BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2

Subject: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 10:50 AM

first partCLICK HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Susan from California
Date: 05 Nov 00 - 11:01 AM

Oops, my last post overlapped with the move to a new thread, so here it is again....

BTW, when we look at history, we need to look at the huge number of "exposed" babies in the past. Babies that were born alive and left "exposed" to the elements to die were very common from the days of the Roman Empire (and probably before)until much more recent history. An interesting book on the subject is "The Kindness of Strangers" by John Boswell. Boswell argues that up until the 2nd half of the 18th c. that 25-33% of all babies were abandonded in many European cities. Most of these babies died.

Kate, I must respectfully say that because any decision a woman makes when faced with unplanned pregnancy is going to be with her for the rest of her life, then the answer is to let her make it herself. To go back to a time when women were forced by circumstance to carry a pregnancy to term, to act as a brood mare for someone who wants to adopt, is abusive and cruel. To have women faced with unsafe, sometimes mutilating, sometimes fatal, illegal abortions is ridiculous. Let's all work together to make abortion rare. But please, let individuals decide for themselves when faced with these difficult issues. To do otherwise is to play God. I know that I am not qualified to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 01:13 PM

By way of refreshing this thread:

Frighteningly, almost every pro-abortion argument used here has an analogue in the arguments for and against slavery in this country 150 years ago. It was a religious issue, and the state should stay out of religion. "If you're opposed to slavery, don't own slaves. But don't tell me what to do with my own property." And so forth.

Fact is, a newborn CANNOT exist without its mother, or SOME adult, to feed clothe and shelter it, so the "viability outside the mother is where human life starts" rule is hardly convincing. A fully-formed newborn could exist without care for maybe 24 hours, tops. Therefore it's not a human? It's a temporary human? A 24-hour human?

"It's none of your business what I do with my body." Yes it is. If you use your body to pull the trigger of a gun that shoots another human, it's society's business. This "it's my body" argument begs the question. The whole question is whether it's just your body, or yours and another human's (viz the unborn child). Thus, "it's my body" is the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

The "people from crummy homes grow up crummy" argument is a bit question-begging also. Should we shoot all 5-year-olds from crummy homes, to prevent them from growing up twisted and angry and bitter and what-not? No? This is how the argument sounds to someone who believes an unborn child is a human life. Until we decide whether abortion is the taking of a human life, then, this argument is begging the question.

There's no doubt it's a difficult question.

I also decry the politics of personal relationships that make women feel powerless and unable to have their wants and desires respected and acted upon. I'm not at all sure what I can do about this, except teach my children to respect other human beings, and act accordingly.

I agree with whoever it was that said that the anti-abortion forces can and should spend more time and effort and money making abortions UNNECESSARY. This is why I generally do not support making abortion illegal. I would rather people --from both sides-- work toward making abortions unnecessary. (I wonder however if a counsellor who is employed by a business which makes its income from providing abortions isn't in a position of conflict-of-interest?) I would prefer to see a society in which abortion is legal, but very, very few women take advantage of the fact. Someday, someday...

Amazingly civil discussion on a very explosive topic.

Okay, I've had my say. Flame away.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Penny S.
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 01:22 PM

No flame, but no-one, in the parts of this I've read, has mentioned one issue. A friend of mine carries a gene which, if active in a child, would result in its living for no more than six months, and in that time being in utter agony, unable to be held for the pain. Not all pregnancies would result in this, but some could. Her first did, and after much thought and prayer, with the father, she had an abortion. Her second child was, and is, fine. Not everyone approved of what she did. I do. There is a reason why abortion should not be carried out for any "less than perfect" child. However, not all "disabilities" are liveable with, and she could not face delivering a child into hell.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 01:36 PM

I'm with you there, Penny. I knew a couple back in Chicago who found out that the wife was pregnant with an acephalic (is that the right word? brainless, anyway) baby. They couldn't bear the thought of bringing the child into the world to watch it die in pain, so they terminated the pregnancy. The sad part is that they went to a very conservative church, where "no abortions no matter what" was the policy, so there was nobody there that they could share their pain and grief with. This all came out when they were having supper with me and my (then) wife, kind of in a rush. They were so grateful just to be able to talk about it, and not have us condemn them. They had enough pain and grief without having someone zonk them for being "murderers."

