|
03 Nov 00 - 04:50 PM (#333907) Subject: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. OK, folks: Have at it, but lets keep the other threads clear. Best, Greg |
|
03 Nov 00 - 04:54 PM (#333915) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 04:56 PM (#333919) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 04:57 PM (#333923) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Peg kendall; very un-PC of you to say so...but I have noticed this too!!! peg |
|
03 Nov 00 - 05:11 PM (#333932) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Clinton Hammond2 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! :-/ |
|
03 Nov 00 - 05:12 PM (#333934) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 05:25 PM (#333948) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Mrrzy 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? |
|
03 Nov 00 - 05:31 PM (#333957) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: MK Pro-choice. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM (#333965) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: guinnesschik 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM (#333966) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Amos 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 05:50 PM (#333968) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Amos- Hear, Hear! & Thanks. You've both saved me some time & said it more rationally than I would have. < Best, Greg |
|
03 Nov 00 - 06:01 PM (#333981) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Mark Grant 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 06:04 PM (#333982) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Jesus If only Mousethief had been aborted. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 06:08 PM (#333989) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,God 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 06:12 PM (#333991) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 06:28 PM (#333999) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:08 PM (#334042) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bill D 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:12 PM (#334049) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief "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, |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:18 PM (#334057) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Amos 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:20 PM (#334058) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: The Shambles ROSIE JANE |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:29 PM (#334069) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:32 PM (#334072) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:33 PM (#334075) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: zonahobo 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 07:55 PM (#334090) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 08:03 PM (#334094) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bill D 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* |
|
03 Nov 00 - 08:07 PM (#334098) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: zonahobo 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 08:33 PM (#334121) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mmm 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 08:51 PM (#334128) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 08:59 PM (#334132) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Catrin 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 09:34 PM (#334160) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 09:58 PM (#334178) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Sandra Mackay 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 09:58 PM (#334181) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Jimmy C 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.
|
|
03 Nov 00 - 10:02 PM (#334183) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron Weel,weel Jimmy!!That certainly set us straight. Thanks. ljc |
|
03 Nov 00 - 10:20 PM (#334190) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers "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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 10:34 PM (#334201) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 10:44 PM (#334208) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 10:54 PM (#334210) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: sophocleese 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 11:04 PM (#334214) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Jimmy C 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 11:19 PM (#334223) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers "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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 11:22 PM (#334224) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron 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 |
|
03 Nov 00 - 11:34 PM (#334228) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Jimmy C 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 11:49 PM (#334233) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Hotspur 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. |
|
03 Nov 00 - 11:53 PM (#334236) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop 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. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:05 AM (#334240) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Marion 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 |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:07 AM (#334241) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson 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. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:16 AM (#334244) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop 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. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:20 AM (#334247) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 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 |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:22 AM (#334249) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thyme2dream 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? |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:39 AM (#334251) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thyme2dream 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... |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:39 AM (#334253) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle 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 |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:46 AM (#334255) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Marion Flattop, that's the very worst straw man argument that gets levelled against pro-lifers. What proportion of pro-lifers do you suppose endorse violence against the doctors that perform abortions? Last week a mentally ill individual put both my life and his own into serious danger because he loves music (long, weird story). Should I start going on about how all you music lovers are potential killers? Marion
|
