Log in

View Full Version : Abortion



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Lilith
06-30-2004, 01:21 AM
Like Jason, I am going to regret this.

I am pro-life, and the first person who tries to thus equate me to some right-wing nutjob is going to have their hands full. One would hope by now that generalizations would not be given so much weight. After all, by that logic then ALL strippers must be closet hookers! Even those who aren't are just as bad because they are also strippers and of course would support any old hooker. Riiiiight.

On this issue, I think everyone has it wrong. It seems to me that this decades-old battle is about which life has more importance- the mother's life or the child's. My answer is... neither. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from anyone that one person's life has more inherent value than any other person's life, so it's all bollocks to me.

Therefore I have long ago concluded that the arguments over who is more important are pointless, and will never settle this. My own feelings on the matter are that life, both basic and quality life, should be maintained when at all possible. Sometimes sacrifices, however unpleasant or regretful, must be made to futher that end. That is unfortunate, but no one ever promised that life would be easy and this issue certainly is not.

It seems especially short-sighted to make this an argument of one life's value as opposed to another when this issue commonly involves more that just the two lives most easily seen. The mother's previous children also have concerns about basic and quality life in such a scenario, as does the father. It is too complex an issue to over-simplify down to just two people, especially when those other lives are often taken into account when decisions are made.

So to sum it up, I am pro-life. I am in favor of the mother's life, the child's life, the older children's lives and the father's life. It is hard for a family to be in this position, but I can support whichever decision salvages as much basic and quality life of all these people.

Devastating Divyne
06-30-2004, 01:28 AM
I feel that people should make the decision that is right for them at that particular time in their life. The decision that someone makes today might be different from the decision that they would make in the same situation at a previous or a later time. This type of decision is difficult and involves many complex issues, but ultimately whatever decision is made affects lives.

Darren
06-30-2004, 06:13 AM
On this issue, I think everyone has it wrong. It seems to me that this decades-old battle is about which life has more importance- the mother's life or the child's. My answer is... neither. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from anyone that one person's life has more inherent value than any other person's life, so it's all bollocks to me.


I agree with your basic point that mothers have responsibilities to their children, both born and unborn, but I guess the difference is that I don't see the life in terms of simple easy to understand definition. The child that you call a "person" is not an absolute and simple thing to me, but instead is a life that comes into being.

I know it sounds cruel, or it is easier to just see the baby as a person the moment of conception, but I just can't see it that way anymore than I could agree that mentally ill people are possessed by evil spirits. As our (i.e., our society) knowledge increases, I am quite comfortable with the notion that our simple definitions and understandings have to give way to new rules that encompass the new understandings.

The problem with the mother vs child's rights argument is that the child doesn't start out as a "person". The person to be starts as a few cells (which nobody could reasonably call a person, less complex then any bug we'd kill thinking twice, far less complex then any animals we'd eat for dinner) ... the child, or the "person" if you prefer isn't a simple thing that justs instantly pops into being. And the life is there (in your cells already today which grow, multiply, die, replace themselves) even when you are not pregnant... our whole bodies are in a sense a collections of independent lives that interact and support each other.

So that is the premise of the mother's life is more important viewpoint... as the pregnancy continues the person to be becomes more and more a person and less and less just a bunch of cells.

I think people should continue to argue at what point the mother should no longer have the right to abort the child (even argue that is from day one), but it is not such a crystal clear thing to everyone that a one sperm + one egg is equal to one "person" with all the rights of a person. It is clear to everyone that over time one sperm + one egg will eventually grow and become a person with all the rights of a person.

VenusGoddess
06-30-2004, 06:46 AM
I think that one of the biggest problem in dealing with situations like these is simply "long-term vision". What I mean is this: We, as a society, have stopped looking at how our decisions will affect ourselves, our families, our communities, and our environment 1 year, 2 years, 7 years down the line. We go for the immediate...the NOW. "I do not have the money to raise a child right now, so I cannot have a child." Our environment has gone to "extinction" status...simply because we, as a whole, refuse to sit and THINK about consequences...about cause and effect relationship. It has nothing to do with sinning...it has nothing to do with morality. It simply has to do with vision. "If I do this now, what kind of consequences will be there ___ years from now?"

Our society is the "one for all" mentality...we live far away from families...we do not help each other take care of our children. We believe that we need to do this all ourselves. In MY perfect world...we wouldn't need welfare because everyone would be helping everyone else. Can't afford daycare? Who cares? You have a trusted neighbor who watches your child and the payment is watching theirs.

This is WAAAAAYYY off topic, but I have to say this. I love where I live because a lot of the parents are involved with their child's life. There are a few parents who are not, but no matter, when those children need anything, they know they can come to one of the "involved" parents and get something they need. We help watch each other's child(ren) and there is never "you owe me" attached to it. We all know that when we need something down the line, someone will be there to help us. But, more importantly, we know that our children will benefit the most from growing up in a community which is focused on their well-being.

sander8son
06-30-2004, 06:54 AM
Clearly most everyone would be appalled if the baby was aborted the day after birth, but less people would be appalled if the baby was aborted the day before birth (even though the baby is nearly identical); and less appalled if aborted at 6 months, at 3 months, at 1 month, at 1 week, 1 day, 1 minute...



thanks for stating MOST everyone, and not just everyone. we'll get to my fealings on the day after in a bit.




On this issue, I think everyone has it wrong. It seems to me that this decades-old battle is about which life has more importance- the mother's life or the child's. My answer is... neither. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from anyone that one person's life has more inherent value than any other person's life, so it's all bollocks to me.



it should be clear to all that i view all life as not possessing any value. add in the fact that a fertilized egg isn't a fully functioning human being, and that gives me the ability to argue that an unborn "child" is just a parasite and therefor possessing negative value. so, in a comparisson of no-value to negative value, clearly i feal the mothers life is more important(for lack of a better phrase).




I think people should continue to argue at what point the mother should no longer have the right to abort the child (even argue that is from day one), but it is not such a crystal clear thing to everyone that a one sperm + one egg is equal to one "person" with all the rights of a person. It is clear to everyone that over time one sperm + one egg will eventually grow and become a person with all the rights of a person.




i think sometime around four years after birth is when the parental right to abortion of a child should expire. up until that point, fair game i say. do the world a favour, eat your kids. no, i really am serious. life isn't as special as most people think. there is nothing special about you or anyone else. theres no cosmic reason for your being, you're not here to serve any god(s). you and your kids are gonna die at some point anyway, and the universe will continue to expand as if you were never even here.