Perhaps this is why I'm not a "no abortions no matter what" sort of guy.

Ironically, not many years later my (then) wife had a miscarriage, and this was (in retrospect) a major cause in our subsequent divorce. I hope that couple back in Chicago got better help than we did.

Not sure where I'm going with this. Except to say that a mother who chooses abortion is a human being, in a very difficult spot, who needs our compassion and forgiveness and (if I may be so bold) love, far more than name-calling and recrimination.

A long-time person-ist,
Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 02:13 PM

Mousethief......Have you had any experience with alchohol/drug agdicted babies and their subsequent lives? Are you familiar with Attachment Disorder Syndrome and its relationship to those children? No, I too would not advocate for some kind of euthanasia, but the problems of genetics in these cases is equally significant to other genetic problems you describe.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 02:19 PM

Spaw, what's your point, if not euthenasia, albeit pre-natal euthenasia?

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 04:46 PM

MT, I think you are simplifying the problems if abortion in your summary and agrument above.

The viability question is an important point. I agree the child for quite some time after birth is totally dependent on the parent(s) (For some kids that phase goes on for upwards of 20 years!) I think the question of viability is focused more on defining the moment when it is too late to consider abortion a "killing". There is a point at which the fetus becomes something independent of the mother's body. At that point we have to consider the fetus to have the potential to be a live human being. At that point an abortion becomes a "killing" and not just an operation to remove a cellular growth. Please note I am not getting into reasons for the abortion. I am just discussing the actual operation itself and the time limits that I believe should be imposed.

This bears on the "...nobody's business what I do with my body..." argument. If the embryo is just a bunch of cells that is part of the mother's body then she is right to say this. If, on the other hand, that bunch of cells can persist outside of the mother's body then it can no longer be considered part and parcel of her body. The fetus is now more in the nature of a parasite (meant in the nicest possible way, of course) on the mother's body. So I would have to say the mother has the right to say it's nobody's business what she does with her body up until that point.

I don't believe you understood my use of the "people from crummy homes grow up crummy" argument. I did not intend for it to be a reason for abortion. It is a reason not to ban abortions until we can get a better system of birth control out there for the kids who keep getting pregnant. For some it is the only way out of an impossible situation. It is a choice of ruining two lives or only one. Actually it is no choice at all. Life sucks sometimes but we cannot avoid it.

By extension, we need to get some education for the parents so they will understand that little Janie and little Johnny are going to "do it" no matter how much they want to believe in the chastity of their children. And we need to educate those children so that they know what will happen if they screw around and what they can do to prevent it. Unfortunately too many parents think it is their duty to do that and they fail to follow through.

And, finally, we have to get it through our heads that women have rights too. We need ALL men to understand that their sexual needs are not more important than those rights. Until that day dawns this problem will persist.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Matt_R
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 05:07 PM

YEah, if guys would keep their wankers in their pants, we wouldn't have none of this trouble!

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: kimmers
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 05:08 PM

I won't pretend to be able to read Spaw's mind, but I think I have some comments along the same lines as to what he might be thinking. Maybe.

It's very easy to shout the battle cry of "Adoption, Not Abortion!" I'd love to see more childless couples find children to raise, and on the surface it seems logical that those who find themselves pregnant unintentionally should give their babies to those who can give them the resources and love that they need. Sometimes this happens, and when it does, it's beautiful. More typically, it doesn't.

Many of the teen mothers I met claim that they wanted to get pregnant so that they could have someone to love. Others either didn't consider abortion or found too many obstacles in their way, not the least of which is the adolescent's general tendency to deny problems until they can no longer be denied. Poor adolescents and poor young adults have difficulty accessing health care as well as difficulty in planning ahead. Some of the single moms that I meet have even had one or more abortions prior to completing a pregnancy.

In the usual case, the girl or woman goes on to have the baby and keep it. The father may or may not stay involved. The mother/child pair are usually in poverty. If they live on their own, their support systems may be nonexistent. If they live with her family, they may be one of many girls in the family in the same predicament. It's not unusual for me to meet an entire extended family of a newborn baby without one adult male among them: the fathers and brothers have fled and the daughters grow up and get pregnant in turn. So, everyone in the family stays poor.