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:01 AM (#334258) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop I don't have a clue on your question Marion. Not having a clue never stops me from writing. I didn't even have a clue that music was giving us those killer urges. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:02 AM (#334259) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thyme2dream um, if thats me you're swearing at...(prolly is, no matter how hard I try, I seem to make someone mad every time I get an opinion-guess I should quit havin em, since I really hate strife)...you might have missed it, but very early in my post, I mentioned that I thought first trimester abortions, for any reason were okay. My point in the last bit is simply that for us to live in most any type of society, there will always be laws that have some effect on what we do or don't do with our bodies, primarily when it involves another person as well. I am personally against seat belt laws..if that helps any. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:10 AM (#334260) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop Hey, I though Jen was just being philosophical. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:13 AM (#334261) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thyme2dream oh, whew! |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:20 AM (#334263) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop I expect that most people have mixed emotions on this issue even if they've made up their minds on where they stand. Years ago I read the book 'In Necessity and Sorrow : Life and Death in an Abortion Hospital.' It chronicled the problem pro-abortion people have with their decisions to have abortions or to assist women who feel that they need abortion. Anti-abortion people may also feel troubled by the decisions that they make. It's a lousy issue for anyone to have to face. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:52 AM (#334270) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Marion Your posts are interesting Thyme2dream. Both you and I agree with legal abortion in certain cases but not in others, so we're neither strictly pro-choice nor pro-life, but we both find ourselves falling into the pro-life camp when an argument develops. I wonder why that is? Maybe because the pro-choice side is more dominant in our culture, and if we lived in a predominantly pro-life society, we'd be seen as pro-choicers. Why do you see a difference between the first trimester and later pregnancy, i.e., what's the difference between "a bunch of cells" and a "living kicking being"? It seems that those who endorse a compromise view of abortion do so either according to the stages of the pregnancy or according to the circumstances of the pregnancy. The circumstances of the pregnancy seem important to me, but I've never been able to understand why the age of the pregnancy would be ethically important. Flattop, I was ticked off at you but now you've made me laugh twice. I'll post my story about the dangers of music tomorrow for your education. But seriously, it seems that half the time when people are criticizing the pro-life position they are not actually criticizing the pro-life position (i.e. that a fetus is a full person with a right to life) but rather making unsubstantiated accusations ("You would be pro-choice if men got pregnant", "You would never adopt a child with challenges"), or arguing against some other position that is held by some, few, or extremely few pro-lifers ("You expect people to raise children in impossible situations", "You are against birth control", "You support capital punishment", "You want to kill doctors"). The only logical way to argue against the pro-life position is to demonstrate that the fetus is not a person with rights, or that the fetus' rights are less important than the mother's. Everything else is a straw man argument. Marion |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:52 AM (#334271) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kimmers No, I can't shed any light on the "partial-birth" procedure; I'd never heard of it either until it became a political issue. And I think support systems and special homes for young moms-to-be are highly important, and admirable. I still don't hear any answers to what the married woman with a professional career is supposed to do if she has an unwanted pregnancy. One of my close friends will be delivering her third child any day now. She's a teacher, had finally landed a decent teaching job for the first time. Finally, she and her husband both had decent incomes... then she made the mistake of taking some St. John's Wort which made her birth control pills ineffective. Bang! Pregnant. She's not the type to consider abortion, but if I had been in her shoes I'm not sure what I would have done. Oh, they'll manage... but it's put a a strain on their marriage and on the other kids. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:10 AM (#334277) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Marion Re: "I still don't hear any answers to what the married woman with a professional career is supposed to do if she has an unwanted pregnancy." Giving a child up for adoption is an option for married women too. Going through pregnancy and birth would be costly for her, yes, but considering that the alternative is a human being's death, and that she knowingly accepted the risk of pregnancy but the fetus had no choice whether to be conceived or not... I don't think that this is too much to ask. Marion |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:35 AM (#334285) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: jacko@nz I have really only skimmed this thread and this may have been said already, Moonjen appears to be the only person around with a grasp of reality I would make no other comment because the whole question is no business of mine any male other than a doctor directly involved |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:41 AM (#334288) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thyme2dream Marion, I guess because in trying to be fair about this issue, Ive come up with the idea in my own head that if a baby could possibly survive on its own then we can't really say that the mom is the only one with rights in the situation, and at that point I think the same society that condemns child abuse should rationally put some sort of restrictions on abortion. Kimmers, you mentioned "I still don't hear any answers to what the married woman with a professional career is supposed to do if she has an unwanted pregnancy." Well, if Im going with my first trimester (or maybe even second-its really not until 6 months in utero that a premature baby still has a chance to live is it?) is okay for an abortion theory, I would think that most any woman in that position would be able to make any decisions regarding an abortion before the last trimester. I do have very strong feelings on this bit of the issue, mostly because of the choices that I've made. I have actually had people look down on me because I chose to have my children rather than abort them (didnt I hear something earlier in this thread about irresponsible poor women having too many babies??)...I was in a very bad marriage, none of the boys were planned, and we are still very poor...many of the reasons that I have heard put forward on this thread for Moms to abort were applicable to me each time I was pregnant. I understand that you are simply sympathising with your friend's plight, but when I read it in cold black and white, coupled with the stress and frustration I've felt trying to be a good mom at times, I feel as though I should feel guitly because I had my children! But I don't...and I won't...any lack of success in my life has not been because I have children. I think your friend will probably more than manage--a decent income is nice, but there are joys in my life that all the money in the world couldn't buy, and many of them are directly related to my beloved "accidents"--all three of them! |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:42 AM (#334289) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Ebbie Kendall, I'm hoping you meant that observation to be a flippant, throwaway line. Otherwise, I agree with Sandy Mackay that it was a stupid remark. Ebbie |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:57 AM (#334291) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: katlaughing Does anyone else get the very surreal feeling I get everytime I hear these kinds of discussions going on about MY body and those of MY daughters and friends? There has never been so much energy put into any discussions of any kind concerning male bodies. BillD, Flattop, MoonJen, and Spaw, thanks for your postings. Bill, you'd mentioned proof of when the soul enters the body. Whether any of you choose to believe this or not matters not to me and I will not argue it, but there is an ancient esoteric org. which did controlled observations during births, which showed the *aura* of the soul entering the body when the "breath of life" was first taken. I don't like the idea of