AinNY
06-30-2004, 06:59 AM
I just fell out of my chair.....that seems to be happening a lot lately when i read this board :rotfl:

Darren
06-30-2004, 07:52 AM
We go for the immediate...the NOW. "I do not have the money to raise a child right now, so I cannot have a child." Our environment has gone to "extinction" status...simply because we, as a whole, refuse to sit and THINK about consequences...about cause and effect relationship. It has nothing to do with sinning...it has nothing to do with morality. It simply has to do with vision. "If I do this now, what kind of consequences will be there ___ years from now?"


It is true.... it is a consequence of not having consequences (so to speak :)). No seriously, our society gives people a lot of freedom to make mistakes and protected from those mistakes. And in a sense, the option of abortion is yet another protection from a mistake that our society affords people, further decreasing the need to be responsible prior to becoming pregnant. Of course our society also affords people access to cheap and safe birth control, but people's sexual urges haven't quite caught up yet.

Darren
06-30-2004, 08:00 AM
Clearly most everyone would be appalled if the baby was aborted the day after birth



thanks for stating MOST everyone, and not just everyone. we'll get to my fealings on the day after in a bit.

it should be clear to all that i view all life as not possessing any value. add in the fact that a fertilized egg isn't a fully functioning human being, and that gives me the ability to argue that an unborn "child" is just a parasite and therefor possessing negative value. so, in a comparisson of no-value to negative value, clearly i feal the mothers life is more important(for lack of a better phrase).



Of course, there is always someone with extreme views :) However I don't share this one (though you are of course welcome to have the view though). I hold that view that life is what it is... I don't need an external meaning. It is up to us to give it meaning (or not). And I am a great believer in we should do everything we can to give it positive meaning. You can choose nothingness, evil/negativity, or good/positivity and I choose the later.


And having said that, I hold the view that society should protect it's weaker members, and that children should be afforded a great deal of protection. Children that are well protected and loved go on to have positive outlooks, raise their own children with postive outlooks, and promote my belief in giving positive meaning to our lives. And if it is a choice between your belief system (life is meaningless) or mine, I choose mine :)

LEIGH_LANDON
06-30-2004, 08:03 AM
sander8son:all that i view all life as not possessing any value. add in the fact that a fertilized egg isn't a fully functioning human being, and that gives me the ability to argue that an unborn "child" is just a parasite and therefor possessing negative value. so, in a comparisson of no-value to negative value, clearly i feal the mothers life is more important(for lack of a better phrase).



Parasite? Like the entire human race already is in relation to the earth?

sander8son
06-30-2004, 08:20 AM
LL, yeah, thats an excellent deduction of my beliefs from that post.

Darren, you have well reasoned arguments and beliefs. i do disagree with your belief that society should protect the weakest. it may provide more fulfillment within ones own life to help out those in need, but i feel it stiffles the ability of the society to flourish. when more resources are put into bringing the lagging up to the rest of the group, instead of letting the gifted thrive, i think that this society is losing out on a lot of potential greatness. yes, you could argue that the laggards have potential greatness in them too, and its only a matter of forcing it out of them, but i feel its a less intelligent investment. i dont really see a way either of us could prove either side being right or wrong. guess we'll just have to disagree.

AinNY
06-30-2004, 08:27 AM
LL, yeah, thats an excellent deduction of my beliefs from that post.

Darren, you have well reasoned arguments and beliefs. i do disagree with your belief that society should protect the weakest. it may provide more fulfillment within ones own life to help out those in need, but i feel it stiffles the ability of the society to flourish. when more resources are put into bringing the lagging up to the rest of the group, instead of letting the gifted thrive, i think that this society is losing out on a lot of potential greatness. yes, you could argue that the laggards have potential greatness in them too, and its only a matter of forcing it out of them, but i feel its a less intelligent investment. i dont really see a way either of us could prove either side being right or wrong. guess we'll just have to disagree.


I agree with you on this one San....Darwin(or Mobb Deep 1996 :P )....survival of the fittest



Parasite? Like the entire human race already is in relation to the earth?


EXACTLY ;)

Darren
06-30-2004, 08:47 AM
LL, yeah, thats an excellent deduction of my beliefs from that post.

Darren, you have well reasoned arguments and beliefs. i do disagree with your belief that society should protect the weakest. it may provide more fulfillment within ones own life to help out those in need, but i feel it stiffles the ability of the society to flourish. when more resources are put into bringing the lagging up to the rest of the group, instead of letting the gifted thrive, i think that this society is losing out on a lot of potential greatness. yes, you could argue that the laggards have potential greatness in them too, and its only a matter of forcing it out of them, but i feel its a less intelligent investment. i dont really see a way either of us could prove either side being right or wrong. guess we'll just have to disagree.


I agree with you on this one San....Darwin(or Mobb Deep 1996 :P )....survival of the fittest



Parasite? Like the entire human race already is in relation to the earth?


EXACTLY ;)


Not to get to zen/philisophical on you all :) but... a rock is just a rock, and there are a LOT of rocks, but only a relatively few sculptures. Animals don't create sculptures, people do... through will, passion, intelligence, people rise above what is and re-shape it into something greater.

We are (or can choose to be) ruled by laws that are greater than the laws of nature, through passion, intelligence, and will to be greater than the "survival of the fittest".

Now back to something a little less zen like... I guess I don't consider children to be parasites or uses or resources anymore than I consider my own left foot to be parasite because it uses some of "my" resources. I don't see my children as entirely separate from myself because I don't see myself as somehow separate from the life I lead, and the life I lead includes my children.

And indeed they do go on to become the sculptors of our future. While I am less sympathetic to full grown adults that never take responsibility for their life, I have no problem with investing heavily in children on their way to adulthood and responsibility.

And yes, we can agree to disagree.

alexisgold97
06-30-2004, 10:04 AM
Many excellent points, from all sides, have been posted in this thread. All to be respected.

My personal opinion has alwasys been pro-choice. Like several others that have posted, I feel very strongly that the decision should be based on individual circumstances. My decisions ten years ago would be different then today. I feel that it is not for me to decide what another woman can and cannot do with her body. My hope would be that women that consider this as an option would to do some serious soul searching first. It's definatly not a decision to be made lightly.

VenusGoddess
06-30-2004, 10:39 AM
Parasite? Like the entire human race already is in relation to the earth?