Then, in some cases, it becomes apparent that the baby or young child isn't getting good care. Maybe the baby won't gain weight, maybe the child shows up in the ER with a broken leg when he or she isn't even crawling. Maybe the child comes to school filthy and unwashed day after day until the teacher finally intervenes by calling the local child protective services agency. Only then is that baby or child taken out of poverty and neglect and placed with caring people like Spaw and Karen, who have to try and undo months or years of damage. Those kids are the lucky ones; the others just limp along marginally until they can grow up and restart the cycle.

That's purely looking at it from the environmental side of things. Even with babies placed at birth, voluntarily or involuntarily, there can be problems with a biological basis. Babies can be affected in utero by poisons such as alcohol, methamphetamines, even prescription drugs taken for conditions such as seizures. They can be damaged by infections such as rubella or toxoplasmosis. They can be born prematurely because of the general lack of attention that the mother is giving to herself during her pregnancy, and therefore be at risk for cerebral palsy and blindness. Finally, mental illness in the parents may have a genetic basis and be transmitted to the child. All of these things may cause potential adoptive parents to shy away from the beginning or cause them desperation later on.

If the courts have to get involved before adoption can occur, the process can drag on for years. This impairs bonding and causes foster/adoptive parents to feel uncertain about the future they have with the children they're raising.

I would love to see abortion become mostly unnecessary and highly unusual. But the proliferation of damaged kids scares me. We are a free society and I am most unwilling to suggest measures that would change that, but I too wish that there was a way to force contraception on those that are too young and too emotionally unstable to become parents. Until we as a society find a way to do that, we will have unwanted pregnancies. Until we find a way to ensure that all infants live in a happy and stable home, the reality is that abortion will stay with us... either legally or illegally.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 05:32 PM

Kimmers, you are my kind of people.

Yeah, that's a large part of what I didn't say. WE debate all the ethical/moral/religious reasons surrounding abortion and even throw it into the political arena, and yet we really don't want to talk about the realities of the situations. I have seen all the cases kimmers describes, indeed two of them are my sons. I could type for the next month and never get in all the stories. The problem being, they are more than stories.

These are human beings. Women and men and children. Its nice to say that we are all responsible, that we can take care of each case without abortion......but its just rhetoric. Step into the trenches, there is little room for rhetoric. What do you do with the unwanted kids? NOW!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Matt_R
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 05:38 PM

From an old WWII airmen's training manual:

When you've reached your last resort--abort, abort, abort!

(lots of other funny cartoony rhymes about talking windshields giving suggestions for night-flight missions as well)

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 00 - 05:39 PM

As kimmers said, legal or illegal, there are going to be abortions. When we're looking at in terms of legal or illegal we're often looking in the wrong direction. Reading through this thread, both parts, it becomes clearer and clearer that a lot of the hard cases quoted aren't really about free choice at all, but about a fundamentally unjust society for which abortion is convenient.

Providing support and friendship for women who have had abortions is something that some pro-life groups are very committed to, and I am sure the same is true of some pro-choice groups as well.

There was a quote that came up in a thread sometime ago about something different - I can't remember how it went but the gist was that, in any kind of conflict you get into, you find that there are people on your side whom you heartily wish were on the other side. That's very true here - and I don't mean in the Mudcat so much as in the world outside. (And the opposite is true - people on the other side that you wish were on your side. And that is true in the Mudcat as well as in the outside world.)

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: mg
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 01:32 AM

One thing I know for sure...if you don't want young teens and in fact children to get pregnant you have to chaparone them, night and day. That will take care of at least most of the younger ones. Once they get to 17 or so you can't...15 and 16 are marginal years...But God forgive us for allowing, yes allowing, 12, 13, 14 year olds to get pregnant. If we don't want them to, we will keep them either separated, or chaparoned and supervised. Every single minute. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 01:41 AM

But Mary, that would mean that their parents would have to give up THEIR time. I mean, how do you expect them to be FULFILLED and to GROW? With work and all, it's difficult enough to find the time to develop as an integrated personality and now you want us to supervise our kids? Thats what we have TV and schools and malls for.

troll...for whom this is a VERY sore point

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 09:29 AM

Oh oh oh Troll! Thanks for the laugh! Yeah, I'm pretty sick of parents who don't parent, and then wonder what happened to their kids.

