 sj |
||
|
||
Abortion: Here we Go...
|
|
|
Subject: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:50 PM OK, folks: Have at it, but lets keep the other threads clear. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:54 PM Oh. Sorry; I didn't see that this thread existed before I posted to the other one. I'll go get what I wrote there and move it here. Well, not move it, but copy it. You know what I mean.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:56 PM I've noticed that the great majority of anti-choice people are either men, women too old to conceive or too ugly to get laid. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Peg Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:57 PM kendall; very un-PC of you to say so...but I have noticed this too!!! peg |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:11 PM and why is it most right-to-lifers are also in favour of death penalties? And south american Death Squads? I suspect it's because they're not so much concerned about abortion, but rather they're concerned with -thier- right to decide who lives and who dies... And when given a choice between PC and the truth, give me the truth every time! :-/ |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:12 PM Kendall, that's exactly the sort of disrespectful, spiteful, off-topic thinking that has derailed civil public debate over this issue. I was hoping the thread could go at least an hour without this sort of shit. I guess I was wrong. I withdraw from the discussion. You guys have a mutual admiration society without me.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Mrrzy Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:25 PM Well, I'm jumping in, the water seems cold but hey... I am constantly surprised when someone who doesn't fit Kendall and Peg's observation (which is what it was, I think) is anti-choice, but it does happen a lot, so I guess it would make sense if the anti-choice group WERE men, and post-menopausal and/or ugly women, but unfortunately, it isn't... Personally, I am fairly virulently pro-choice; I'd like to see pregnancies considered as equivalent to any other woman's body part - under her entire and total control. But I'd also like WANTED pregnancies to be "registrable" or something (I have talked about this before here somewhere). Imagine this: You're pregnant and aren't completely sure you want THIS child NOW. Do nothing; if someone shoots you and kills the fetus but not you, it's assault, not murder. You can drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and nobody can do anything. Even in Massachusetts you can't be arrested for refusing prenatal care. BUT if you ARE completely sure you want THIS child NOW, you register the pregnancy. Now you have to wear blaze orange or something. Now you can be arrested for smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Now if someone shoots you and kills only the pregnancy, it IS murder. Why isn't this possible? |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: MK Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:31 PM Pro-choice. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: guinnesschik Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM With all the options for birth control we have, and with all the media hype promoting "safe sex" there should be very few reasons FOR unwanted pregnancies. Abortion should NOT be a birth control option. How 'bout retroactive abortions? Pro-choice AND Pro-life, g'chik |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Amos Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM JeeeezUSS, Mouse Thief, chill thyself! This is an issue of individual morals which by rights are informed by individual conscience. There is a forum for such issues, known as individual speech. Get off thy high horse and use some. Rude remarks, especially on an overdone issue like this one, are part of the heat that comes with walking into the kitchen. As for as the issue itself is concerned, it's all in the timing, with a little wonky metaphysics thrown in. If two consenting adults wish to produce an offspring, there is enough general agreement that no-one (except a few old diehards from the 3rd Reich) seriously will try to tell them they must not. No-one stands up and says that it is hubris to abrogate the "creation" of children, that the decision can only be made by an approved and sanitized version of Deity, or submitted to the community for approval (except for the ChiComs, who cannot be trusted to think clearly anyway :>)!) If a given set of cells starts mulitplying in an unknown, miraculous but unwanted fashion handily categorized as "not benign", and the carrier of the tumour has it excised surgically, no-one screams and yells that the tumour has been murdered, or that some Divine will has been flaunted. Conversely, no-one denies that a born child should be protected from savagery whether from cruel elements, drunk drivers, or psychotic parents, Somewhere between these extremes is a rational point which can be selected as the point of individual life, after which individual life-rights are in force. Historically, at least, this has usually been designated as parturition. If you wish to present an argument that this change-point should be reallocated to an earlier point in the development cycle, you are certainly free to do so, and to change individual consciences by the power of your communication. You can proselytize all you want with any damn arguments you want to, and persuade all you want to. But what you cannot do in my opinion, is to invoke a religously-derived moral argument and then seek to mandate it as an act of law. If you try, you will be