Human beings would not be a parasite to the earth if we simply put back what we use. Instead of raping the forests and clear-cutting everything...just taking what we need and leaving the rest. Instead of flooding our rivers with all kinds of waste products and filling the waters with the drugs we piss out of our systems. If we went back to living the way we were really meant to live...then we would not be parasites, we would be partners.

The North American Indians lived this way, the Aboriginies live this way (what is left of them)...and other tribes throughout the world (what is left of them) live this way. The earth flourished because everything used and replenished.

Humans today only take and never give back. It's sad...really.

Lilith
06-30-2004, 10:53 AM
I think people should continue to argue at what point the mother should no longer have the right to abort the child (even argue that is from day one), but it is not such a crystal clear thing to everyone that a one sperm + one egg is equal to one "person" with all the rights of a person. It is clear to everyone that over time one sperm + one egg will eventually grow and become a person with all the rights of a person.



My statement that no one has yet come up with a convincing argument for why one life is more important than another was not an open invitation to try so yourself. You are turning this into an argument I don't participate in.

As Miss Manners once said, "The reason we disagree is not because I do not understand your position."

Lilith
06-30-2004, 11:25 AM
It is true.... it is a consequence of not having consequences (so to speak :)). No seriously, our society gives people a lot of freedom to make mistakes and protected from those mistakes. And in a sense, the option of abortion is yet another protection from a mistake that our society affords people, further decreasing the need to be responsible prior to becoming pregnant. Of course our society also affords people access to cheap and safe birth control, but people's sexual urges haven't quite caught up yet.



I am going to disagree with the premise that abortion is a consequence of reproductive freedom. In my view, our "reproductive freedom" is a fallacy that falls far short of what we all like to believe it is.

For starters, take birth control. The number of companies actively researching new and better forms of birth control has dwindled from more than three dozen to six. This certainly isn't because we've perfected it. There currently is no method on the market which is 100% effective except the more drastic sterilization.

Which leads me to sterilization. One of the most common plights among the "child-free"- those who have no children and know they will never want any- is that almost no doctor will perform a sterilization on a person unless they 1) have two/three existing children and 2) have been married for at least five years and 3) are over the age of 25-30. How can one be old enough to be able to make the decision to vote, drink, drive, sign a contract and have as many children as they want, but NOT able to decide that they do not want any at all, or do not any more? Some state courts have upheld the right of a girl as young as fourteen to have a child without consulting her parents. None have upheld the right of a 24 year old single mom to never have another if that is her wish.

And then there are those that say, "Oh, they can always place the child for adoption." Not so. An oft-quoted statistic is that there are 25,000 adoptive couples waiting for every baby. What that statistic does not say is that those couples are waiting, not just for any baby, but for a perfect healthy white newborn (occasionally specifically a boy or a girl) whose parents will immediately sign away all rights and never want any contact. Any child not meeting these stringent expectations will have a tough time indeed; I have worked with adoption agencies and seen it firsthand. The formula is no longer (if it ever was) finding families for babies, but finding a baby for the family. That we have thousands of adoptable children languishing in foster care is a good example of the flaws in assuming that adoption is an catch-all answer.

The biggest shortcoming to "reproductive freedom" is that one's "freedom" is and has always been directly tied to how much "freedom" you can personally afford. Abortions cost anywhere from several hundred to $2000 dollars an up. Adoptions require the mother to have health care, either state health care or paid for by herself, at a time when she may not be able to work. Raising a child is the most expensive freedom of all, and the help for it is pathetic. Being free doesn't exactly count if you can't afford that freedom.

So we are blessed with abundant "reproductive freedom", but that freedom is more accurately expressed as muddling through by picking the least objectional option which we can afford. I am not impressed by this level of "freedom".

Tigerlilly
06-30-2004, 11:50 AM
Lilith do you feel that as a Pro-Life person you should be able to say what other women can and cannot do about their pregnancy? This is not an accusation or anything, but instead a question.

edited to add: nevermind I just read the answer in one of you other posts . So I will ask another question instead.

What are your thoughts on Pro-lifer's who do feel they have the right to decide for other women ?

Also thankyou for explaining why adoption isn't as simple as many might think !

Darren
06-30-2004, 12:02 PM
I think people should continue to argue at what point the mother should no longer have the right to abort the child (even argue that is from day one), but it is not such a crystal clear thing to everyone that a one sperm + one egg is equal to one "person" with all the rights of a person. It is clear to everyone that over time one sperm + one egg will eventually grow and become a person with all the rights of a person.



My statement that no one has yet come up with a convincing argument for why one life is more important than another was not an open invitation to try so yourself. You are turning this into an argument I don't participate in.



I really wasn't arguing with you. Please don't take it that way because it wasn't meant that way. But to be clear, while nobody has come up with an argument (aka reasoning) that has convinced you, for many others they do believe there is a valid reason for choosing the life of the mother over the life of the too be baby.

I really don't take sides on this matter. I lean towards pro-choice, but I see both points of view clearly and as such I am comfortable with both.

Darren
06-30-2004, 12:44 PM
It is true.... it is a consequence of not having consequences (so to speak :)). No seriously, our society gives people a lot of freedom to make mistakes and protected from those mistakes. And in a sense, the option of abortion is yet another protection from a mistake that our society affords people, further decreasing the need to be responsible prior to becoming pregnant. Of course our society also affords people access to cheap and safe birth control, but people's sexual urges haven't quite caught up yet.



I am going to disagree with the premise that abortion is a consequence of reproductive freedom. In my view, our "reproductive freedom" is a fallacy that falls far short of what we all like to believe it is.


Hmm? Re-read my sentence again. I made no comments about "reproductive freedom" nor did I say it was a consequence of abortion.

I wrote that the option of abortion exists (this is just a fact of the modern world we live in), and because it exists, there is somewhat less consequence (overall for people as a whole) for people that are careless/not-responsible when having sex. That is it... nothing about reproductive freedom at all.


Again I recommend a book called the "The Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steve Pinker. It offers some great insights into human nature that we don't see because our modern culture is a relatively new thing on a historical scale. Nevertheless by looking at 3rd world countries that are not so well developed we gain a clear glimpse into how people have lived for thousands of years.

Modern society is a very new thing relatively speaking in history. Up until very recently people spent most of their lives toiling to grow enough food to feed themselves and died relatively young. Sex and reproductive irresponsibility is hardly new. Different cultures have put in place different belief systems and social practices to moderate reproductivity with varying degrees of successs.