Kimmers, you say some good stuff, but none of it really has to do with abortion. You're talking, after all, about those women who chose to keep their children. Your suggestion to implement some sort of "forced contraception" scares me though...I understand that there are people that have sex (and therefore children) irresponsibly, but do you think infringing on their human rights as well is a good idea? Who would decide which people deserved to have or not have their fertility? Isn't that opening the door for myriads of small injustices?

(I can just imagine some official deciding that 4 children was enough and denying my mother the right to have me.)

The very thought of that kind of forced control makes me shiver.

Kate
Once again, more to say, but not enough time to finish saying it. I'll be back.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: kimmers
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 11:46 AM

Oh, we can't do forced contraception, not and remain a free society. My point was meant to state that *since* we can't and won't take charge in that way (we can't even agree on universal contraception education), then abortion *will* remain with us in one form or another. As to why I even considered such an idea, well, I read too much science fiction. Would I really help implement something like that? I doubt it. But many SF stories talk about societies where parents must apply for a license to have a child, with financial penalties if you choose to ignore it. I've always been intrigued by that.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 11:55 AM

Yes kimmers....in our society they are often called "adoptive parents."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: GUEST,Colwyn Dane
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 06:03 PM

G'day,

Just a 'little' response to previous postings.

flattop: you are of course correct - my mistake, a rush of blood - I shouldn't have used a
non-verifiable statement to link the Romans and the Dark Ages. Lets synchronise calendars &
references - the Dark Ages: The early part of the Middle Ages from the fall of the Roman
Empire in A.D. 476 until the coronation of Charlemagne in A.D. 800 - this from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Naemansor: regarding abstinence or celibacy; I was not advocating either, because that which
is not expressed naturally is often distorted or perverted and expressed unnaturally.
Although I don't think there is any harm in self-abnegation for limited periods such as Lent
or Ramadhan. Also I was observing (in an unexpanded statement) that sexual urges are not a
matter of life or death for the person who has them - I'm pretty sure that if you are
suffering the effects of a famine or deprived of sleep, then the last thing on your mind is
sex. Apologies for any confusion.

Thomas the Rhymer: You are completely correct my piece was badly researched and that's only
because I didn't do any research on it; I was presenting an anti-abortion position and it is
difficult to do any research because unlike, say, the experts in poverty who are the poor,
the experts in the anti-abortion 'field', unfortunately, are the victims and cannot give us
their informed option. I suppose sensors could be attached to the foetus to see if any
readings are obtained as he/she is 'removed' from the womb - perhaps nothing would 'show-up'
or perhaps an electronic 'scream' would be evident?

Scientific investigation is limited to that which may be measured - to physical systems,
providing the system can be counted, sized, weighed or timed. And of course the mind which
computes these measurements cannot measure itself as it is apparently non-physical and
therefore immeasurable. The mind has only one means by which to gauge reality and that means
is by conscious experience e.g. beholding the beautiful in sound, form, or concept, our
feeling of delight at the laughter of a child, our experience of indignation over an
injustice is of course immeasurable. An experience in consciousness may be triggered by
sense impressions, but it is in the nature of a total response of the psyche to a situation,
and is something quite different and infinitely more significant than a mere intellectual response.
I have never been to a Sunday school so I do not know what they propagate - and here is me
thinking my piece was coming from a different angle - such ignorance.
I don't understand your link with fascism unless it is the fasces carried before magistrates
of ancient Rome as a emblem of authority? My political views are not fascist, I do not
belong to a political party and I am not a member of or speak for any anti-abortion
organisation; I do not belong to any church; like most folk I am conservative on some issues
and liberal on other issues - an aside: is the pro-abortion view now conservative? If not
when does it become so?

Back to fascism: the modern term seems to mean those who like to dress in military uniforms
and jump to the orders of a Colonel/General leader - who is extremely nationalistic - and
who has no compunction in eliminating opposition in a lethal way. I don't know for sure, but
for a fascist I would imagine it would be a small step from voluntary abortion to
involuntary abortion. The preservation of life is not top of a fascist agenda methinks.