late-term abortions, and I hate the idea of anyone using them as birth control. I've worked in a Planned Parenthood and got very discouraged about the ignorance of young girls and women concerning pregnancy prevention. If pro-lifers really want to prevent abortions they would be PRO-EDUCATION ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL. There shouldn't even be discussions about this, as it should be the individual's choice, either way. Society has no business sticking its nose into the private lives of women. I also find it ironic that so many of the Republican Party tout getting government out of our lives, except on this one issue. Quite hypocritical, IMO. Personal experience? Got preggers at 16 and didn't even know that there was such a thing as abortions; got talked into fucking plenty of times without any protection and did feel coerced, forced; been raped; had a daughter, well-educated about AIDS and birth control, still get sweet-talked out of using a condom her very first time. She didn't get pregnant, but the little fratbrat, whom I would still like to throttle, gave her HPV, which left her with the beginning stages of cancer of the cervix, so when she did choose to become pregnant after marriage, she spent over 19 weeks in bed, literally, in order to keep her twins in the womb as long as possible, because she hardly has any cervix left, due to surgery to remove the cancerous cells, due to that little prick refusing to believe she meant it when she said to wear a condom and talked her out of it. EDUCATE AND MAKE BIRTH CONTROL AVAILABLE TO ALL WOMEN AND MEN, with abortion still legal and between the womam and her g-d. kat |
|
04 Nov 00 - 07:30 AM (#334353) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle "too ugly to get laid" Kendall, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, which is a good thing, I guess, because a lot of women would probably be interned, on your sayso alone. Physical beauty is nice but when it all boils down, there better be beauty in the heart and soul. Your remark was ugly, which says something about your heart and soul. Jenny |
|
04 Nov 00 - 08:29 AM (#334367) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson A year or so into our marriage my wife told me that she had once had an abortion. It was one of those "convenience" abortions. The convenience was to avoid telling her parents. She was literally afriad of them. Even after a decade and a half of marriage and two children she was afraid they might realize that she was sleeping with a man. Not rational but I'm willing to bet pretty common in our generation. Jenny, I realize this discussion strikes close to the heart but, for the purposes of our debate, we have to confront the question of why a woman wants or needs an abortion. I agree, in the real world, it is none of our business. But here and now, we need to discuss the reasons in general. Let's consider the woman who finds herself pregnant. Some of the posts above have touched on this question to some degree but no one has looked at the individual who has to make that decision. As Kat has pointed out women do not always seem to have the right to say with whom they share a bed or what kind of birth control should be used. Now some people are telling them they have no right to determine the outcome. I don't know about any of you but my individual rights are pretty important to me. Please understand that my rights are not so important to me that I would let them take precedence over a living breathing human being. I would never kill any real person to enforce my rights. BUT! I would excise a batch of cells from my body, whether it be a cancerous growth, a wart, or the precursor to life. I would do that because it is my right to make that decision. Now the pro lifers are gearing up to call that batch of cells a human being with a right to life. They are wrong. Until that bunch of cells can exist independently outside of the mother's body you cannot call it a human being. It is merely the module that will someday encompass a human awareness. Part of the reason I can say this is that I do not believe in the spiritual side of the argument. I do not believe there is a metaphysical portion that slips into the "baby" at some point in the pregnancy. The uniqueness of each human is acquired through a mix of genetic pre-programming and experiences. Until that "baby" can experience life all you have is the potential for human existance. When that baby gets to the point where it CAN begin accumulating experience then I believe it should be allowed to. That is my long winded support for early abortion. There should be a logical cut off date where the woman has to make her decision or agree to bear the child. So here is my view of how the system should be set up: - Abortion should be available until the baby can exist outside of the mother - The father should be part of the educational and financial process, enforced by the law (in other words, subject to (minor) criminal penalty for not being there for the woman) - Adoption services should be available for all women with an unwanted baby. (Let's face it, there are plenty of women who will not make their decision in time.) - Fiancial aid should be available for those women who end up with a baby they didn't want. - All children should be educated about birth control in plain language using well illustrated texts. On completion of a test the boys should be issued a card which states that they have completed that educational process and explains they are liable for criminal penalties if they impregnate a woman. In other words, register that gun! And in the end, none of it will work and the problem will still be there. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 08:41 AM (#334372) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall My remark was simply to get your attention. It was neither stupid nor does it have a damn thing to do with my soul. It has been my observation that many of the pro life women are those who probably have never faced, and are not likely to face that problem. It was a flippant remark, and I apologize to any ugly women who felt stung by it! I have a real problem with anyone telling anyone how to live and what to do. Bible thumpers give me chest pains. It's time to come out of the dark ages. Now, I'm really going to piss some of you off..I'm serious now, there is no black humor here. The essense of a human being is NOT that "cluster of cells" it is a spirit, a soul if you will. When you terminate a pregnancy, all you are doing is forcing that soul to incarnate elsewhere. One can NEVER kill the soul. Furthermore, abortion is NOT murder. Murder is a legal term which requires that certain conditions be met in order to charge a murderer. Anti-choice people can call it whatever they wish, but, abortion is still not murder. I suggest you get a hold of a Law dictionary and look it up. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 09:00 AM (#334380) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bernard For what it's worth, I am also anti-abortion, and so is my daughter. Why is this significant? My daughter is pregnant, and does not intend to marry in the near future. Nor does she approve of abortion. She was telling me only this morning of a friend of hers who is about to have an abortion. Reason given? She wants to carry on going clubbing... I accept that there may be more justifiable reasons for abortion than this, but it does indicate a lack of responsibility that gives rise to the problem. These days, birth control is so easy, reliable, and readily available that 'mistakes' are probably even more unacceptable than the resulting abortion. My daughter has a very healthy attitude to the whole thing, and she will make a really fine mother. Although her mother and I separated many years ago (for reasons far too complex to go into here...), we both support her (and our son) in any way we can, without trying to 'score points' at the other's expense. You teach your children mostly by example - they are born mimics - which means you need to be constantly aware of behaviour and attitudes that they witness, particularly between partners (or ex-partners) who do not 'get on'.
