids are amazing when they are little like that. The world is a new discovery for them, and it's fun to watch them grow and learn about it. Edited April 1, 2010 by thatonethere

[Venger]

Question: If the argument is used "It's my body and I have the right to do what I want with it." Than Do we have the right to regulate or stop someone from putting ANY substance into their body? It is their body right? or Suicide, why is illegal to attempt (or succeed)? It's still their body.
why is it an abortion (and legal ) ok when the child is on once side of the vagina but is is murder on the other side? Help me understand.
Ray

[Tati]

Stuie your little girl is absolutely adorable!!! Congrats!

I agree completely with Brigita. I don't think abortions are the best thing ever, but it shouldn't be up to the government to decide if a woman should have it or not. Get your damn laws off my body!!!!

If a woman decides to do it, she has to think hard about her options, if this is what it comes to, then get ready to deal with the consequences. There are soooooooooo many options for birth control out there! If insurance doesn't cover birth control, go to a drugstore and by condoms. If you can't afford condoms, go to the closest health department and they will give you some free! (In most states) Most health departments offer family planing options, and these are in a discounted price, so even if you are low income, you can still afford these. If you want to protect yourself from pregnancies, then learn your options!

[Hippo_Master]

Well, there's obviously no right answer.

It's my opinion that if a woman gets pregnant - not by force, but either by accident or carelessness - and gets an abortion (either because of financial reasons, peer pressure, family reasons, or simply thinking of the growing human in her uterus as an accident that she can delete) then she is truly an evil, evil person.

[Rani]

[quote name='Venger' date='01 April 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1270134458' post='461265']
Question: If the argument is used "It's my body and I have the right to do what I want with it." Than Do we have the right to regulate or stop someone from putting ANY substance into their body? It is their body right? or Suicide, why is illegal to attempt (or succeed)? It's still their body.
why is it an abortion (and legal ) ok when the child is on once side of the vagina but is is murder on the other side? Help me understand.
Ray
[/quote]

I don't know if anyone can ever really understand. I have issues with anyone who would find themselves or their wife/girlfriend pregnant and have a cavalier "Oh well, I'll just get an abortion" attitude. Abortion is NOT birth control though there seem to be a quantity of people who view it as such. That's one extreme end of the pendulum swing if you will. The other end being "You can't have an abortion even if your father raped you and the fetus is so damaged it will NEVER have any kind of life at all even if by some miracle it survives." And there are plenty of pro-lifers who take exactly that stance.

I think though that it's never that black or white in actual life's reality. For most people the decision to have an abortion is a heartbreaking one in which conscience wars with the necessity as the woman perceives it. Some arguments assume this is an easy choice. .And I can only tell you from what others have told me that it was not an easy decision and they still live with it every day of their lives. It wasn't "okay" by any means. They didn't consider it their body, their choice. They knew the consequence of what they were doing and made what they felt to be a necessary decision.

It wasn't any better when it was illegal. Abortions were still performed just as people still drank during prohibition. They just cost a lot more and were a lot more dangerous. So I believe the pro-choice stance is the correct one for the reality of the world we live in. Somehow we have to cure the cavalier attitude and create a social environment where fewer people are put in position to make that choice. Most doctors will address the birth control issue at the time, but maybe we need to take it a step further and require Norplant or something similar immediately after for those who do use it as back up birth control, because to me that attitude is not an acceptable one.

'Rani

[TizaNabi]

The issue is not abortion. The issue is what help can we give to women who are undecided, and need advice,a friend,economic help, maybe therapy in case of rape. Actually, the real issue are boys and men. (I am a man).
Here in Israel there is abortion,there is social medicine for everyone, social services for women raped, or pregnant and confused. The males need the real education, so do the women to protect themselves.
We have women's rights groups which help the women on a private free service. We have also a very large women's org. of Jewish religious women who help people consider having the baby either keeping the baby or putting up for adoption. In Israel we have many people who want to adopt. Since a woman who is pregnant has so many economic difficulties all at once, many will abort only for that reason. This woman's organization gets private donations and gives women money to go through gestation 9 months, buy clothes,baby needs,and spending money. They either decide to keep the baby or have it adopted.
I understand the anti abortion groups in America, but we don't have them here. I was brought up secular for 25 years and became religious 32 years ago, so I do understand both sides. As a religious community we educate our children about sex from the time they start reading the Torah at age 3 and no part is left out.Anyone who learns the Torah knows what goes where, what should not go where, and how baby's come into this world. Not only do they know, how, but they know "why". And who asks that? My wife and I have 7 children, mostly married early and with many grandchildren thank G-D.
We do practice "birth control". We practice! and G-D controls, but for those not educated in this way, those girls and women need all the support we can give.