I remember from another thread a contributor mentioned St. Augustine and the belief that
women didn't have a soul. I came across this the other day and of course it is a theory, but
it seems to state the same thing in a different way. Its not completely off-topic, but
please don't read it if you think you will be offended; you can of course dismiss it as the
ravings of a madman - I found possibilites in it interesting.

F. Peters writing about a meeting G. held in Paris.

"G. brought up once again the question of men and women, their roles in life, and, as an
additional element, the specific roles of the sexes in his work or, for that matter, in any
religious or psychological work which had self-development and proper growth as an aim. I
was surprised and puzzled then, and many times later when he spoke on the subject, by
reiteration of the fact that not only was his work "not for everyone" but that "women did
not need it." He said that the nature of women was such that "self development" in his sense
of the phrase was something that they could not achieve. Among other things, he said:
"Nature of woman is very different from that of man. Woman is from ground, and only hope for
her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is with man.
Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be
like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman
ever: what you call 'aspiration'. In life, man use this thing- this aspiration - for many
things, all wrong for his life, but must use because have such need. Man - not woman - climb
mountains, go under oceans, fly in air, because must do such thing. Impossible for him not
to do; cannot resist this. Look at life around you: Man write music, man paint pictures,
write books, all such things. Is way, he think, find Heaven for self."
When someone did object that the sciences and the arts were not, after all, exclusively
confined to the world of the male, G. laughed: "You ask question about woman artist, woman
scientist. I tell you world all mixed up, and true thing I say. True man and true woman not
just one sex - not just male or female. True human is combination of these thing: active and passive, male and female.
In this solar system, people bi-sexual: necessary have two sexes for reproduction of kind -
primitive method, which use part of man's aspiration for creation of more people. Man who
can learn how to achieve higher self - how go to proper Heaven - can use all this aspiration
for development of self, for what you call immortality. In world as now exist, no man able
do this: only possibility for immortality is reproduction. When man have children, then all
of him not die when his body die.
"Not necessary for woman do work of man in world. If woman can find real man, then woman
become real woman without necessity work. But, like I tell, world mixed up. Today in world
real man not exist, so woman even try to become man, do man's work which is wrong for her nature."

Thank goodness that the wisdom of all your mothers appears to be very sound otherwise this
forum would be rather empty.

I apologise if I have offended you in anyway - may your beliefs go with you.

Bcnu,
Colwyn

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 06:22 PM

I have a question..how can a baby born without a brain feel pain? Also, Ross Perot said one thing that made sense to me.."We have a puppy, and my granchildren love it. I would like to see every child in this country get as much love as that puppy gets." Love is what is missing here, and love is what these kids will seek out, no matter where it takes them. If they dont get it at home, they will get it in a gang, or the back seat of some horny young mans car. She is getting love...he is getting laid.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: kimmers
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 07:27 PM

To answer Kendall's question: a baby born without a brain (anencephaly) cannot feel pain. Pain is perceived in the cortex, the outer part of the brain, and these unfortunates don't have one. They are never conscious in any sense of the word.

While I would have to think long and hard about having an abortion if I were pregnant with a healthy baby, I would not hesitate to terminate a pregnancy for a congenital malformation as severe as this one. There are a few other malformations (well, more than a few, but many are vanishingly rare) as well that are basically incompatible with life, where the infant lives a brief and tortured existence.

In the old days, before sophisticated neonatal ICU's, before the whole family was crowded into the delivery room, and before the Baby Doe cases of the 80's, obstetricians and others present at deliveries simply did not resuscitate severely deformed babies, such as infants with anencephaly or other severe brain abnormalities, or limb/body wall complex where the internal organs are literally outside the body at birth. They would just set the poor thing aside and tend to the mother, sort of a form of benign neglect.

I suppose this is thread creep, but it's interesting. There are some fascinating books out there on medical ethics.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 09:42 PM

...so at what point, if any, do you stop or disallow abortion for eugenic purposes?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: kimmers
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 12:53 AM

Eugenics, in its purest sense, means manipulation of the gene pool. In the very serious congenital malformations or inherited metabolic diseases (such as Tay-Sachs) no child lives long enough to reproduce... so you can't technically call terminating those pregnancies eugenics. You can argue whether it is euthanasia, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 11:31 AM

Abortion is nobody's business except that of the woman concerned. Period. I do not believe it's a decision that MOST women would take lightly either, because most women have a strong mothering instinct. Any government that tries to tell a woman what she can or cannot do about it is treading where it has no business to go.