What is new in our modern culture is:

1.) Safe affordable abortion is relatively new option to control unwanted pregnancy.

2.) Safe affordable birth control is relatively new option to control unwanted pregnancy.

3.) But on the flip side, increased freedoms and free time and focus on sexuality which offers some increased opportunties for sexual activity.

However...

As much as we'd like to think our culture is really screwed up, the reality is that in our culture the population is quite well controlled, and it is not just because of abortion, it is because of education and birth control. Some people are actually taking responsibility and reproductive responsibility is being practiced (overall) as compared with so many 3rd world countries where people have an uncontrolled number of children that are never aborted, never prevented, and die young and painful deaths.

But back to the comment I want to make ... people in our culture/country are not so fundamentally different from people of any other culture/country ... a small span of time (100 years or so) is all that differentiates our way of life with the way of life of toling for food that preceeded our modern culture. Our genetic code is still much as it was 100 years ago. And our genetic code leads people to get caught up in the pleasure of the sexual stimulation and put aside the consequences.

People would not be anymore responsible about sexual activity in a culture that does not offer choices of abortion or birth control. You have only to examine modern day 3rd world countries in which birth control is not practiced, abortion is not available, and populations are out of control. People's NATURAL inclination, learned over millinieum is to have sex, make babies, and sadly, accept that some percentage will perish early. In some cultures having many children so that a few survive is a kind of insurance policy.

The bottom line... people that are having irresponsible sex today are doing what their genes have been programmed to do over tens of thousands of years. You can slow irresponsible sex through:

o Consequences (e.g., religious fear of punishment)

o Prevention (e.g., birth control, abstenance).

o Education (i.e., teaching people that more children costs more which can lead to a decreased quality of life for them and their children).

o Abortion (admittedly an option that only needs to be practiced if the other measures fail).

There is really nothing more to it then that. People's natural inclination (that goes back as far as life began) is to have sex and worry about the consequences later. Whether or not abortion exists as an option this is the way people are and they will remain for a long time to come. It is probably going to take several hundred years (if not thousands) over which time (and assuming modern culture survives) for people's genes and attitudes about irresponsible sex change on a large scale.

In the mean time we do see that the population in this country is relatively well controlled, and it is not because there are laws that prevent people from having as many children as they want, it is because they (overall) managing the number of children they have.

Obviously there are still many people that aren't managing the responsibility, but whether it is due to education, birth control, consequences, or abortion, or a combination of, I do see an overall positive trend in the country with regards to taking responsibility for decreasing unwanted pregnancies. As long as the positive trend continues that is all we can reasonably expect... again it will take a LONG time for people to change.

Rhiannon
06-30-2004, 01:21 PM
Damn Lilith. You never cease to amaze me with your posts.

I definitely want to back up what Lilith said about the sterilization. For instance, when I had my second child by c-section, I requested sterilization. My then-husband and I had no plans for a third child, two was enough for me. I was told that I would have to either have 3 children, or be 35 or older. I was only 19 at the time, but this was my second child. I was perfectly capable of making the decision for no more children, yet in their eyes, I was too young. Looking back though, I'm glad I didn't really fight for it. That marriage didn't work, and once I remarried, we had plans for our own child. So I guess it was a good thing.

Now my little sister, who for the most part of her life, has battled a series of mental problems, is pregnant. She is doing well now, but is opting to have a c-section and sterilization to follow the delivery. This pregnancy was not planned, but, she is keeping the baby. She's very worried about how her problems will affect her child. This led her to her decision of no more children. She also knows what she can and cannot handle. One thing that she does know though, without question, is that if she ever has any problems, where is (Gods forbid) is to be institutionalized again, she has me (and my husband) to care for the baby.

My friend, who is one like Lilith described, never wants children. She made that decision before we were even out of high school. She went to my current OB/GYN to inquire about the procedure and was told that he would not do it. My doctor is against it, and will not perform sterilization on a woman unless it is an health issue. Crazy as it seems, it's true. She then went to one of his colleagues, who performed it for her.

I also feel that what Lilith said about adoption is also 100% correct. We have so many children who are raised in group homes because there is no placement for them when it comes to adoption. It's very sad.

Anyway, I'm still Pro-Choice, but it's very interesting to read others' views so I get a little more understanding of where they stand and why.

Lilith
06-30-2004, 01:30 PM
What are your thoughts on Pro-lifer's who do feel they have the right to decide for other women ?



Pretty much the same as what I think of any movement which is so wrapped up in one specific aspect of reproductive freedom that they ignore the wider implications. This tiresome argument was decided with Roe vs Wade and all we've done for the ensuing thirty years is dither over semantics. Useless, in my opinion. Pro-lifers would be better served by making the other options more available and more palatable. That alone will do more to reduce abortions than a futile effort to make it illegal. Pro-choicers should cease this endless argument over a choice which has long been established and isn't going anywhere, and start ensuring that people everywhere truly have a choice of all available options. It seems decidedly antithetical to the notion of "having choices" for a movement to focus on only one choice as the be-all and end-all without making strides as far as the other choices are concerned. Abortion is not the only valid choice which needs protection. Pro-choicers who ignore the needs of the other choices are just as guilty of deciding what is right for a woman by limiting her choices.

In other words, I find this argument to be not much more than an excuse on both sides to avoid doing any real work. Semantics like "free choice", "murder" and "when life begins" aren't helping those who really need it. Real progress in reproductive freedom won't come about until we stop focusing on winning some pointless terminology victory and start lobbying for true freedom.

Tigerlilly
06-30-2004, 01:42 PM
Pro-lifers would be better served by making the other options more available and more palatable. That alone will do more to reduce abortions than a futile effort to make it illegal.

I completely agree with you on that-- if that was the norm for Pro-lifer's I would have no problem with them. As I have stated before my problem with the average Pro-Life message is that they want to choose for everyone and so much of the information they put out is a downright lie. Sigh-- anyway thatnks for answering my question :)

Lilith
06-30-2004, 01:50 PM
Hmm? Re-read my sentence again. I made no comments about "reproductive freedom" nor did I say it was a consequence of abortion.

I wrote that the option of abortion exists (this is just a fact of the modern world we live in), and because it exists, there is somewhat less consequence (overall for people as a whole) for people that are careless/not-responsible when having sex. That is it... nothing about reproductive freedom at all.

This right here.