|
|
04 Nov 00 - 09:03 AM (#334382) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Greg F. Its unreasonable to place the sole responsibility for birth control on any woman, and I think you'd find that a large and growing number of pro-choice men HAVE opted for a vasectomy. Now, before anyone asks if I'm among that number, that's also none of your f***ing business. The "when life begins" arguement is unwinnable from either side. I don't think any but the lunatic fringe would argue that a zygote represents a human life, or conversely that a 9-months fetus does not- and we can ignore the extremes for what they are. But trying to pin down the exact point along this continuum is the old nailing jello to a wall routine. This is precisely why the decision should be an entirely personal one- no woman should be required to have an abortion, and none should be prevented from having one, and there should be no legislation either way. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 09:37 AM (#334392) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall There is a big difference between making abortion illegal, and, making it go away. If we go back to the old days, abortions will still be performed on kitchen table back seats or wher ever they did it. Of course, women with money would still go to Mexico. At least, ther would be no federal funds being spent. Love him or hate him, Clinton said it for me: I want to see abortion safe legal and unnecessary. IT aint going to go away folks. Making it illegal will only relocate it. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 09:54 AM (#334394) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: katlaughing Well said, in both postings, Kendall, esp when you said, "The essense of a human being is NOT that "cluster of cells" it is a spirit, a soul if you will. When you terminate a pregnancy, all you are doing is forcing that soul to incarnate elsewhere. One can NEVER kill the soul." Thanks, kat |
|
04 Nov 00 - 10:05 AM (#334400) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle No, Brett ... it is not up to you or anyone except the woman to confront the issue of why a woman wants or needs an abortion or doesn't want or need an abortion. IT IS UP TO THE WOMAN. Jenny |
|
04 Nov 00 - 10:38 AM (#334415) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Jenny, I couldn't tell from your post if you realized I agree completely on that point (this is another one of those times when we are missing the intricacies of face to face discussion). |
|
04 Nov 00 - 11:00 AM (#334421) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle No, Brett, I read through it a couple of times and didn't glean that from your post. My apology to you. Jenny |
|
04 Nov 00 - 11:13 AM (#334426) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Amos Kendall: You're nothing but a crusty old fart. How did you ever acquire such elegant and precisely accurate metaphysics! Thanks for the post! Love ya man, A |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:27 PM (#334452) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Ebbie Kendall, this might be a good time to relate a truism I discovered. It had occurred to me that it is sad for men that they are not all built like John Wayne or as cerebral as Stephen Hawkings or as cuddly as Charles Kuralt because I think men tend to be less resilient and secure than women are, so that the knowledge of their shortcomings is harder on them. Then I realized: No worries! They don't know it. Ebbie |
|
04 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM (#334462) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Some of us dont have any shortcomings. Seriously Amos, on rare occasions, I tend to lapse into serious thinking. Sorry, it slipped! |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:19 PM (#334484) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow Just a tiny bunch of cells or a human being at an early stage of development...
Look at it this way - a book is a physical object you can pick up and handle and lend to friends. And because the little black marks on the pages can be decoded by your mind, a book is also a mental object, you get a link direct to the mind of another human being who wrote it.
So when you destroy the only copy of a book, you're doing something quite serious. And if you destroy the manuscript of a book that hasn't been printed that's what you are doing.
But these days likely enough there won't be a manuscript. The author will use a computer. And for the first part of its life, that's where the physical book exists, just a bunch of electrons somewhere in a computer. If you could get all those electrons together in one place you wouldn't even be able to see them, they're so small.
A human being at an early stage of development is just a tiny bunch of cells...That's what we looked like at that stage, you, me, all of us.
|
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:35 PM (#334494) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Ebbie :) Eb |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:52 PM (#334505) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron OH MY!!! It order tae get the gist o mah "bunch o cells"post ye wid hae tae understaun"Reincarnation" Prior tae incarnatin the pairt o you that is really you has tae pick somewhere tae bide.It waits until the "bunch o cells" become a viable human being.When that happens it moves intae the it earthly cover.That is when the new human person sterts tae move aboot.So prior tae this wonderful event there is naebody hame.The vast majority o the the world are reincarnationist, It wis the "Christian"church whit expurgated reincarnation way back when they stertet tae get on wi the terrorisin an didnae allows folk tae read the bible for theirsels. There is mair tae this than meets the eye.Ye hae tae delve intae the history o religions.Dogma is the killer o free thinkin. ljc |
|
04 Nov 00 - 01:54 PM (#334507) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Troll Jenny, Kat, I agree that it should be a womans choice and her business and that society should keep out of it. Now here comes the 'but'. If my tax money is used to fund these abortions, then I, through my duly elected representatives, should have the right to give my input. I do not feel that abortion should be illegal but neither do I feel that it should be federally funded. I am aware that poor women cannot afford an abortion without financial aid but just what is the percentage who NEED that federal aid? It has been my experience that when the Fed gets involved, the cost goes up. Maybe there is another way. I surely don't know. My problem with the abortion laws as they now stand is the use of federal funds, but I'm sure that those who are anti-war feel that way about their taxes building bombers. And the beat goes on. troll |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:34 PM (#334535) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall In a democracy majority rules. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:39 PM (#334539) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bagpuss I haven't read any of this thread at all, but I just wanted to say that the worst thing about the abortion debate is the polarisation between the two sides and the assumptions behind the motives of the other side. After all, surely both sides would agree that abortion is a bad thing. Ie it is undesirable - nobody would actually choose to have an abortion, if they could have avoided getting pregnant in the first place. But instead of trying to work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through better education, and contraception (though I can see why that is difficult, due to the official catholic stance on contraception), and enabling those who would choose to keep their children in better circumstances a chance to achieve those circumstances - we argue about whether or not it should be legal, and one side calls the other murderers, and one calls the other anti-women. It does no good. Nobody on either side of the debate ever seems to actually listen to the other side, so both sides resort to slogans and attacking eachother. Instead of trying to solve the problem. Apologies to anyone who has already made this point - but I didnt have time to read the thread. Bagpuss |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:44 PM (#334542) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bagpuss Just skimmed back a little and realised McGrath said pretty much what I said. So Sorry! Bagpuss |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:46 PM (#334544) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Ceitagh McGrath, I admire you immensely for speaking