As for God, if ANYTHING was against God's will, it simply could not and would not happen. That is the defining characteristic of a being who is all-powerful. Chew on that. God doesn't judge, demand, require, or condemn anything. People do, and they imagine God to be like themselves. God simply loves, provides, loves, and is.

For a more detailed explanation of that...read the books "Conversations With God" (volume 1, 2, & 3), "Friendship With God", and "Communion With God". You can find them in any good book store these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 12:19 PM

Gee LH,

Thanks for the clarification.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: JedMarum
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 12:51 PM

kimmers - thanks for your carefully worded, balanced comments. You are the voice of reason, in this discussion!

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Troll
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 01:39 PM

From what you say, Little Hawk, the man has no rights and no say in whether the pregnancy that HE is half-partner in, is terminated. Does he also then have no responsibility as regards contraception or assistance if the pregnancy is NOT terminated?
As far as defining the nature of God, in Christianity and Judiasm, man is given free-will and CAN disobey the will of God if he wishes.It just isn't a very good idea. I am not sure of the free-will situation in Islam (anyone?) but the Quran gives some pretty specific things that believers WILL do so presumably there are penalties if one does not do them.
The Bible, The Torah and The Quran are accepted by at least half the world as Truth.Most of the books written about these three books attempt to define the nature of God. I'll certainly look into the three you mentioned.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 01:45 PM

Abortion is nobody's business except that of the woman concerned. Period.
writes Little Hawk and Moonjen has used rather similar words in the first thread.
That is a much too strongly worded and not well considered statement in my eyes. I remember too well my feelings when a woman decided for abortion against all my pleas. I would have loved to father my child and bring him or her up, even alone.
Yes, I know that the labour (in at least two senses of the word) the woman has with the pregnancy is much more than the labour the father has during the first nine months of life. But think once more, was it really none of my business at all?
If (understandably) women want men to take over more responsibilities in other areas and don't want to hear sentences like "Contraception? That's not my business at all" they also have to give a bit.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 12:00 AM

Whee-ooooh. OK, I've been off line for almost 2 weeks, and I admit I did not read all of the first thread......kimmers, you are right on and all right. You have said everything I possibly could have said and much more coherently.........that said.........

I had one. My oldest child would now be 24, almost 25. S/He would have been born somewhere near my wedding day. I was young and stupid and somehow into "Charity Sex"......he was recently divorced and hurting. I was needy. I was so young and stupid that I did not realize what a manipulator he was......but his ex wife did. That was why she divorced him.

Yes, it was a very difficult decision--I miss the child that would have been,but I thank all the Gods that I am not beholden to its father. In my belief system, the child will get or has gotten another chance at life. At that time, I was not capable of being a mother, and would not have been a good one. It was only after 5 years of marriage that I felt I could mother a child adequetly.......

In exchange, I feel that I carried and birthed the daughter that was destined for my sister and she is the joy of my life. I can only hope that my child somehow, somewhere, recieved the mother s/he needed.

I do not, can not, and will not advocate abortiton as a means of birth control, but it MUST be legally available to all women in times of need. As kimmer says, if it is not available legally, it will still exist illegally. To our detriment. There is always tansy and pennyroyal. Not to mention knitting needles............

Only now, after both my parents are gone do I feel free to say this. My husband knows, and has always known about this dark secret, and his mother worked at the hospital where the procedure was done. She may know, she may not, but she has never tried to hurt me with it or throw it in my face.

I do pray for this child's soul nearly every day of my life---the stupids that I did are certainly not his fault, and I cry every year on our wedding anniversary.

Do not feel pity or sorrow for me, my friends, I have long since learned to live with this. This is not a "brave" posting, just an honest one.

What would I do if my daughter told me she was pregnant at 15? I do not know, my friends, I do not know. I only know that she is not ready to raise a child, and I cannot raise another one. And, spaw/Karen--all honor and respect to you, but adoption is very definitely not an easy option, for either the child or the adoptive parents. What do you tell an adopted child when he is old enough to know the truth? Your Mom didn't want you? Want is quite often not enough............