[thatonethere]

TizaNabi
What you say is very interesting and should definitely be looked into. I think the problem with North America (in general) is that our society is too busy trying to protect people and not teach them everything they need to know (in general). People want their children to remain "safe" and protected, which is a good thing, but can cause great harm if the child or adult is actually exposed to the circumstance at hand simply because of the niavete of that individual. At the same time, they want the child to be mindful of what is actually going on. That is why it is up to the adults to make sure the child fully understands the who what when where, why, how and which's of sex ed.
Thanks for your input.

I wonder how many and what kind of communities in the US actually teach their children all about sex and leave nothing out, hmm.

[bellydancerakn]

[quote name='Tati' date='01 April 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1270137126' post='461274']
Stuie your little girl is absolutely adorable!!! Congrats!

I agree completely with Brigita. I don't think abortions are the best thing ever, but it shouldn't be up to the government to decide if a woman should have it or not. Get your damn laws off my body!!!!

If a woman decides to do it, she has to think hard about her options, if this is what it comes to, then get ready to deal with the consequences. There are soooooooooo many options for birth control out there! If insurance doesn't cover birth control, go to a drugstore and by condoms. If you can't afford condoms, go to the closest health department and they will give you some free! (In most states) Most health departments offer family planing options, and these are in a discounted price, so even if you are low income, you can still afford these. If you want to protect yourself from pregnancies, then learn your options!
[/quote]



I totally agree with you.
Now I am lucky, both of my parents are upper middle class and pretty darn liberal after living through and activly participating in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Therefore I knew what sex was and that babies came from sex at around kindergarten. Hell my parents raised me on rocky horror picture show and mel brooks. Just a point for you a 7 year old has no clue as to why that weirdo guy is wearing a corset and high heels, she doesn't get traumitized, just really confused. Which leads to discussion about transvestites and her father making gay jokes about horses. ANYWAYS, My parents told me about different kinds of birth control, and always said that if I wanted to go on the pill they would buy it for me. Even if my father would have a bleedin' heart attack because his only baby girl is having sex lol. I have always known that if I have a question when it comes to sex I can ask them. Now if I WOULD ask them is another thing altogether...Ech!! That is what google is for!!!! lol jking jking

However, I have come to realize that how I was raised is not the norm. That people are NOT taught about their options. I remember reading one story about teen parents who used a snickers bar wrapper AS A FRICKIN' CONDOM!!!!! Obviously, it didn't work. But maybe if they knew about family planning and the health department that wouldn't have happened. Or it could have, they didn't strike me as particularly smart. But if people my age are taught that condoms don't work, and that the pill just makes you bitchy and doesn't work. And that you can't have sex until marriage or else you are going to hell. Suprise, Suprise, they still have sex, difference is they have a guilt complex and are 6 months pregnant.

I was taught about sex. I have chosen to remain abstinate until marriage. But I do realize that probably won't happen, so I bought some condoms and I do know that condoms expire so I'll probably have to buy some new ones. And no matter how broke I am, I will always have enough money to go get a 3pack of trojan from walmart. Hell 3 bucks is cheaper than $170,000 (the cost of raising a child to 18 in a dual parent household).

As to abortion, I think a woman has a right to choose. Esspecially in cases of rape and inscest. That being said, I don't htink I could ever get an abortion. I love children too much and was raised to value them and protect them.

I think people need to educated as to what options are available to them. If they aren't then abortions will continue to be more common than we think.

[Venger]

As most of you know I consider myself a conservative and I am a Christian and you can read how I feel about abortion in posts above. That being said OMG birth control is a must. I have a 17 year old boy. He has known about the birds and the bee's since he was five. I shield him from very little. I am a hard ass and don't let him get away with much but I don't censor him from life. We let him play video games and watch movies that are R rated. why might you ask? I don't want shit to be a big surprise when he leave the house.I have told him waiting is your BEST option but if your going to have sex BE SAFE.They have a word for people who shield their kids from life...Grandparents.
RAY

[LZ22]

I think whatever pro-life/pro-choice argument anyone throws out will do nothing to actually convince someone to change a core belief. However, I will say that I don't like abortions. I would not support having one. I feel like the long-term needs to be observed over the short-term. Like stuies first post, nobody is going to be ready no matter what for their first child, even if they plan it. But they make it work. I have many great friends who have young parents who conceived them when they were in their younger-20's something...some maybe even before age 20. But you know what, everything turned out wonderful and because they chose to keep their child, I have some amazing friends. Things like that kind of put it in a different perspective.