so clearly and saying all the things i'd like say so much better than I could. kendall, being young, female, and pro-life (in all its forms...the death penalty is wrong, in my opinion), i found your remark offensive, but all too familiar. Its not the first time i've heard that, none of this thread is new to me, and i'm barely 20. I've heard too, too, much, and i am so tired of it all. My dear friends, my reasons for my convictions have been considered carefully and thought out....will you believe me when i say that? I do not believe abortion is wrong, i *know* it. I am not brainwashed, nor naive, I have had contact and friendships with young women in some of the situations described in this thread. Do you believe me? Do you believe I am a rational person with reasons for what I say, that I want the best for everyone, that I am not on some kind of evil minded power trip? Moonjen, do you believe me when I say I do not hate you, I do not condemn you, and I respect you? Will you all believe that I would not knowingly use any information I had not checked out first, that I have thought through every argument I might bring to this discussion? Will you all believe that I am not a hypocrite? Have you seen enough of my behaviour on the mudcat this past year to know I am not mean spirited, that I treat those lives which have come to term with as much love and respect and those that have not, that I am a 'people-lover' not just a 'fetus-lover' (and yes, i've heard that used as a term of derision), that my views on this issue are part of a holistic philosophy of love that recognises the beauty and uniqueness in all? I ask this because I cannot speak to closed minds, and I ask this because I will not listen to the same derision and belittling I have experienced before when speaking about this issue. If you demand respect, give respect. If you wish civility, be civil. Meet me on this level, and we can dialogue, and yes, I know this isn't a simple topic. But it is one about which I am passionate, and I would love to share that passion with you. Just don't tell me I am too young, too inexperienced, brainwashed, biased, ugly, heartless, uncaring, evil, oppressive, small minded, Dogmatic, etc. That is insulting to me and irrelevant to reasonable discussion. Tell me if my logic doesn't follow, don't tell me that I'm a bigot for desiring life for every biological human being regardless of their utility. So....Do you believe me? Should I bother continuing? Kate
|
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:49 PM (#334546) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Troll Kendall, agreed. Your point being?... troll |
|
04 Nov 00 - 02:55 PM (#334549) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall dont we usually DISagree? Kate, it is all about choice. You made your choice..I applaud you for it, and you dont have to defend it with me. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 03:24 PM (#334589) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Susan from California This is such a volitale issue, and I feel so strongly about it that I have kept out until now. Yet I honestly believe that my perspective might add to the discussion, so here goes. I have always believed that life begins at conception. I am also *extremely* pro-choice. Many years ago :-) I was a teenager faced with an unplanned pregnancy. The baby's father would not publically admit to responsibility. Some of you may be wondering why I was so dumb as to be in that position. Let's just agree that I was dumb. Having to tell my Mom was very difficult. When my Dad found out he quit talking to me. I decided to carry the baby to term, and after a bit of time realized that the best option for my child to have the kind of life that she deserved was to give her up for adoption. I read through the classifieds a couple of times a week, looking for an ad placed by someone looking to adopt. But 20 years ago, these were not common, and I didn't see any. I wanted an adoption where I would get occaisional Christmas cards and the like so that I would no that she was OK. But that didn't happen. When I was 5 months pregnant, one of my brothers beat me, aiming for my belly. I had to move in with a friend after that. So I went through the long months of pregnancy, and 36 hours of a difficult labor ( baby was "sunny side up" for those of you who have been there. One of the L&D nurses said "I don't know how you can do it, *I* could *never* give away my child" which made me feel like a horrible person. After all, I could not manage to do a decent job at the most basic thing of "womanhood" At least that is how I felt at the time. Saying something like that to a person is not helpful! It still makes me mad when people say stuff like that. I have missed this child for every day since her birth. She is now an adult, and I hope and pray that someday she will try to find me ( and yes, I am registered). Asking another person to go through the pain that I go through is not right. I also am able to feel good about the decision I made. I did what was right for me, and what i thought was right for my child. The fact that *I* made my own decision, also means that I get to take credit for it! I stood up for what I believe, and even though the going was tough, I remained true to my beliefs. So having the choice was important to me. Any woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy has some difficult choices. None of them are easy. I wouldn't wish the turmoil on my worst enemy. As someone said above, not all people, and not all religions believe that life begins at conception. Some people believe that the soul chooses which body to inhabit shortly before birth. Some people do not believe in a soul at all. How can I tell people that they are wrong? I can't. That is why the choice needs to be left to an individual. As for catostrophic late term abortions, I once was on the same public speaking thing with a woman who had one. She and her huband had been trying for a couple of years to get pregnant. When they were finally, joyfully, pregnant, they got news that most of us can't even imagine, their baby's brain was outside of its skull. The child's intestine and stomach, etc were out side of the body. The baby had *zero* chance of survival. Mom's future reproductive capacity was endangered if she continued to a full term delivery. After consulting with their doctor and religious leader, they decided to end the pregnancy. I absolutely support their right to make that decision. The law should not preclude them from choosing this option. I have deliberately used the words "baby" and "child" because that is what *I* believe. I would never ask anyone to think what I think. I could just as easily used the words "fetus" and "embryo". Young people need to be properly educated, and abstinance only curriculums do not work. Decent programs should make abortion less necesary. But it should always be legal and accesible. Women should not be made to feel guilty about whatever choice they make regarding unplanned pregnancy. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 03:32 PM (#334594) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Troll Susan. Thank you. troll |
|
04 Nov 00 - 03:40 PM (#334600) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Mrrzy Well, I'm glad I kept reading after it got nasty, because it certainly came back to a level of discussion. Which is nice to see. I'm chipping another few of my thoughts: Yes, I agree that there is a difference before and after quickening (my favorite term for "feeling the baby kick"). I also agree that there is a difference before and after viability (probability rather than possibility of survival outside the womb). And viability is getting closer and closer to quickening. So I can see arguments for limiting abortion to before one or the other of these milestones. I think it's easier to draw the line at birth because it is a less subjective transitional state. I have been lucky enough only to have had one unwanted pregnancy, which (thank you, Lady Luck and/or Mother Nature!) ended in an early miscarriage. I am still, years later, glad I didn't have to decide what to do with that one. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 04:08 PM (#334619) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: katlaughing Susan from CA, thank you. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 04:49 PM (#334643) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow Susan's story goes to illustrate what I believe to be the case - the pressures on women to have abortions in so many circumstances are so great that it's not really a matter of their exercising a free choice, but of being coerced by circumstances.