It is true.... it is a consequence of not having consequences (so to speak :)). No seriously, our society gives people a lot of freedom to make mistakes and protected from those mistakes. And in a sense, the option of abortion is yet another protection from a mistake that our society affords people, further decreasing the need to be responsible prior to becoming pregnant. Of course our society also affords people access to cheap and safe birth control, but people's sexual urges haven't quite caught up yet.

In my view, you are perpetuating the myth that abortion is because of and for the careless who do not behave responsibly nor heedfully mind consequences, as well as the common (and totally inaccurate) view that birth control could stop it all. That then led me into a tangent on reproductive freedoms.

I dislike both myths. It assumes two things which hamper, in my opinion, any potential progress. One of those assumptions is that since WE are responsible, we won't ever be in this position, therefore the whole abortion thing is strictly "for other people". The other presumption is that our "cheap and safe" birth control is all we need; nothing better ought to be called for, because what we have is good enough and any problems are solely the user's fault. My position is that we have miles to go before we attain progress, and no myth should be allowed that encourages us to sit on our collective laurels.

bambiblue
06-30-2004, 02:19 PM
THere are so many kids out there that aren't loved, go unprovided for and are clogging up the foster care system because so many people weren't ready for the responsibilities of parenthood....I am and always will be in support of pro-choice!!!!

Darren
06-30-2004, 02:20 PM
Hmm? Re-read my sentence again. I made no comments about "reproductive freedom" nor did I say it was a consequence of abortion.

I wrote that the option of abortion exists (this is just a fact of the modern world we live in), and because it exists, there is somewhat less consequence (overall for people as a whole) for people that are careless/not-responsible when having sex. That is it... nothing about reproductive freedom at all.

This right here.


It is true.... it is a consequence of not having consequences (so to speak :)). No seriously, our society gives people a lot of freedom to make mistakes and protected from those mistakes. And in a sense, the option of abortion is yet another protection from a mistake that our society affords people, further decreasing the need to be responsible prior to becoming pregnant. Of course our society also affords people access to cheap and safe birth control, but people's sexual urges haven't quite caught up yet.

In my view, you are perpetuating the myth that abortion is because of and for the careless who do not behave responsibly nor heedfully mind consequences, as well as the common (and totally inaccurate) view that birth control could stop it all. That then led me into a tangent on reproductive freedoms.



If there is any perpetuation of any myths it is strictly in the mind of the reader who is looking for one. The statements were very simple.

1.) A relatively safe abortion is an option in our society (this is fact).

2.) Some people may be less responsible about sex because the option of abortion exists (this is an opinion/guess, hence the word "may", but of course it cannot be substantiated). I said nothing about "...abortion was invented because of or for the careless... I made no comments at all with regards to why/how abortion or abortion laws exist. My comment was that because it DOES exist as an option (fact) some people may be less responsible (because they have an option to become unpregnant).

3.) Inexpensive safe birth control is an option in our society (this is also a fact). I never said anything about it birth control "stopping it all" - you added that, or read that into it.

I am not your enemy here... I will be glad to retract any statements that are wrong, but I really am not perpetuating any of the myths I think you fear (or expected me) to perpetuate.

Lilith
06-30-2004, 05:14 PM
2.) Some people may be less responsible about sex because the option of abortion exists (this is an opinion/guess, hence the word "may", but of course it cannot be substantiated).

There was no "may" in the text I quoted. There was not even a "some". The quote was a sweeping generalization that did give the impression that you were lamenting a societal ill (careless people needing and having abortions) as well as your proposed solution (they need to pay more heed to societal-provided "cheap and safe birth control"). If this is not what you meant then feel free to clarify by re-wording or removing the generalizations, rather than implying delusions on the part of the reader and a hasty back-pedal.

[quiote] I said nothing about "...abortion was invented because of or for the careless...


Indeed. Neither did I.


I made no comments at all with regards to why/how abortion or abortion laws exist. My comment was that because it DOES exist as an option (fact) some people may be less responsible (because they have an option to become unpregnant).


Again, there was no "some" in your statements. You did indeed diagnose both a broad cause and the cure in two breaths... without benefit of a "some". The problem with sweeping generalizations that do not leave exception are that even one exception makes the statement false, and thus a myth.


3.) Inexpensive safe birth control is an option in our society (this is also a fact). I never said anything about it birth control "stopping it all" - you added that, or read that into it.

Firstly, that is not an indisputable fact. The pill is directly linked to causing cancer and strokes (among other things). A portion of women are advised by their doctor that it would be medically unwise to take it. This does not meet my definition of "safe". Does it meet yours? Additionally, birth control may meet your specifications for being inexpensive, but the fact that the poor often get theirs via state or federal aid does show that it is not inexpensive for everyone.

Second, your implications were clear, else it would have been extraneous for you to include that last sentence. Not being willing to back up your statements, both implied and outright stated, is your own problem.


I am not your enemy here... I will be glad to retract any statements that are wrong, but I really am not perpetuating any of the myths I think you fear (or expected me) to perpetuate.

It's merely a debate, I have no idea why the word "enemy" could be even thinkable. And I have no expectations of you; I barely recognize you. I see a statement that is debateable and I debate it. Who made the statement is not half so important as being able to carry my thoughts across in a clear manner.

Darren
06-30-2004, 06:04 PM
You did indeed diagnose both a broad cause and the cure in two breaths... without benefit of a "some". The problem with sweeping generalizations that do not leave exception are that even one exception makes the statement false, and thus a myth.



Sigh, this has been a failed communication. We are using the same words but we aren't talking the same language. We should chalk this one up as a failed communication and move on because this is a no win and I (admittedly a fault of mine) don't enjoy spending a lot of time just trying to come to some basic agreement on semantics.

I will comment though on your statement that:

"The problem with sweeping generalizations that do not leave exception are that even one exception makes the statement false, and thus a myth."

First, I don't recall making any sweeping generalization, however....

Even though I don't recall making any generalization, I will make one of those zen comments again...

The notion that generalizations are false because there are exceptions is simply not true. Sorry, I just can't agree. There are two problems with this.

First, it is based on the assumption that there are simple absolute truths, and that any exception invalidates truth. Humans cling to this belief because they have relatively simple intellects and grey scales make them uncomfortable, but in my view of reality there is no such thing as simple absolute truths. Reality is a bunch of grey, there always exceptional people, always exceptional circumstances, always exceptional conditions, and so on.

Second, even though we want simple absolute truths, humans can convienentally raise the exceptions when it suits their arguments to disprove anything you want to disprove. For example, you did it by pointing out that the pill has some side effects while entirely missing my more overriding point which is that (historically speaking) readily available safe and inexpensive birth control is new and has a big impact on sex and pregnancy.