[Rani]

[quote name='Venger' date='07 April 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1270669949' post='462456']
As most of you know I consider myself a conservative and I am a Christian and you can read how I feel about abortion in posts above. That being said OMG birth control is a must. I have a 17 year old boy. He has known about the birds and the bee's since he was five. I shield him from very little. I am a hard ass and don't let him get away with much but I don't censor him from life. We let him play video games and watch movies that are R rated. why might you ask? I don't want shit to be a big surprise when he leave the house.I have told him waiting is your BEST option but if your going to have sex BE SAFE.They have a word for people who shield their kids from life...Grandparents.
RAY
[/quote]

That's it exactly! Legally regulating abortion (either way) is like treating only the symptoms of a disease. Until you get to the root cause of the symptoms the disease is going to just continue. Stop it at it's root. Make it an obsolete choice so that whatever the law says doesn't matter.

'Rani

[judgeposer]

[quote name='Rani' date='07 April 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1270680821' post='462506']
That's it exactly! Legally regulating abortion (either way) is like treating only the symptoms of a disease. Until you get to the root cause of the symptoms the disease is going to just continue. Stop it at it's root. Make it an obsolete choice so that whatever the law says doesn't matter.

'Rani
[/quote]

We can apply that reasoning to [i]any [/i]law that proscribes [i]any [/i]crime. If we do, we don't come up with much, I'd argue. Within and among the fields of psychiatry, psychology, law, and even philosophy, we can witness never ending and increasingly complex debates on intent and the bearing of biological causes of violent or homicidal drives, but no one takes seriously the argument that laws proscribing murder treat the symptoms of a disease. Stealing to feed your family is still stealing, inasmuch as some might excuse it. While some might seek to debate whether an inadequate distribution of resources can explain the robber's choice, we're still left with the question of whether and in what instances stealing is wrong. Solving that dilemma does not necessarily involve examining root causes, nor should it.

Understanding the root causes of certain preferences, choices, behaviors, dispositions, or the like do enlighten the debate and place reasonable (we would hope) limitations on how we deal with results of certain behaviors or choices, indeed. Nonetheless, society seems content always with making a statement when it or members of it seek to make something illegal - namely, that whatever the circumstances, some choices shouldn't be had/made. I will reiterate my earlier posts on this thread where I have said these sorts of discussions usually devolve into debating strands of an underdeveloped argument. If we want to return to root causes at all, I suggest, if only for the clarity and logic of discussion, we begin at, well, the beginning. We should evaluate/debate the moral permissibility of what we're truly debating - abortion. These concerns amount to red herrings at best.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='judgeposer' date='17 April 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1271534070' post='464083']
[quote name='Rani' date='07 April 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1270680821' post='462506']
That's it exactly! Legally regulating abortion (either way) is like treating only the symptoms of a disease. Until you get to the root cause of the symptoms the disease is going to just continue. Stop it at it's root. Make it an obsolete choice so that whatever the law says doesn't matter.

'Rani
[/quote]

We can apply that reasoning to [i]any [/i]law that proscribes [i]any [/i]crime. If we do, we don't come up with much, I'd argue. Within and among the fields of psychiatry, psychology, law, and even philosophy, we can witness never ending and increasingly complex debates on intent and the bearing of biological causes of violent or homicidal drives, but no one takes seriously the argument that laws proscribing murder treat the symptoms of a disease. Stealing to feed your family is still stealing, inasmuch as some might excuse it. While some might seek to debate whether an inadequate distribution of resources can explain the robber's choice, we're still left with the question of whether and in what instances stealing is wrong. Solving that dilemma does not necessarily involve examining root causes, nor should it.

Understanding the root causes of certain preferences, choices, behaviors, dispositions, or the like do enlighten the debate and place reasonable (we would hope) limitations on how we deal with results of certain behaviors or choices, indeed. Nonetheless, society seems content always with making a statement when it or members of it seek to make something illegal - namely, that whatever the circumstances, some choices shouldn't be had/made. I will reiterate my earlier posts on this thread where I have said these sorts of discussions usually devolve into debating strands of an underdeveloped argument. If we want to return to root causes at all, I suggest, if only for the clarity and logic of discussion, we begin at, well, the beginning. We should evaluate/debate the moral permissibility of what we're truly debating - abortion. These concerns amount to red herrings at best.
[/quote]


I finally found something I completely agree with the judge on. (I would have put it in far fewer words.)

[judgeposer]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='17 April 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1271558242' post='464109']
I finally found something I completely agree with the judge on. (I would have put it in far fewer words.)
[/quote]

Haha, while we might not agree all of the time, and completely, I do, more often than not, agree with your conclusions. I've never been called out for using too few words; good call.
/jack

[russianwizard]

Pro Choice here. If someone doesn't want a child, so be it. We shouldn't take away their freedom just because some religions oppose it. My Microsoft I teacher has a TV show on local access where he goes to abortion clinics and shows both sides of the protest. Personally I think it's insane how hostile the environment can get outside of a clinic. But with all religions you have your fare share of fanatics.