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 12:47 AM

I couldn't agree more Sorch my dear......As a matter of fact, adoption is not an easy option for the bio-mother either. Consider your own case. We are still many miles away from truly open adoptions, and it is likely that you would know nothing at all of your child these many years later and you could only hope that the child got the parents for which you would hope.

Adoption is such a complex issue that I am loathe to get into particulars here or even to begin to delineate all the issues involved. In general terms, here's a synopsis:

Adoptive parents are not any better or worse than bio parents, but they are different because parenting in adoption differs from bio-parenting in many ways. Some adoptive parents believe they will be succesful because they have bio-parented well and that is not the case.

Adoptive parents are made to "dance through hoops" or pay large sums of money for the privilege of adopting. The money thing always strikes me as no better than slavery and doesn't guarantee anything about the quality of the parents. Those of us who do the dance are made to open up our entire lives to all forms of checks and details and often painful rehashing of memories to people who are basically strangers. Then we are required to submit to criminal checks and fingerprinting followed by parental training classes. After all of this, you may still be turned down. From the standpoint of the child, bio-parents, agencies, etc........Guess what? Its still a crapshoot as to whether you will or will not be a good parent.

Even after much hard work, most states still build a wall to keep the bio-parents away until the child is 18. In some cases, a bio-mother may not want contact, but in many they do and would at the minimum like to know some basic details of their child's life. In most palces, they can't get it and its up to the adoptive parents to build that bridge if they so desire.

Sorcha, you ask of the kids.....What are they told and what do they feel. Tris will probably never understand the concept of adoption, but in Michael's case, he already does and knows that he is. He understands another woman gave birth to him, but Mom and Dad (us) are still his Mom and Dad. Most adoptive parents tell their kids the truth as their age allows them to understand. The truth for Michael was that his bio-mom was a nice girl who didn't know how to take care of a child.

"Son, do you remember the great flying dragon you got for Christmas? At the time, you didn't know how to use it or how to play with it did you? Do you remember what happened? Yeah, it was kinda' sad because you ended up breaking it because you didn't know what to do with it. You didn't mean to break it did you? Did you feel bad when it broke? Well, the nice girl who gave birth to you didn't understand how to take care of you, but she loved you a lot.....Just like you loved the dragon. But she loved you even more because she knew she couldn't take care of you and didn't want to hurt you, so she decided it would be better to let us be your Mom and Dad. That makes you very special because she loved you and we chose you to be our son. Most Moms and Dads just get whatever kid comes along to them, but we chose you special to be our son."

It took longer than that, but we've been telling him about it since he was able to grasp even a bit of it. The above is a shortened version of the conversation we had last year at about this time, just before he turned 7. Because we had been adding to it as he got older, he was able to understand it quite well. When he has more questions, we will answer them.......with the truth. Several years ago as he was learning what adoption was, someone asked him when he was born. He told her he wasn't born, he was chosen!

There are problems in adoption on all sides and many of them are created by the very culture we live in......Maybe I'll come back and get into more of all that, but I will tell you that no one loves their children more than Karen and I do and no matter how they arrived, they are the best part of our lives. There's a nice little poem that ends with the adoptive Mom saying, "You didn't grow beneath my heart, but in it."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: kimmers
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 01:02 AM

Wow. Thanks, Spaw, for posting that story and your views. Gave me shivers, and brought tears to my eyes.

You're right. You can have all the right "stuff" as far as a house, minivan, parenting classes, good jobs, and still struggle with parenting. Or you can be living barely above the poverty level with peeling wallpaper and no training in how to be a parent, but still shine. My mom's a good example of the latter: married very young to an abusive man, left him as soon as she had her two precious children, and muddled her way along on instinct. I think we turned out okay; we didn't realize we were poor until we were in high school.

When I was going through my Religious Right phase, my pro-life views made my mother nervous, although she respected them. It took marriage and therefore membership in the "club" for me to finally understand her misgivings about my views; I spent my first three married years terrified I would get pregnant and screw up my residency program (and let my friends down). It took a gradually increasing exposure to poor and desperate women and children for me to finally come to accept legal abortion as a necessary evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Bugsy
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 01:04 AM

When my daughter announced to us at the dinner table one evening that she was pregnant, my first reaction was - HOW? Not that I didn't think she would be sexually active, she was, after all 23, but in this time of STD's and AIDS, how dopey would you have to be to have unprotected sex??