So I disagree with your statement that exceptions to a generalization equals myth. I don't believe in absolute truths... there are always exceptions and so I look for the general patterns to try and make sense of things... keeping in mind that there will always be exceptions.

With regards to is abortion wrong or right, I don't believe there is a simple answer. I believe that this issue, like so many issues, there is no absolute right or wrong, is just another grey scale and we need to find the general truth, what is best overall and not cling to absolute positions.

As I said in an earlier post, I think people that take absolute/simple positions do so because they are uncomfortable with complexity. They want everything put into simple easy to understand statements they can get their heads around like "abortion is always killing and killing is always wrong". It so simple a child can understand it, but it doesn't make it truth. It just makes it simple.

Jay Zeno
06-30-2004, 06:56 PM
it should be clear to all that i view all life as not possessing any value.


So if someone offers to come over and kill you, it's just fine, because your life has no value? You're crossing the street, you see the truck coming down the road, and you don't move out of the way, because your life has no value?

Just whimsical questions. Sorry for the thread drift.

Darren
07-01-2004, 05:50 AM
it should be clear to all that i view all life as not possessing any value.


So if someone offers to come over and kill you, it's just fine, because your life has no value? You're crossing the street, you see the truck coming down the road, and you don't move out of the way, because your life has no value?

Just whimsical questions. Sorry for the thread drift.


LOL, good question, or didi he mean '.,,,i view all life as not possessing any value... except for mine" :P

sander8son
07-01-2004, 08:17 AM
as long as its quick, fine with me.

DancerWealth
07-03-2004, 01:50 AM
And I'll tell you what, now that I see DancerWealth is Pro-Life I won't be taking his classes that's for sure. Why some might ask, because I won't knowingly spend money on a business that supports the Pro-life movement as I don't want to help fund things like clinic bombings >:(


Okay, I was going to stay out of this thread until I read this nonsense. I guess my only question is, have you lost your mind? To say that I support, endorse, or in any way support or condone clinic bombings is beyond moronic and quite insulting. The people who do these things are fanatics and deserve no respect whatsoever. I have a philosophy on the abortion issue...nothing more, nothing less. This is not a passionate issue for me and probably never will be. I don't even fully support my own political party's pro-life position on this issue.



I'm not trying to say he's personally out bombing places but he does show support for a group of people who do. It's just a matter of principle for me. I won't knowingly contribute to things, people or groups like that.


To make a connection between my views and those who would murder abortion doctors and bomb clinics is so illogical words cannot describe. Using your logic, I can say that your pro abortion beliefs support the Nazi philosophies and that you probably have a swastika flag in your house. So, much like how you wouldn't want to contribute to a company who supports clinic bombings, I wouldn't want a customer who supports mass murder, death camps and ethnic cleansing. See how rediculous it sounds when we start assuming everyone is an extremist?

Djoser
07-03-2004, 02:16 AM
And having said that, I hold the view that society should protect it's weaker members, and that children should be afforded a great deal of protection. Children that are well protected and loved go on to have positive outlooks, raise their own children with postive outlooks, and promote my belief in giving positive meaning to our lives. And if it is a choice between your belief system (life is meaningless) or mine, I choose mine :)


The vast majority of abortions are in fact protecting the unborn from a life of despair and suffering. An unwanted child is perhaps the most miserable of creatures. They stand a much greater chance of becoming criminals, and also of producing more maladjusted and unproductive--if not destructive--members of society.

07-03-2004, 02:19 AM
Yeah but He doesnt have to "have the baby"....she still does....it doesnt matter whos going to take care of it.

....amazing

Djoser
07-03-2004, 02:26 AM
And then there are those that say, "Oh, they can always place the child for adoption." Not so. An oft-quoted statistic is that there are 25,000 adoptive couples waiting for every baby. What that statistic does not say is that those couples are waiting, not just for any baby, but for a perfect healthy white newborn (occasionally specifically a boy or a girl) whose parents will immediately sign away all rights and never want any contact. Any child not meeting these stringent expectations will have a tough time indeed; I have worked with adoption agencies and seen it firsthand.

I suspect that the vast majority of aborted zygotes, if allowed to continue to develop to become infants, would in fact be deemed entirely unnacceptable by couples wishing to adopt a baby.

I have seen the horrible results of unwanted children being bounced from one abusive forster home to the next. One of my friends was truly frightening and sometimes dangerously violent as a result.

Thank you, Lilith for bringing this point up.

blondhottie
07-03-2004, 09:12 AM
This is such a touchy subject; I almost didn't post. I voted sometimes right because it really depends on the individual's situation. I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control. I don't think it's right for a woman to have 5 or 6 abortions.

Some people say that abortion is selfish. I think it's more selfish for a woman to bring a child into this world because she is trying to have a relationship with the father and the father doesn't want a relationship with her. It's also selfish for a woman to have a baby she can't afford or properly take care of just because she wants a baby. How many times have you seen 13 or 14 year old girls on talk shows say that they want to become pregnant so that they have a cute little baby who loves them unconditionally?

If I were to become pregnant at this point in my life, I would probably have an abortion because I'm not financially or emotionally ready to raise a child. If I ever have children, I want them to have the best life I can give them, and I'm not ready for that yet. I would feel guilty about it because I was raised Catholic and I was always taught that abortion is wrong. However, at this point in my life, I'm not ready to raise a child.

I do think that abortions should be done within the first trimester, unless the woman was planning to have the baby and her life would be in danger if she were to give birth.

As for whether the father should have any say, I think that the mother and father should definitely sit down and talk about it. It takes two people to create a child, and I don't think it's right for a woman to just go out and have an abortion without at least talking to the father about it first (unless the father is a total asshole who doesn't give a shit). But ultimately, I think it should be the woman's decision whether or not to have the abortion. The father may want to raise the child, and he may in fact be an excellent father, but he is not the one who has to carry the child for nine months and deal with all the complications that come with pregnancy.

VenusGoddess
07-03-2004, 11:48 AM
As for whether the father should have any say, I think that the mother and father should definitely sit down and talk about it. It takes two people to create a child, and I don't think it's right for a woman to just go out and have an abortion without at least talking to the father about it first (unless the father is a total asshole who doesn't give a shit). But ultimately, I think it should be the woman's decision whether or not to have the abortion. The father may want to raise the child, and he may in fact be an excellent father, but he is not the one who has to carry the child for nine months and deal with all the complications that come with pregnancy.