committing a great wrongness, morally as reprehensive as the alleged "moral offense" of terminating a pregnancy that cannot be supported in the individual's judgement. That wrong is undermining the already weakened Consitution of the greatest social experiment the human race has ever tried, thus contirbuting to the failure of that experiment, by subverting the clear separation (imposed as a vitally necessary part of the experiment) between matters of law and matters of religious belief. If you succeed in informing people's consciences of better truths, more power to you -- I salute your powers of perception and communication. As a final remark, the piece of this problem that gets all-too-often overlooked is this: we only have one Constitution, and one Great Experiment. But one can always get another body. A |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:50 PM Amos- Hear, Hear! & Thanks. You've both saved me some time & said it more rationally than I would have. < Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Mark Grant Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:01 PM Clinton Hammond wants the truth. The truth is that A whole new live person begins to live at the moment of conception. The evidence for this is very well documented for anyone who cares to look for it, or rather anyone who doesn't blindly deny it. D.N.A.,personality etc. are all settled at this moment. If you want to kill off the most immature, vulnerable and defenceless members of our species, at the whim of one or other of the parties involved with their creation then be honest and admit it but don't try to pretend you are doing anything less. There's no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant". Personally I prefer to grant full Human Rights, as defined by the United Nations, to all of our fellow human beings without excluding people whose existence might be a bit inconvenient for others. I'm not a killjoy or a spoilsport, have very good reason to be proud of all of my family and am very grateful for the fact the the joys, love and fulfilment I have experienced have been greatly enhanced by the troubles, worries and anxieties of raising my family, and also by sharing and helping with other peoples' problems. Whether we like it or not we are all members of the one human race and can only be truly happy and fulfilled by being prepared to make sacrifices for each other. Who was it said, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." ? Now there's the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Jesus Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:04 PM If only Mousethief had been aborted. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,God Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:08 PM Debate by all means, but please stop shitting on everyone who does not share your personal belief. This forum is disintigrating into trivial slanging contests and utter bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:12 PM Mark, sorry- that may be your truth. But it is not THE truth. And it was John Donne, though I'm not sure how campanology strengthens your point of view. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 06:28 PM I might have been; my mother conceived me out of wedlock and quite by surprise. Such a sentiment, however, is unbecoming a human being, regardless of their belief system or worldview. If you'll look at what I said in the DUI thread, I didn't take a pro- or anti-abortion stance at all. I was trying to represent the pro-life position and suggest that real communication will not take place on this issue until both sides can agree to accept the other side at face value. In this thread I merely cursed the direction the discussion was taking when it got into ugly insults. Obviously "Guest Jesus" likes ugly insults. That's too bad. Perhaps when she grows up a little she will mellow out. I like to think that maybe someday Americans will be able to discuss this topic in a rational and civil manner. Obviously they are not ready yet, and indeed even Mudcat, where the discussion is usually a notch or two above that in American society as a whole, doesn't seem quite ready yet for a civil and respectful debate on the issue. Which is really too bad, but hardly surprising. Finally, what is campanalogy? I assume it's the study of campanas, but for the life of me can't figure out what those might be.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bill D Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:08 PM There are various issues where seemingly reasonable people come down squarely on opposite sides....usually due to differing beliefs and/or definitions about 'first principles'. This is one of those issues. It simply boils down to feelings and belief. The **ONLY** way to fairly legislate the issue is to allow the individuals involved with the matter personally to decide for themselves. That is, if YOU ever have to decide about it, I will leave you alone.....and I expect the same courtesy from you if I have to wrestle with it. Please note...the very concept of 'believing' that 'X' is right implies that there is no PROOF that 'X' is right. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:12 PM "the very concept of 'believing' that 'X' is right implies that there is no PROOF that 'X' is right. " Now we need a "Logic: Here We Go" thread. You're apparently assuming, Bill, that knowledge is not a form of belief, and futher that the only true form of knowledge is that provided by proof. Both are debatable (and of course neither can be proven!). Epistemology lessons given for free; but right now I need to drive home and get the little one from the daycare.