Ending that situation is something on which anyone seriously pro-life or pro-choice should be agreed about. If that could be achieved, the number of abortions would be far lower. But it's a long way off being achieved, and I suspect of anything things are going in the opposite direction.
Time enough to try to sort out disagreements about the other stuff later. But there's an enemy out there, and it's anti-life and anti-choice, and it's getting away with murder. |
|
04 Nov 00 - 05:12 PM (#334654) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Ceitagh Once again, thank you McGrath. And thank you Susan, for telling your story. I agree that the enemy we really should be fighting, rather than fighting each other, is the hostile society which makes all the other choices so hard. Someone once said that a woman having an abortion is like an animal gnawing off its leg to get out of a trap. We need to do what we can to get women out of this trap. Re: adoption: My friend Jess discovered two years ago that she had an older sister. Yes, giving her first born up for adoption was a hard thing for Jess' mother to do, and I have no doubt it bothered her. She could feel the lack of that child she had carried for 9 months. When Jess found out about it, she was shocked at first, then overjoyed, and eventually found her sister. They have a beautiful relationship now, and I know the whole family is glad that that choice was made. I know a girl who had an unplanned pregnancy from a drunken encounter. She overdosed on prescription pills and landed herself in the hospital. She miscarried. She was a troubled, depressed, anorexic and unhealthy teen. What would have happened had she carried that baby to term? I don't know. But she feels the lack every day. She dreamt about him for years. She has two children now, but she still wonders what he would have been like. She can't register for him to find her, she will never hear his voice on the phone. oops! gotta go! continue this train of thot later! kate |
|
04 Nov 00 - 11:39 PM (#334905) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum There is an important point I have never heard spoken, relating to this subject; I accept responsibility for the life and death decisions I have made, and will have to make in my lifetime. I do not kid myself, and believe that only fate, or only luck or only God makes these decisions. I have already had, and I suspect will have again to make a life and death decision in my lifetime. We have parents, children, brothers, sisters - any of whom may live or die at our decision to "pull the plug" one day. That is a life and death decision, and I would NOT shun the responsibility. Sometimes humans are faced with even more direct life and death decisions. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 12:12 AM (#334923) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum good for you kimmers. well said. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 12:32 AM (#334935) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thomas the Rhymer It is simple. The abortion issue is strictly a religious issue. Our forefathers very wisely made a clear unbridgable gap between church and state, and for good reason. There can be no laws denying a womans right to choose, because we have freedom of religion as a guarenteed right. Religious beliefs like this one are protected by the constitution. This is no joke. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 01:15 AM (#334951) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 Well TR, I agree entirely that it should not be a political issue, nor one to be argued about and legislated. Problem seems to fall in that word "should" though........I think there's a pretty sizable problem in your "unbridgable" part too. If Bush wins, both problems are gonna' get a whole lot bigger. Spaw |
|
05 Nov 00 - 04:00 AM (#334973) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: The Shambles Kendall's apology |
|
05 Nov 00 - 07:04 AM (#334999) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Susan – Thank you for your story. None of us who are spared that experience can really know the answer to this debate. McGrath of Harlow – Your book analogy is interesting but bear in mind it is a book missing a lot of pages. Essentially when you excise that bunch of cells you are eliminating a blank book with one or two lines written in it. You aren't destroying a manuscript. You are destroying a bunch of unmarked pages. Troll, you wrote, "If my tax money is used to fund these abortions, then I, through my duly elected representatives, should have the right to give my input." OK, but do you have a problem with abortions for needy women? Or, do you have problems with paying for welfare for women who now have to have families. And then there are the special needs of the resultant children and the problems they create in a society already over stressed by such problems. That has to be paid for as well. So maybe a small expense without asking questions at one point is the better route to go. "…when the Fed gets involved, the cost goes up…" This is something of which I have intimate knowledge and a number of answers. If anyone is curious PM me and we can discuss. Kate – There is an interesting exercise in which I participated recently. It was a moderated meeting between our offices and a contractor we had hired. The moderator had us line up in order of years of experience. On one end of the line there were people with close to 45 years of construction experience and on the other end of the line were the kids fresh out of college. The moderator urged us to study this line. She pointed out that those of us with plenty of experience were valuable and should be respected for what we bring to the process. But, she went on to say, we also need to listen to and respect the other end of that line for the young inexperienced members of the team bring with them a fresh outlook and new ideas. As you read through these threads you will see plenty of words that do not strike you as being respectful of you, may even seem to denigrate your contributions. Sometimes you will see closed minds, insults and harsh language. But when you look between these things you will see ideas and poetry that grow here like wildflowers in a field of weeds. There are roses to be found in here if you are patient enough to look for them. So, yes Kate, please continue. The real answer to the problem is not abortion but prevention. Unfortunately prevention is not always possible. As I have said elsewhere here we men have to get to the point where women have the right to choose in everything they do with their bodies. I don't believe that is a problem with present company. But there is a large number of men in this world who do not listen to women when they insist on the use of a condom or vasectomy or whatever. And there are women out there who do not understand how to manage their own birth control. When those men start listening to women, and when those women start to take their responsibility seriously, then the abortion problem will be solved. And at that time the hunters of this world will be shooting pigs on the wing! Abortion is a problem which cannot be solved without changing society. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 09:06 AM (#335036) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Colwyn Dane G'day,
The Romans of yesteryear use to indulge themselves when at banquets or feasts.