No, maybe not, but he will have to live the rest of his life knowing that he could not prevent the death of his child. The child that he helped to create...a LIFETIME of sorrow and heartbreak. Somehow, 9 months seems trivial.

This is behavior extremely selfish of the mother. The father wants the child, is willing to raise the child himself...and because she doesn't want to give up 9 months of her life to help the baby grow healthy, she can decide to abort? WTF? This puts the father in an impossible situation. Haven't people heard about COMPROMISE? "You have the baby, I'll fully raise and support the child with no expectations from you (the mother)." For people to think that having a baby only affects the mother, you are seriously misguided and misinformed. The father may not experience the PHYSICAL aspects of pregnancy, but they sure as hell experience the emotional. To deny them the opportunity to be a daddy and raise a child they helped create is utter foolishness, selfishness, and disrespect. It takes TWO to make a baby...it should take TWO to abort the baby. Meaning this: if the father wants the child, then the mother should have the baby; if she wants no part in raising the child, then she should be free to leave...but to abort the child and disregard the father's role, desire, and insistance of having the child, it is just not right.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 12:10 PM
That sounds good in theory Venus but how many men do you know of that have raised a child from the time of birth 100% on their own. Few to none is my guess. I know of not one man who has done it and I don't think the majority of men have the innate ability to do so. I feel there is a reason why God/nature gave women the ability to have children instead of men. Both genders have their strengths and weak points and the ability to provide full time child care is not a very common trait in men.

Men regularly abandon their families and so I just don't feel that the average Joe walking down the street deserves the right to decide how women use their reproductive ability.

Think about it, it's hard enough to get them to even wear a condom even in this day and age of Aids -- many won't even take responsibility for their own health or reproductive abilities even in the face of catching or spreading deadly disease. This is not my vision of a good parent.

There are exceptions to what I describe but it's not really common. Thankfully I am married to one of those exceptions but I know all too well how fortunate I am in that respect

Kali_Skye
07-03-2004, 12:22 PM
I can see what both VenusGoddess and Tigerlillyl are saying. What you are saying Venus, would be nice if many men were willing to take care of a child, but I could see some very vindictive men doing just the opposite. I could see a man telling a woman that she needs to go through the pregnancy and then not really taking care of it, just to piss the woman off. Or to embarrass her, especially if she is still a really young girl in school. Also, 9 months of pregnancy is still no joke, the female would have to take time off from work/school for prenatal visits and women still can have horrible health consequences from pregnancy and labor. Preeclampsia (gestastional high blood pressure) can give a woman seizures and may even kill her. And this is just one of the many complications. I had a co-worker at my UPS station die of hemoraging after she gave birth to her daughter. It was internal bleeding and no one knew about it until two days later. I know it's not the middle ages anymore and women don't die nearly half as much from it as they used to, but it still happens.

Also adoption is rather messed up. It's almost never a smooth process. Any family member (such as the woman's parents or someone) could contest the man's right of adopting, and if let's say the man lives close by to the woman she would see her kid that she gave away everyday, and I just don't think that's right.

Everytime a woman decides to bring a pregnancy to term, she is risking her own life. I don't think anyone else should dictate if she should risk her own life but her. So that is why I think the desicion should be 100% up to the female in question. Just my 2 cents.

VenusGoddess
07-03-2004, 04:07 PM
I've been through childbirth. I've known many women who have had children and they haven't had the problems you are talking about. A woman can die during childbirth? Sure, it's possible...but, you can also die walking down the street...you can die driving...in fact, you are more likely to die in a car accident than giving birth. So, while your argument that a woman is risking her life to have a baby is noted, and I applaud your efforts, I am going to have to laugh it off as coming from someone extremely uninformed about the actual processes of childbirth and labor.

Now, it's ok for a woman to get an abortion because MAYBE her man will not be willing to raise the child? To be completely honest, here, I have seen SEVERAL women have abortions "out of spite". But, the men who have "fought" hard to convince the woman that he'll always support the child have done so. So what you are saying is that abortion is better, than say, giving birth and then walking away, leaving the care of your child to the father? If the father doesn't take care of that child, it's a problem, but for the most part, I would think that a man who is adamant that HIS child be born would be the same man that would make many sacrifices to ensure that his child is raised well and healthy.

Tigerlily, your argument about the man being the one to abandon the family more than women is pretty far-fetched. How many times have you heard about a newborn found in a dumpster behind the local store? How many times have you heard about a woman abandoning her baby at the local homeless shelter/adoption home/hospital? What about the women who have baby after baby and are never around to take care of them? Women are just as likely to abandon their baby as a man.

What is the percentage of men who are now stay at home daddies while their wives go to work? I believe that a man has just as much ability to be a full-time (single) parent as a woman. In the past, it was the woman's ROLE to be a homemaker, which is why women stayed home with their children...now, it's a decision that a father can choose to make.

And, I'm not talking about the "average Joe" walking down the street in terms of men who should have a say in their gf/wife's choice. I am talking about a man and a woman who have been in a serious relationship/marriage when they find out they are pregnant. Why is it the sole choice of the woman's? The "it's because it's my body and I said so" won't fly with me here. When you are in a relationship and are having sex with someone, you are sharing a part of yourself. If it takes you and him to create a life...then why do you have more say in whether the pregnancy progresses or ends?

I think it is sad that we live in a society that gives the father no rights when it comes to his children. We expect that men have absolutely no clue what to do with children. They are looked at as sperm donors, sure to abandon the woman they impregnate. Does it happen? It surely does...but, in the meantime you are looking at every man you meet in this light. That is sad. When the reality is, women have been known to abandon their children just as much as men.

Kali_Skye
07-03-2004, 04:40 PM
I am glad to hear that your pregnancy went very smoothly for you VenusGoddess, as it does for the vast majority of women. Yet some have debilitating consequences from pregnancy and or childbirth that can lead to life long problems or death. With today's medical technology, much can be abated, but not all. I can't list everything that can go wrong, and it's a good thing that most women are willing to take the chances or else the human race would die out. Pregnancy and labor is still a medical risk with tons of things that can go wrong no matter how you look at it.

ami
07-03-2004, 05:23 PM
Pro choice. Whatever the woman wants or needs to do. It's her body. The father has no rights until the child is born when it comes to abortion.

Pamela


I am only going to say this one thing (watch me go back on that later....)