Your resident philosophy major, |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Amos Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:18 PM Au contraire -- the minute you REALLY believe something (such as our devout belief that matter, energy, space and such-like bizarre forces actually exist immutably) all the proof you could ever want will pop up to be counted up. For example, I believe that gravity is a fundamental constant in body-centric spacetime. And, I believe that I have forgeotten how to make my body walk through walls. And I am fairly sure I could find proof readily. The only time this sdesn't work is when you are espousing a different set of convictions than you actually hold. Bill D put his finger squarely on it, though. That sort of issue can be educated out of currency, it can be persuaded out of currency, but if you try to legislate it out of currency you are probably going to have a real scrap on your hands. A |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: The Shambles Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:20 PM ROSIE JANE |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:29 PM Well MT.....You're not needed for lessons. Bill D. has a degree in philosophy, so does Max, and so do I. I would suggest that we take them all and trade them along with 89 cents for coffee at Mickey D.'s where we can bore each other stiff. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:32 PM When I was a virginal and prim adolescent and a member of a right-wing church, I was violently anti-abortion. At the age of seventeen, everything is black and white, isn't it? Now as a married full-time physician, my views have changed. I'm not in a specialty that is called upon to practice abortion, but I have colleagues in OB/Gyn who do. I worry about their safety everytime I hear about another clinic bombing. Yes, birth control is pretty darn good now. But it ain't perfect... I've met a lot of children conceived despite birth control pills. Even when taken according to directions, there are still a few failures. Not all of the women having abortions are unmarried; many are married and either have completed their family or simply know that they are not cut out to be parents. Adoption may be a viable option for the young unmarrieds, but can you see a married 35-year-old professional going through a pregnancy and delivery and then giving the child up for adoption? Can you imagine the outcry from the relatives? Earlier this year, when my childhood best friend told me that she might not be allowed to become pregnant because of her heart condition, I seriously considered being a surrogate mom for her. I love her and would like to think I would do anything for her. But what scares me away is the reaction I would get from friends, family and the community. If something as altruistic as that would be hard to explain, what about giving up one's own genetic child for adoption to a stranger? I don't want kids. My husband doesn't want kids. I love being a full-time physician, and feel that that's my role in life. It's what I am called to be, and the idea of parenthood terrifies me. Would I have an abortion? I don't know; it would be a very difficult decision. Maybe I'd go ahead with the pregnancy if I knew my friend would take the baby. For now, I stick with taking my pills religiously and I figure that eventually my husband will get snipped. But until that day, I live in a certain degree of low-grade anxiety regarding pregnancy. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: zonahobo Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:33 PM I think one issue is whether I should be forced through federal taxation to support abortion without a choice in the matter. Would Pro-Choicers privately support free clinics so the poor would have equal access to the same abortion services the rich would have access to without government support? For government to take a role in defending the life of an un-born child, it is vitally necessary to define when "life" begins for this obligation to be in force. It seems that a lot of people agree it extends backwards from birth to cover the third tri-mester as they call it. I think only a minority would say that "life" for the purpose of government protection begins with conception. I agree that it is very difficult if not impossible to defend being a Pro-Life advocate and also advocate capital punishment. Sometimes it boils down to what in society will I be apathetic about and what will I attempt to change. I don't like knowing my tax dollars are being used for government to choose who they'll kill with them. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:55 PM This is an issue where decent people disagree and have what seem to them good reasons for the position they hold.
Shouting at each other and throwing prejudiced stereotypes at each other - what's the point of that? All it does it reinforce the feelings of the people on the other side that their opponents are a load of prejuduced loudmouths. And of course it means most people turn away because who with any sense wants to get stuck into that kind of ugly brawl?
I disagree with a lot of people on this, including especially many people with whom I agree on a lot of other things. I'm not going to pretend that the reasons they think something different from me are other than the are, so that it entitles me to hate them.
For me, I see a fetus as an unborn child, and for me when people talk about it being very small or very undeveloped, that is about as relevant as it would be to suggest that a newborn child has fewer rights than a grown adult, because she or he hasn't reached the same level of development. And since for me "pro-life" means that it is always wrong to kill another human being, even one guilty of terrible things, killing an unborn child can never be right.
And I'd far sooner live in a world where everyone else agreed that unborn children have a right to live and that mothers should be provided with all the help the need, especially where there are problems which might make them see ending that life as a solution.
But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where many/most people do not think that a fetus is an unborn child with the same right to live as the rest of us. And where the pressures of poverty and corporate greed is such that abortion is a solution virtually - or in fact literally - forced on women, including some who would never choose it of their own free will.
Changes in the law won't alter that. I actually believe that for anyone who is seriously pro-life, changes in the law are irrelevant, and probably self-defeating. The priority is to provide help and support for mothers who find themselves driven towards abortion when that is not what they would choose. And yes, I also would like to see more people coming to share the belief that a fetus is an unborn chid, and that abortion is not an acceptable solution - but that has to be done person by person.