Like those old Romans, it seems most people are using, what should be, their natural
'Natural' sexual intercourse is an act designed by nature to reproduce the species; any
It is possible for one to survive for days without drink; weeks without food and a lifetime without sexual intercourse.
What had been accepted for neigh on 2000 years has become unfashionable for a minority,
The history of mankind shows that if you tinker with nature, then nature will eventually get its own back.
After reading the above I see nothing but 'doom and gloom'; so what is the solution to treating 'sick' societies and how do you make them 'boom and bloom'?
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world.
"One gets great lessons from history in that, however long it takes, the power of the
---Varindra Vittachi.
Let us be the representatives for the powerless, in this case our unborn and unwanted children and help them to live.
Please forgive my heaviness. I am not directly attacking any person, as I'm sure most of us
Bcnu,
|
|
05 Nov 00 - 09:59 AM (#335053) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Are you making an argument for abstinance, Colwyn? It's a nice idea but not practical. there aren't enough people who would go along with it. Humans are animals. This is not intended as an insult (either to people or animals). It is a fact. We are the most successful animal species on this planet. As such we are subject to the same drives that got us to this point. A well educated, conscious, adult MIGHT be able to restrain him/herself but not all the time. Education and erudition does not separate one from the basic animal nature that connects us to the rest of the world. And there are those of our species who live closer to those instincts and urges than others. We may see them as uneducated or brutish but they are our brothers and sisters. And they are as much a part of the problem as the rest of us. Sex is a basic need and urge and must either be satisfied or rejected. Rejecting that urge takes a lot more character(?)/strength(?) than most of us are capable of showing. I'm afraid abstinance is not a solution. A good, dependable, reversable male sterilization would help. Unfortunately that touches on issues of individual rights and male pride that it will never be a reality. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 10:47 AM (#335079) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum It seems very simple, it IS the law of the land. it is supported by a significant majority of Americans. it has been practiced with a high degree of safety for nearly 30 years. while a small majority have an opinion that some limits may be placed upon it - late term abortions, parental notifications, governmental funding - these are the only legal battles of the future that will see change. It is conceiveable (however unlikely) that Roe v Wade will be overturned based upon its application of constitutional law (Roe v Wade decision is based upon a right to privacy) but that is in no way the end of legal abortion. It simply puts the pressure back on the legislature to resolve the issue - and with the strong majority opinion in this country supporting abortion rights, it will be resolved. Spaw - I doubt very seriously that Bush really wants to appoint a supreme court that defeats abortion. The issue has simply never been that high a priority to Bush. He wishes to be counted among the anti-abortion crowd - but as a man of power and influence in Texas, he has never championed that cause. But even if he did; I am certain that it is beyond his control. The supreme court has always surprised its presidents ... the supreme court is truly autonomous ... there are several strong individuals who are charged with judging the constitution according to their very best skill and conscience. I don't believe Bush or any other president, could stack the supreme court. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 10:55 AM (#335083) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST continued CLICK HERE |
|
05 Nov 00 - 10:56 AM (#335084) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Susan from California 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.
|
|
05 Nov 00 - 11:29 AM (#335105) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum exactly susan! I keep hearing that this issue is brand new, and 'inhuman' ... NONESENSE! People have been faced with making this difficult decision as long as they have been having babies - and they have been deciding both ways, as long as they have been having babies. As a parent, it is my responsibility to make a decision that is best for the family. All of my instinct and my upbringing normally favor deciding for the baby - but there are occasions when I would not. That decision is the parent's alone - and as we have seen, no matter what the laws are, people will make that decision. There are few decisions in the world that are completely balck and white, maybe none. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 12:03 PM (#335124) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop Although you raised very interesting issues, Colwyn, it takes a rather long projectile to link Roman vomitoriums to the onset of the Dark Ages. Historians attribute the Dark Ages to other causes like plagues that killed up to two thirds of the population in some areas and the difficulty of continually extending Roman technology and control over everyone else's territory. Even consubstantiation versus transubstantiation played a role. Hundreds of thousands of sincere Christians killed other sincere Christians and the Holy Roman Empire was divided into east and west over arguments about whether someone eating the bread was actually munching on Jesus or just having a symbolic chew on him. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 12:35 PM (#335141) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Susan A-R I guess that, until men have as much chance of getting pregnant as women do, I'd rather see votes on this one given over to us. We're the ones left holding the bag, so to speak. I know that this will make some folks angry, but frankly, the thought that someone who doesn't have even a chance of getting pregnant has any choice as to whether I will or will not have a child, makes me so angry that I shake. I'm not ood with this one, nor "reasonable" nor flexible. It's my body, and my life stretcing out in front of me. Are there other such major life decisions over which anyone, male or female, would give up control? I don't THINK so. Susan A-R |
|
05 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM (#335144) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Actually the fall of the Roman Empire can be attributed to throwing over the two party system for a three party system. *BG* |
|
05 Nov 00 - 02:15 PM (#335193) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thomas the Rhymer Colwyn, I find your history lesson to be, well, Sunday school propaganda. Follow it to fascism. Very one sided research... which may be enough for you... but please do not preach so elequently on such skimpy research! |
|
05 Nov 00 - 02:55 PM (#335212) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bernard Having beliefs is everyone's right and privilege. Firmly adhering to one's convictions is commendable, and worthy of admiration. What is less worthy of admiration, and certainly not commendable is when one tries to force those beliefs upon someone else, with the attitude 'I am right, and if you disagree with me, then you must be wrong'... Mudcat provides a healthy platform for us to air our views - not to insult the intelligence of those whose opinion differs from our own... |
|
05 Nov 00 - 03:06 PM (#335220) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow "I guess that, until men have as much chance of getting pregnant as women do, I'd rather see votes on this one given over to us."