I think a Father should have rights. but a sperm donator should not. but that can sometimes be a hard thing to figure out......

clean cut would be a one night stand with no other contact, clean cut would be a really good supportive ltr.... non clean cut would be a husband you have been seprated from for months........

Darren
07-04-2004, 07:02 AM
As for whether the father should have any say, I think that the mother and father should definitely sit down and talk about it. It takes two people to create a child, and I don't think it's right for a woman to just go out and have an abortion without at least talking to the father about it first (unless the father is a total asshole who doesn't give a shit). But ultimately, I think it should be the woman's decision whether or not to have the abortion. The father may want to raise the child, and he may in fact be an excellent father, but he is not the one who has to carry the child for nine months and deal with all the complications that come with pregnancy.


No, maybe not, but he will have to live the rest of his life knowing that he could not prevent the death of his child. The child that he helped to create...a LIFETIME of sorrow and heartbreak. Somehow, 9 months seems trivial.

This is behavior extremely selfish of the mother.


Thanks to both of you for recognizing and sticking up for men's right to have a say in whether or not their baby lives of dies :lovestruck: I am pro-choice because I think everyone should make their own choice, but for me it would be very hard to agree to an abortion (knowing what I know, which is that you don't know what your missing until you see your babies face for the first time).

It is true that the pregnancy is harder on the woman that the man, but you are both awesome for realizing that the choice to abort is a painful one for a lot of men (even though they aren't the ones carrying the child).

VenusGoddess
07-04-2004, 08:50 AM
I am glad to hear that your pregnancy went very smoothly for you VenusGoddess, as it does for the vast majority of women. Yet some have debilitating consequences from pregnancy and or childbirth that can lead to life long problems or death. With today's medical technology, much can be abated, but not all. I can't list everything that can go wrong, and it's a good thing that most women are willing to take the chances or else the human race would die out. Pregnancy and labor is still a medical risk with tons of things that can go wrong no matter how you look at it.


Yes, but sweetie, we are talking about the AVERAGE woman in an AVERAGE situation. We could sit here and debate the medical problems all day, but the point is still: A healthy woman should give the choice to the father as well. Hiding behind the pregnancy "will ruin my body" is just foul and does not count. If a woman has that many medical problems, then she should be taking the necessary precautions to keep from becoming pregnant. Abortions, too, are a high medical risk for women.

Kali_Skye
07-04-2004, 11:52 AM
I actually agree with 100% of everything you said. I probably have watched a few too many Discovery Health channel episodes of "Babies: Special Delivery." In fact I am watching it right now (I can't help it! I'm addicted :blush:). I was just using the health aspect as one example, it wasn't supposed to be the main point. Also morally/ethically I agree with you, (that a female should ask the man if he also wants the abortion and she should consider his feelings). I really haven't disagreed with one thing you posted. It's just that I don't agree with making that a law. (Hope that made sense :P.)

No one is ever forced physically to do anything you want to do even if it will save someone else's life. If a child needs a bone marrow or kidney transplant and one of the child's parent turns out to be the only available donor, the parent is not obligated to go under surgery even if it means certain death for their child. People bleed to death in ERs all over the country because people are too selfish to donate blood even though blood donation isn't really that risky to the donor. Maybe we should line up, hog tie and force every college student to give a pint and then there would be no more blood shortages, but no one has proposed that in congress. Even corpses have the right to keep their organs if they so please even if it means thousands of people who are alive with families and friends die every year for not getting that needed liver. Forcing a woman to gestate simply not to offend a man's sensibilities seems to be elevating the rights of a corpse over that of a pregnant woman.

So ethically I pretty much agree with everything you said about a woman considering a man's feelings with abortion, just like I believe ethically people should give blood and all be registered as organ donors on their driver's liscense. But I don't believe anyone should be forced to. I am against racism 100% as well, but I don't believe in making laws against the KKK and Nazis is good. Can't force people to be nice. (Sorry, long post, hope that made sense.)

VenusGoddess
07-04-2004, 09:03 PM
Your post made total sense. For the record, I just wanted to say that I do not believe that this should be made a law (how would it be enforced?) but that women need to take into consideration the feelings and opinions of the baby's father. Although its legal to get an abortion no matter what the father says, it's still unethical (or immoral).

People say that they are Pro-Choice and that's great...but they are Pro-Women's-Choice only...I do not believe that that is fair, is all I am saying.

/ soapbox

discretedancer
12-12-2004, 11:50 AM
I have no problem with abortion - except for those rare folks who use it instead of birth control (in a regular basis...I've never met anyone that does this).

I DO have a problem with any kind of "partial birth" process - which basically amounts to birthing a viable baby, but killing it before it's all the way out. This crosses the line to murder for me - the parents (mom) had nearly 6 months to decide about abortion before the fetus became a viable being.

Jenny
12-12-2004, 01:12 PM
Partial birth abortion is NOT equivalent to birthing a live baby and then killing it before it is all the way out. Whoever told you that has misinformed you. Giving credence to the "dad's" opinion sounds nice, but is not terribly practical, in a legal or moral sense. Since the deciding "vote" must necessarily rest with the woman, it is equivalent to saying "what do you think? Okay, now I don't care." There is not really viable compromise in this situation. It seems somewhat more humane to NOT tell him (if one has already decided that one wishes to terminate); why make him suffer?
The whole fetus yawning thing. What's with that? People yawn because they are tired and require more oxygen. Fetuses don't require oxygen, don't have oxygen available to them, and would simple be "inhaling" fluid. This looks suspiciously like they are humanizing fetal behaviour to me - trying to make the fetus look like a real, sleepy baby - which is misleading, no matter what your convictions on the topic.

DeepGreen
12-12-2004, 05:14 PM
Guess this thread got woken up after a long sleep. I would vote for "sometimes right"--but I strongly feel that women should always have the legal option.

discretedancer
12-12-2004, 05:19 PM
What exactly is Partial-birth abortion? As I understand it, the process goes as follows:

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml

As for the father/dad thing, I think he should be informed, his opinion taken into account (who knows, he may want to pay her to surrogate, and she may be OK with that) but the final choice (BEFORE PBA becomes an issue) is hers. If he were so concerned, it'd be wrapped or not have gone in at all.

Gabe
12-12-2004, 10:21 PM
People may preach "It's her body, it's her body." Yes I agree 110% with this, but the "father" (If it was agreeable sex) opinion needs to be thrown in there as well.

It's a shame that there is a need for abortion, but in some instances we need it.