That means that there is a real bridge between a "pro-life" position and a "pro-choice" position - whichever side we are on, we should be in solidarity when it comes to protecting the right of a pregnant woman not to be forced into an unwanted abortion. That means fighting for the right kind and level of welfare rights, and childcare support, and help for people raising children with disabilities, and rights to parental leave and flexible working hours, and all kinds of stuff like that.
And so far as the rest of it, set it aside and agree to disagree for now, and accept that disagreeing doesn't mean hating.
And anybody who says they are "pro-life" and wants to cut help to lone parents - well, when I talked about decent people disagreeing, I wasn't including them. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bill D Date: 03 Nov 00 - 08:03 PM Yep...Amos made the point...once you are a "True Believer" (ala Eric Hoffer), proofs pop out of the woodwork!...and I forget sometimes that rigorous philosophy needs to be presented at greater length than mere 'common sense' or "Ordinary Language" philosophy. I simply wished to make the point that what counts as 'proof' is a slippery thing. If the clouds parted every Sunday morning and a big voice boomed down in thunder & lightning with the latest edicts, debate about "God" would be a bit different than it is. And if a 'soul' were some sort of visable thing which could be seen or measured entering a fetus at some definable moment, then abortion debates would be different too. As it is, we can only 'believe'...a process which is very little different from 'wanting' or 'liking' or 'trusting'...In some cases,it may turn out that one's belief is correct, but in other matters, the concept of strict philosophical 'proof' is not even applicable, except in so far as it is internally consistent, given first premises. (*sigh*..I'm afraid catspaw is right...a cuppa coffee or maybe a beer is in order....my degree has gotten me very little once I left school, realizing that they didn't NEED many Philosophers...and my epistemology is a bit rusty nowadays) Bill D...145 hours of Philosophy and ¼ of a thesis on A.N. Whitehead...which qualifies me to stand on any soapbox I can find...*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: zonahobo Date: 03 Nov 00 - 08:07 PM Well put McGrath. I think I've found my write-in canidate for the upcoming elections (not a US citizen? Oh well). I see some pretty calm voices of reason here among the usual attempts at distraction and disharmony. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mmm Date: 03 Nov 00 - 08:33 PM I am a 43 year old womenam not ugly and have 9 children 4 are my step children. i have had one abortion for those who think that abortion is a womens choice you may want to consider this i did not choose to have it i was forced by my husband at that time ( we are no longer together) people are always talking about a womens choice they forget aboutthe babies choice i have not heard any baby saying i want to be aborted whether you call it a fetus or an infant it is still a human being and deserves the same rights as anyone else. How do we know that one of these babies that are aborted if were allowed to live might have been the one to find the cure for cancer or aides? I will not condem someone who does not belive as i do nor resort to violence i belive it is equally as wrong i will ask that they think about these things |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron Date: 03 Nov 00 - 08:51 PM ah hope ye don't mind but ah never read aw this post but ah jist came in tae say thatIMHO the spirit disnae enter the bairn until it is matured enough tae move aboot.When it's mammy feels it kickin that when it has moved intae its new hoose. So if the abortion is afore that then it wid be jist a bunch o cells. ljc |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Catrin Date: 03 Nov 00 - 08:59 PM Oh this topic resonates with me so much. Firstly I need to say that, unlike some of my friends, I have never had the need to have an abortion, and am more than grateful for that. Secondly I need to say that if I have to go down on one side of the fence or another, I would have to say that I am pro choice. Bearing all this in mind, know that I worked in an abortion clinic once, as a counsellor. The women who came and went ranged in age from thirteen to forty-five. They all had different reasons for choosing an abortion. Some were coerced by husbands, boyfriends or parents, some were too untogether - addicted to some form of drug - alcohol or whatever. What really tested my 'belief' was that some used it as a form of birth control, coming in time and time again. I discussed this with the GP at the practice who described it as a form of bulimia - filling up and then expelling, again and again and again. Now I don't really know what to think. Its not all clear cut. I have two daughters who were both 'mistakes' - a legacy from an untogether lifestlye. They are both gorgeous and beautifl and the pride of my life. What do I really think about abortion? I have no idea but I would never condemn any woman who decided for herself that her life was such that she could not cope with a child. How long did I work at the clinic to learn all this? Two months. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:34 PM I get so tired of all this. Do you want to know specifics? Well, let me tell you specifics. I was 35 years old, single, professional, graduate degree, pregnant. I was by myself living in a new city away from any family and friends. I chose to terminate the pregnancy for reasons that are absolutely NONE of "Your" business. It was paid for by my insurance, for which I paid a good premium. "Your" tax money was not used. I didn't feel the need to ask anyone's permission or sanction to handle a situation which had to do with MY body, mind, and soul. And, today, I do not feel the need to seek absolution from "You." What took place that day was between me and G-d and NO ONE else. How I feel today is still between me and G-d and NO ONE else. DO NOT ever presume to "know" what I may have felt then or what I feel now. "You" need to take care of your own square inch of earth and let other's take care of their's. I almost wrote this anonymously, but I am neither ashamed nor embarrassed about my decision, and will stand up and be counted. That is me and my personal decision. The next woman may not feel as confident about sharing her decision and why and I respect her, too. What's too bad is that I, and she, have to deal with those of you who have NO respect. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Sandra Mackay Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:58 PM Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Date: 03-Nov-00 - 04:56 PM I've noticed that the great majority of anti-choice people are either men, women too old to conceive or too ugly to get laid. **** I'm a pro-choice woman who has had an abortion and I find the above statement to be highly offensive. You must be a very hateful man. Not at all like most men that I have met through folk music circles. I feel very sorry for you. Sandra Mackay |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Jimmy C Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:58 PM Once upon a time there were 2 sides to this issue, pro -abortion or pro-life. Pro-abortion sounded a little extreme so they decided to soften it, now it's called pro-choice. It has a nicer ring to it but it means the same thing, Unborn babies are being killed by their own mothers,fathers and doctors who have taken a time honoured oath to protect life. I believe that women do have a choice - that choice is should I or should I not get pregnant. Once they have made that choice they should not have the right to change their mind. Many people are using abortion as birth control, many women get pregnant by the man of their dreams until he turns out to be other than they expected, and then what happens ? " Well Piss on him, I am not having his brat so I'll just get rid of it" problem solved. And before anybody comes back with the excuse of pregnancies by rape, etc, check the figures. In Canada last year there was in excess of 100,000 abortions, thats right 100,000, from that total less than 0.04 of 1% was a result of rape etc. All others wrere the result of 2 people being careless or under the impression that it won't happen to me. Make no mistake about this, abortion is murder. I wonder where these advisors and doctors will be in 30 or 40 years when the young women is older and under psychiatric care because of the memory of an aborted child. Wise up, = people who are pro-abortion are already born. These children must be protected or else the elderly, handicapped, insane will be next, We are already seeing the start of it with euthanasia. No one has the right to take a life - no one. For God's sake smarten up before its too late.
|
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:02 PM Weel,weel Jimmy!!That certainly set us straight. Thanks. ljc |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:20 PM "I believe that women do have a choice - that choice is should I or should I not get pregnant." Well... abstinence was certainly a good option for me when I was young and single, but I think my husband would be most unhappy if I suggested it now. He gets deprived enough as it is, what with my schedule. Surgical sterilization? That's our eventual option, but most physicians are extremely reluctant to perform those procedures on men and women who have never had children. "You might change your mind!" is the typical answer. Plus, it's expensive, and involves pain. Hmmm, guess I should never have gotten married. Or I guess I should just close my practice and spend the next ten years barefoot and pregnant. That would make my in-laws happy. The "choose to get pregnant" argument just ain't that clear, folks. Sure, there are girls and women out there making foolish choices, but what about the rest of us? Read Jenny's statement above... do you think that she should have become a parent under those circumstances? She may have made one simple miscalculation to land her in that situation; given her story I think that she made the right choice. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:34 PM Jimmy, I'm not picking on you here, but tell me.....What life are you "proing" for? If an unwanted child is born to parents who are alchoholic, drug addicted, jobless, etc., what kind of life is the child likely to have? Okay then, let's ban abortion and establish some clear cut guidelines and regulations with someone playing God and determining who will and who will not be fit parents. Why make the moral judgement only about a fetus? Let's just go "root hog or die" and start making the moral judgements at the source. If we can tell a woman she has no right to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, why can't we tell people they are not suitable to be parents and require sterilization for those who are not qualified? If you can do one, you can do the other. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:44 PM Exactly. Kids born into screwed-up families get screwed-up. Period. And if the parents screw up badly enough that the kids get yanked out and placed in foster care, the poor kids are often so messed up that no one wants them. ADD, ODD, brain damage, violent behaviors... That's my challenge to pro-lifers. Let's see some of you open up your homes to damaged children like this, instead of going to China or Russia to adopt healthy children. Or instead of having twelve children of your own, which is pretty flippin' irresponsible if you ask me. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: sophocleese Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:54 PM And once again the abortion argument starts at the end not at the beginning. Most pro-choicers would prefer that abortions don't happen or are never deemed necessary. Abortions are ugly and nasty and generally desperate. One simple way to reduce the numbers of abortions is to educate people about sex and birth control and then have birth control available and inexpensive. To refuse to educate children about sex because of some strange, muddled ideas of morals and then tell them that since they fucked up through ignorance they are going to have to live with the consequences is irresponsible. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Jimmy C Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:04 PM Agreed, there are some people who should not be parents, and I would agree with some sort of procedure to prevent them from getting married but thats not going to solve the problem. It's strange that lawyers are needed when divorce looms but nobody is required to advice a couple before they get married. But married or not children will still be conceived, and in this day and age with all of the contraceptives, creams, condoms etc openly available there is absolutely no excuse for hunderds of thousands of innocent children being killed, no excuse whatsoever, and believe me I am not putting the blame or the responsibility solely on women, ( Kimmers - i'm sorry, but has uur husband never heard of condoms?). With all the arguments presented above, there is one statement that stands clear = We do not have the right to say who lives and who dies" period. I am normally a very complacent quiet type of individual but this topic gets me hot under the collar. About the type of life the child will have, true it may be hard, there may be a broken home, no money, little clothes but give any of these children the choice and they would scream I WANT TO LIVE. If we were to abort a child because of poverty, physical handicap, alcoholic parents. etc - we would have aborted Beethoven ! I give thanks to my mother every day for not aborting me. LJC - I just realized who you are, sorry for not making the connection sooner, I worked as the alternate act when you were With Ralph O'Brien and the boys in the Windsor house. Nice to see you are still alive and kicking. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:19 PM "Kimmers - i'm sorry, but has uur husband never heard of condoms?" Good grief, of course he has! And how many children do you know whose parents were using condoms? Or foam? Or even the pill? No birth control method is 100% effective, except abstinence or a properly performed surgical sterilization. I have several babies in my practice who were conceived on birth control pills. And my husband is a wise man who knows that decisions about contraception are mine to make, not his. He is a dear man who wants me to be his soulmate, not his brood mare. On that day I ask him to go see a nice doctor and have a little band-aid surgery, he will give his consent with all his heart. I'm just not ready to ask that of him yet. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:22 PM Haud yer wheesht Jimmy,ah'm supposed tae be hidin oot doon.For Gawds sake don't tee Jimmy McVeigh where ah am!!If ye like ye can PM me an we'll hae a blether on the fly.Nae gabbin aboot Holy Penises or or deid bairns tho. ljc |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Jimmy C Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:34 PM Kimmers,I'm so sorry, perhaps I should not have worded it that way. I know that no method of birth control is 100% effective, but there are many that are effective and would not result in hundreds of thousands of abortions a year, this is madness and utter cruelty on the mothers as well as the unborn children. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Hotspur Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:49 PM I don't believe I would ever have an abortion, but I am not every woman and I would not presume to understand every situation. Therefore, I would not presume to tell other women what they should do in their circumstances. I do not advocate abortion, but I do not condemn it. It is a personal decision. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:53 PM Vasectomies can be vastly effective. The first one might fail but a quick test and a second or third snip will get you within walking distance of 100%, if you can still walk straight. All anti-choice men could show the veracity of their beliefs by immediately lining up at their local Speedy Vasectomy franchise. Then they could stroll down the street and adopt difficult and unwanted babies. After they've taken care of 9 or 10 difficult kids for 20 years they might have a relevant opinion on what women could do with their amazing bodies. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Marion Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:05 AM I think that the question of abortion is truly a dilemma. The foundation of the pro-choice argument is that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and therefore her own to control. The foundation of the anti-abortion argument is that a fetus is a person in his/her own right, and therefore has a right to life. The dilemma comes with the paradox that is pregnancy: the fetus is BOTH part of the woman's body, and a body of its own. Therefore a woman has the legitimate right to decide what to do with her womb and its contents, AND a fetus has the legitimate right to be live and to be legally protected from violence. So how do we deal with this dilemma, where two equally legitimate rights are in conflict? I think the best way is to examine how the two parties got into this dilemma in the first place. A fetus' role in an unwanted pregnancy is always involuntary; he or she did not choose to be conceived. On the other hand, a woman GENERALLY (I will address exceptions below) enters this dilemma voluntarily, by choosing to have sex knowing that it might result in pregnancy and what pregnancy would involve. So it seems to me that although an unwanted pregnancy presents a conflict between equally legitimate rights, since the woman entered this conflict voluntarily and the fetus involuntarily, the fetus' rights should have priority in most cases. So I am pro-life in ordinary situations. When I said that a woman enters an unwanted pregnancy "voluntarily", I mean that she chooses to have sex, knowing that it might result in pregnancy and what pregnancy is likely to involve. Of course there are a number of scenarios where this would not apply. If she were pregnant as a result of rape or incest, then the "choosing to have sex" part wouldn't apply. If she were a very young girl or had a mental disability or illness, then the "knowing it might result in pregnancy" part wouldn't apply. And if continuing the pregnancy had extraordinary health risks, then the "knowing what pregnancy is likely to involve" part wouldn't apply. So in these exceptional situations, I think that the woman's right to control her own body should take precedence. So that's how I've managed to come up with an answer that works with me logically and ethically. A general question to those who are far more pro-choice or more pro-life than me: do you see the question of abortion as a straight forward moral question, or a difficult one? Is it a dilemma where you understand the other side but reluctantly come down on the side you come down on, or do you think the other side of the argument is nonsense? I think this is a really hard dilemma - one of the hardest ethical dilemmas that there is today. One more comment: I often hear pro-choice people point out that many people are not able to be good parents, but isn't this a straw man argument? Pro-lifers hold that pregnant women should have to carry their fetuses to term, not that they should have to raise the babies. Adoption is always an option, even for older, married women; if their relatives look at them askance that's their relatives' problem. Marion |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:07 AM Below are some of the arguments I read in this thread and my comments: "I think one issue is whether I should be forced through federal taxation to support abortion without a choice in the matter." The money issue - should our taxes pay for abortions? Many of the pro-life people are memmbers of the same right wing parites that want to limit social welfare for unwed mothers. I hear it all the time from the conservatives with whom I work. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that same tired story about the welfare cadillacs. Well, let me ask you this. If our tax money doesn't pay for abortions then shouldn't it pay to help raise the resulting children? "How do we know that one of these babies that are aborted if were allowed to live might have been the one to find the cure for cancer or aides." The unknown future issue - The aborted fetus might have turned out to be another Einstein. S/he could also have turned out to be another John Wayne Gacy! Or another Manson. Being born into the poverty, drugs, disease and other hardships it is more likely that the kid will turn out to be a problem than not. (And thank God for people like Spaw and Karen who care enough to open their homes for these kids.) "I believe that women do have a choice - that choice is should I or should I not get pregnant." The birth control choice issue - Very neat. Easily handled. Unfortunately you forget that birth control requires forethought and a willing partner. Try reading the condom thread to see how many of the enlightened members of our website would rather not go that route. Now, what does our drugged and drunk high school drop out do when his girlfriend insists on his using a condom? Does he acquiesce with a rueful grin. We would like to think so. More likely than not he sweet talks her into believing that it will be OK just this once. Or he beats her up and "rapes" her. And for any number of reasons she will accept his argument. Have any of you women EVER been sweet talked into sex and felt (maybe later) you were being or had been forced? The women on this site strike me as being fairly level headed and strong enough to avoid that situation MOST of the time. But not always. Moonjen has spoken of her pregnancy. She is an intellegent and independent woman and she wound up in this predicament. What do you think the scared and lonely high school dropout is going to do? Does anyone here really believe that women will always get their way in dealing with men and sex? The killing a baby issue - Yes, maybe we are killing a baby. And maybe we aren't. This is the crux of the issue for so many people. Most on the pro-life side of the argument believe each abortion is the murder of a child. The murder of a child is so reprehensible a crime that it strkes at our very core (for all of us on both sides). The pro-life people have decided that abortion is equivalent to that crime. We will never argue that out of them. They will always believe that and for them it can not be negotiable. What we have here is another of those arguments that cannot be settled. I have always thought that pro-lifers should register and each be issued a baby that results from banning abortions. And pro-choicers should be required to do community service teaching birth control and all of us should finance vasectomies! But now you run into the argument.... There is no end. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:16 AM We have a society that uses sex to sell kids all kinds of consumer items like chewing gum. Then we condemn the kids for trying sex and for the consequences. Before shooting a single doctor, I'd like to see anti-abortionists get at the root causes of many unwanted pregnancies and shoot all the CEOs, directors and managers of gum companies and all the CEOs, directors and managers of every other junk food companies and all the CEOs, directors and managers of clothing companies and all the CEOs, directors and managers most other companies who sell products using sexy models and actors. Of course this would be too intelligent and logical for those wackos who are out there tonight shooting at doctors. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:20 AM Sadly enough Brett, you are right. There is no end............. For every argument on either side there is a compelling or logical (or both) argument to be made on the other. Marion states that the fetus rights should come first, that we are taking a life. However, she then also says that in certain cases, this does not apply......for instance in cases of the mother's mental disability. My son Tristan's bio-mom is mentally incompetent and suffers from seizures. Tris is MRDD with autistic tendencies. On the other hand we have the mother who does not want a child and does not want to deal with the adoption issues, which are very real. We can go on and on can't we? YEs Brett, there is no end......and more's the pity. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thyme2dream Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:22 AM well, I was going to stay out of this, but I'm delighted yet again at how these crazy issues manage to stay mainly sane here on Mudcat...a big huzzah to all who have participated thus far!! well...with perhaps one exception: KENDALL????? I'm tellin Calach you said I was too ugly to get laid--after he picks himself up off the floor (where he was rolling wi laughter) I'm sure he'd like to 'have a word'wi you--he disnae take too kindly tae prats wha insult his darlin'...go an look at his pic..he's a SCARY git, face paint an all ;-)!! Little John..your wisdom is simple and pure...bunch o cells, or kicking, living entity?? That is my main concern. I think I should begin my 'rant' by saying that I don't believe that first trimester abortions should be against the law at all...there is however a point at which it is no longer just a fetus in there... In Kansas lately we have been trying to pass a law concerning third trimester 'partial birth' abortions...now perhaps Kimmers could shed more light on this process, but it's my basic understanding that this particular type of abortion involves inducing labor, and once the baby is born performing some sort of procedure that actually 'kills' the baby, partly out of the womb. (the description I heard from the knee-jerk reactionaries was 'stab the baby in the back of the neck, stick a vacuum in and suck its brains out, but I tend to take all they say wi a grain of salt-or try not to take it at all if I can help it.) The point is, this late in the pregnancy, there is a chance that the baby could survive, and part of the procedure involves ensuring that it doesn't. I see NO reason on earth that justifies this sort of abortion. If a woman has carried a baby this far, then lets not spend money helping her kill it, lets spend money and effort helping her cope with bearing it, and seeing that it is provided with a good home! My concern about abortion is that it bespeakes a very selfish attitude...every child is wanted by someone! The idea that we should have a right to take a life because it isn't convenient is a scary thought. I'm sorry, I've been pregnant three times, and from about the second trimester on, it wasn't in any way,shape, or form just MY BODY anymore, and if you read baby books and self-help pregnancy books you see this presented over and over again! Kimmers, there are many organizations that offer help and support to women that want to avoid aborting their babies--even one here in Kansas that matches up single mums to be with loving families that take them in for the duration of their pregnancy and offer them counseling and support during the adoption process as well--which IS run by one of those right wing pro-life groups! Unfortunately its the crazies that talk the loudest...(those knee-jerk folk I mentioned earlier)and of course the ones who get the most press... The most sensible pro-life 'slogan' I ever saw was EQUAL RIGHTS FOR UNBORN WOMEN...it sort of points out some of the dichotomy of the pro-'choice' position. As for agruing that we shouldn't make any laws that restrict our choices about our bodies...does your state have a SEATBELT law? Are you for it or against it? |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thyme2dream Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:39 AM Flattop, I sorta like your shoot the CEO's idea...you're right, sex-marketing is everywhere in society! My 16 year old son made an astute observation the other day after coming home from a required attendence 'pep assembly' at school. "Mom," says my bundle of wisdom,"if they are trying so hard to prevent teen pregnancies through all these info programs at school, then WHY do I have to sit and watch 20 girls in skimpy dresses shaking their breasts & buns at me and singing 'do it to me one more time' as part of my compulsory school attendence?". I have since then excused him from ALL sports-oriented assemblies, much to the chagrin of the school officials... |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:39 AM As for the questions you would ask a woman who chooses to abort and the woman who chooses to give birth ... IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Jenny |
| Share Thread: |