[Venger]

[quote name='russianwizard' date='25 April 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1272173375' post='465314']
Pro Choice here. If someone doesn't want a child, so be it. We shouldn't take away their freedom just because some religions oppose it. My Microsoft I teacher has a TV show on local access where he goes to abortion clinics and shows both sides of the protest. Personally I think it's insane how hostile the environment can get outside of a clinic. But with all religions you have your fare share of fanatics.
[/quote]
so What your saying is if a person is inside a uterus its ok to kill them( since your not religious) but once outside the uterus its not ok to kill them.
so lets say I am an atheist, that gives me the right to kill you.I mean why not.I'm not against it and there is no eternal punishment and your kinda a douche so ya I can kill you cause I just don't want you around. Oh and my kid.His grades suck and he is gonna cost me a fortune to send to college so I think I will kill him too.I am tired of being a parent.I guess I should have thought about that 17 years ago when he was on the other side of the vagina and it was legal to do it.Gosh darn my timing.
Ray

[russianwizard]

[quote name='Venger' date='25 April 2010 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1272204604' post='465334']
[quote name='russianwizard' date='25 April 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1272173375' post='465314']
Pro Choice here. If someone doesn't want a child, so be it. We shouldn't take away their freedom just because some religions oppose it. My Microsoft I teacher has a TV show on local access where he goes to abortion clinics and shows both sides of the protest. Personally I think it's insane how hostile the environment can get outside of a clinic. But with all religions you have your fare share of fanatics.
[/quote]
so What your saying is if a person is inside a uterus its ok to kill them( since your not religious) but once outside the uterus its not ok to kill them.
so lets say I am an atheist, that gives me the right to kill you.I mean why not.I'm not against it and there is no eternal punishment and your kinda a douche so ya I can kill you cause I just don't want you around. Oh and my kid.His grades suck and he is gonna cost me a fortune to send to college so I think I will kill him too.I am tired of being a parent.I guess I should have thought about that 17 years ago when he was on the other side of the vagina and it was legal to do it.Gosh darn my timing.
Ray
[/quote]

I love how you called me a douche bag based on my take on the matter. Yes, life is something we take for granted, but not all people can handle creating another form of life. While some people get abortions just because they can't control their sexual behavior, some should truly not have the burden of bearing another human being into this world. (ie. Rape Victims) In every system you have your fair share of people who exploit it. But it does serve it's purpose.

[Venger]

[quote name='russianwizard' date='25 April 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1272233137' post='465373']
[quote name='Venger' date='25 April 2010 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1272204604' post='465334']
[quote name='russianwizard' date='25 April 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1272173375' post='465314']
Pro Choice here. If someone doesn't want a child, so be it. We shouldn't take away their freedom just because some religions oppose it. My Microsoft I teacher has a TV show on local access where he goes to abortion clinics and shows both sides of the protest. Personally I think it's insane how hostile the environment can get outside of a clinic. But with all religions you have your fare share of fanatics.
[/quote]
so What your saying is if a person is inside a uterus its ok to kill them( since your not religious) but once outside the uterus its not ok to kill them.
so lets say I am an atheist, that gives me the right to kill you.I mean why not.I'm not against it and there is no eternal punishment and your kinda a douche so ya I can kill you cause I just don't want you around. Oh and my kid.His grades suck and he is gonna cost me a fortune to send to college so I think I will kill him too.I am tired of being a parent.I guess I should have thought about that 17 years ago when he was on the other side of the vagina and it was legal to do it.Gosh darn my timing.
Ray
[/quote]

I love how you called me a douche bag based on my take on the matter. Yes, life is something we take for granted, but not all people can handle creating another form of life. While some people get abortions just because they can't control their sexual behavior, some should truly not have the burden of bearing another human being into this world. (ie. Rape Victims) In every system you have your fair share of people who exploit it. But it does serve it's purpose.
[/quote]

nope I didn't call you a douche bag, everything after "lets say" was hypothetical. I don't know you well enough to call you anything,I am not an atheist,My son is getting A's and B's and I love being a parent. I was just trying to make the point that murder is murder no matter what side of the vagina your on,your religious or non-religious beliefs or any other reason, like how you feel about someone or whether you want to be a parent or not.Life is responsibility and actions have consequences.Rape,incest or saving the mothers life well maybe I could give a pass but as birth control I gotta say NO.
Ray