Ok so she'd done the deed and it was up to us to be as supportive as we could be. She didn't want to carry on the relationship with the guy, so we told her that whatever decision she made we would stand by her.

She said there was no decision to make. Abortion was not an option. It wasn't the baby's fault.

We now have a 7 year old granddaughter, who lights our lives. My daughter met a guy when the baby was 3 months old, and has been with him ever since. They now are married and have another daughter who is 3.

I bless the day my daughter came to us with her problem.

The biological father was a wanker. I am happy to report, his genes were not passed on to his daughter, in whom he has shown no interest since the day he was informed of it's existance.

Cheers

Bugsy

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 01:17 AM

Spaw, thank you. Absolution comes from so many places,does it not? Is perhaps the name Absolom related to the word absolution? Despite the many years I still seek absolution for my Absolom...........my son, my son

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Troll
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 02:44 AM

Sorcha, I pray that you can find peace. It starts with forgiving yourself. Please do that, for you are a good and a worthwhile person, and you do have a right to peace and happiness.
You have punished yourself long enough.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 12:19 PM

There was a student with me at college. There were only two of us doing applied science, so one day,when she didn't turn up, we didn't start the session, waiting for her. After a while, I went over to the flat where she lived. No answer. A young man on the stairs hadn't seen or heard from her that day. Back to the lab. The technician was able, through the technicians' grapevine, to reach a closer friend in the art department. Somehow, someone got into her flat. She was in the bath, and had nearly bled to death, having used a knitting needle. Her life was, fortunately, saved. The older man she had been seeing had persuaded her he was going to divorce his wife. When she fell pregnant (and this was before easily available birth control) he told her the truth, and the needle was the result.

Nothing is going to stop that sort of thing happening, if there is not ready access to alternatives. Who would think of the law, when they were in that state? Not only the baby, but the total sense of rejection, of having been lied to and used, would make it hard, even now, when provision is better, to approach the matter rationally. Being able to reach an appropriate agency could even give the help which might make the abortion no longer seem necessary. To be cut off from anything which looked helpful because of laws against it would lead again to the backstreets.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 12:27 PM

Hi Troll,

I get your concern re: "From what you say, Little Hawk, the man has no rights and no say in whether the pregnancy that HE is half-partner in, is terminated. Does he also then have no responsibility as regards contraception or assistance if the pregnancy is NOT terminated?"

Yeah, sure, the man has plenty of right to make his feelings and concerns felt about it. And the woman should certainly give those feelings full consideration. Both partners have equal responsibility regarding contraception. Both partners' wishes should receive a great deal of consideration...and would in a healthy relationship. I'm simply saying that the FINAL decision belongs to the woman, that's all.

I haven't met any woman who was eager to have an abortion. I have known more than a few who RELUCTANTLY resorted to an abortion, because of various reasons, such as extreme poverty, for instance.

I know there are religious arguments against it, but that all depends on what your religious understanding is...which means...who have you been listening to and taking as infallible authority. I listen to "the still small voice within" which is exactly what Jesus advised people to do. I hope that a woman in an extremeties has the courage to do her own thinking and not let some external authority decide for her what is right or wrong.

I do not regard the traditional churches or the evangelical churches as legitimate representatives of Jesus' teachings...quite the contrary. Nor do I regard the Bible as an infallible, literal record of his teachings, although it is a very useful and inspired book in a number of ways.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 12:30 PM

Wolfgang - your point is well taken. Please see my reply to Troll above...

Subject: RE: BS: Abortion: Here we go PART 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 12:37 PM

Oh, one other thing...no I don't agree that people are capable of violating God's will...only that they are capable of gross stupidity, error, hatefullness, violence, etc...

None of that is a violation of "God's will" as such...but it is certainly a violation of good sense and wisdom.

It all depends on what you think "God's will" is. I don't think of God as laying down rules...but as loving and sustaining and providing for all possibilities. Then we use our free will and decide...well or poorly...what to do with those possibilities.

It's just a different theological viewpoint, and I realize that many do not share it. I put if forward not to say that you ARE wrong, necessarily, but just to explain what I believe. Sometimes I get too vehement.

- LH