I'd be happy with that. In fact I'd be happy to have all the votes on everything given over to women for a few generations. Seriously. All right there's the occasional raving homicidal maniac like Maggie Thatcher, but, by and large women politicians seem more like human beings.
I also suspect that under that set up there'd be fewerr pressures on women to have abortions they don't want to have. |
|
05 Nov 00 - 03:34 PM (#335235) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop Many messages on this thread are one sided. Colwyn may be passionate about everything in the message and may have supporting evidence. This is a discussion. We shouldn't care all that much how any point of views is written. Personally, I prefer passionate, well-written messages to toadies agreeing with me. To each his own. Too often we accept the messages that share our point of view and pick apart the others. Infanticide was legal for hundreds of years in Roman society. Roman men completely controlled the society and the laws. The men tended to have sex with their female slaves and they would throw their babies on refuse heaps to die. The heaps contained human excrement as well as garbage. Some women on this thread have suggested that they have better ideas than the ones the boys came up with when they were in charge. How dare they! A one point, Roman men had so few children with their wives that the government offered cash bonuses to anyone who would have a proper Roman child. I believe we have a law like that in Quebec at the moment. One of the Constantines ended the right of Roman men to murder their own children. He was the first Christian emperor. He decided against infanticide after killing children on his own. According to Eddy Gibbons in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Constantines was first attracted to Christianity when he discovered that Christian soldiers were far more willing to die than non-Christians. When Constantine got someone holding up a cross to lead the Christian troops, they would rush into the slaughter. |
|
06 Nov 00 - 12:31 PM (#335275) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief I'd be happy to give over all the decisions to women. As long as they are happy to have a 100% female military, until, say, as many women are killed in wars as men have been down through the ages. And don't give me the argument that women aren't as brutal and war-like as men. In answer I will respond: Elizabeth I of England. Queen Victoria. Golda Meir. Indiri Ghandi. These women sent more men to their deaths than I ever will. Enough of this thread drift. Back to abortion. 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 |
|
06 Nov 00 - 12:44 PM (#335284) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Matt_R Well said, Colwyn! |
|
06 Nov 00 - 12:46 PM (#335285) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock Sheesh, I go away for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose! I didn't think this debate would ever get brought out into the open, and I'm quite sorry it has. It's not particularly constructive and it's going to hurt a lot of people over what is an intensely personal matter. Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, and the new Assembly have gone on record as very much pro-life. There is an extremely active pro-lifers group here, and worryingly they choose to picket places such as the Brooke Clinic (a young person's clinic - under 24 - dealing with sexual health/contraception but NOT abortion). Now it would seem to a logical mind that you can't be anti-abortion AND anti-contraception. And that's not just the Vatican's view - the picketing of the Brooke clinic is done by DUP and purveyors of miraculous medals alike (they kept offering them to me as I walked out with a bag of condoms...I suppose I could've swapped). It never bothered me walking past protestors, but I'm sure it's scared the hell out of shyer people. Interestingly, in Italy at the moment the Pope is giving out about the Morning After Pill, condemning it as abortive (biologically it's not - it stops an implantation of the egg). I have no qualms about the Morning After Pill, and have taken it before, because accidents happen, condoms split, Pills can stop working if you're sick. I have not had to go through an abortion, but people I know and love have, and I have witnessed the effects first hand. There is less choice in Northern Ireland because you must make the decision more quickly - do you pay to travel to England before it is too late? In the past I've been lucky and any risky situations have turned out okay. Now I don't feel worried if I become pregnant - I'm in a very caring relationship with a bloke I plan on keeping for good. We intend to have children some time in our future, so if it happens (by accident) sooner, so be it. But I would NEVER condemn anyone for choosing abortion. And I would NEVER EVER force my opinions on someone else and insist I knew best. Pro-choice means exactly that - the right to CHOOSE, to have an option. It's a traumatic and personal decision, and I just hope that if you or anyone you love have to face it, you'll support them and keep whatever you personally feel to yourself. Rant ends! |
|
06 Nov 00 - 12:53 PM (#335295) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow "The argument that women aren't as brutal and war-like as men." If you noticed, mouse, I specifically mentioned Maggie Thatcher, and they don't come much more brutal and war-like than that.
As of now, women like that are the exception, but I imagine that in a society where women ruled, they'd properly rapidly enough reach the same level as men have. (Levelling down that is.) But I can't imagine myself becoming a militant suffraget (I think that's be the male ending wouldn't it?)in a hurry.
But while that might be an interesting topic of discussion, this thread isn't the best place for it.
In any case, I suspect that in such a society the controversy about abortion would be at least as heated as it is today (in America that is). |
|
06 Nov 00 - 01:01 PM (#335300) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Right. Sorry I forgot Iron Maggie.
Alex |
|
23 Mar 03 - 09:10 AM (#916462) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: saulgoldie I did not want to wreck the thread about abortion songs with O/T opinions (like a few others had started to do, already). But since the issue is more alive than ever and sooo timely with the allignment of the White House and both houses of Congress, I am refreshing this one. I will weigh in shortly. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 09:11 AM (#916463) Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: saulgoldie Joe/Max, please note that this thread was already created without the "BS" tag, so it went to the songs part. BTW, great idea splitting the board into "BS" and "music" sections. Thanks for that. |