Pro- Choice or Pro-Life?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Women's History
Forum Discription: Discuss women in history and other historical topics from a feminine perspective !
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14694
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 04:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pro- Choice or Pro-Life?
Posted By: morticia
Subject: Pro- Choice or Pro-Life?
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 14:37
|
Between the years 500 and 515 BC, Chinese documents record abortions performed upon royal concubines in China. It is said that the legendary Emperor Shennong used mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago. Therefore, why is the termination of pregnancy still today so controversial, when it’s been performed for so long?
While I know this is a controversial topic and has been discussed as an “abortion issue” in AE, it does concern women and I thought it should be discussed in this women’s forum. I’m not getting into what is right and not right about abortion because I believe every individual has a right to their opinion (whether I agree or disagree with them). Personally, I'm pro-choice because I find that it provides women with the ability to make an informed choice regarding pregnancy. I am not pro-abortion and I don’t agree that abortion should be used as a method of birth control, but I do agree that it should be a safe option available to women. I respect those women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term to raise the child, but I am glad that they had the option available to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I guess it would all depend on each individual’s needs and desires. Unfortunately, many men are adamantly anti-abortion, although none of them will ever have the misfortune of having an unwanted pregnancy. It frightens me to think that one day women may not have control over what goes on in their own bodies. I think if those men could get pregnant, they would tell another story. My questions are as follows: 1. Does a fetus have a “right” to be inside a woman who chooses to have sex with a man and becomes pregnant? 2. Does a fetus have a “right” to be inside a woman who has been raped by a man and becomes pregnant? 3. Unlike a fetus, a newborn child is a “separate physical entity” who would, as an actual human being, have rights, but does a fetus have any “rights”? 4. Do parents own their children as they would own a house? Please, let’s try and keep this discussion civil and mature! Thank you. 
------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 18:15
|
Unfortunately a rational consideration of this issue has been clouded
by outdated religious dogma which was formulated for a time and place
vastly removed from our own. I suspect our dear Chinese Emperor was not
subject to such dogma and had a much more rational line of thinking in
what to do about his unwanted pregnancies. 1. The foetus is merely a conglomeration of cells which is incapable of sustaining itself, thinking or basically behaving as a human being. It has not attained a level of consciousness which may destinguish it as being a proper human. As a bunch of cells inside the woman, this conglomeration has no rights and is subject to the whim of the mother, who is a free thinking and fully developed human being and therefore has infinitely greater importance. Just because something MIGHT become a fully fledged human one day, doesn't make it a fully fledged human today. 2. Foetus in question 2 has no more rights than the foetus in question 1. 3. No, because the new born baby is a properly developed human which has attained consciousness. It is a living creature, not a conglomeration of cells like the foetus. 4. Parents have responsibility and authority over a child, it is not their physical property. They maintain their authority as long as they adequately carry out their duty of care. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 19:22
|
I think the answer to all of the above questions is. In a world when 7 people die every second from a poverty related issues, such as disease, starvation, unclean water. It takes a seriously delusional kind of freak to get so upset over abortion.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 19:54
|
I always think that terms such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are real misnomers. People who support "abortion" are not "anti-life". Most people who support abortion do not advocate its unregulated practice. The emphasis is simply on giving women or couples a CHOICE. If they are desuaded from such a dreadful decision after weighing all the options, fine. But if they do finally decide to go ahead and do it, it is still their choice.
But people who do not even want to consider offering such an option for women or couples are indeed denying them of any choices, hence they are really "anti-choice".
So I think those two camps should simply be called "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", not "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
------------- |
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 08:48
|
A Fetus, ball of cells or not, is still a living being, a child, or it will become such. And no-one has the right to decide whether a child lives or dies except in extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger if she chooses to go full term. ------------- Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 10:42
I was wondering about the same thing. Kind of hypocritical of them isnt it. However, it has been my experience that most "pro-life" people are white, mostly religious and racist. The way I see it, their premise does not lie in the inhumanity of destroying a fetus, but in increasing the number of whites...I really have not seen a case where pro-life people being obsessed with fetuses of black women. Of course that doesnt apply to all pro-life, but to many of them...to my opinion p.s. My post is not meant to insult anyone ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 10:56
|
I don't think there is a right or a wrong answer. Abortion IMO is in many ways an abdication of responsibility, and unfortunatly many people use it as such. I really can't see any reason to be militantly on either side of the issue, but then unfortunatly in this debate its hard to find anyone in the middle. The only thing I can say is, that I am sure glad I was not aborted.
------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 07:57
Why not? It has always bothered me that it is impossible to deduct one's way to proving the worth of a human life empirically, thus I must doubt whether it has any "higher value" at all, though of course I hope it has. Personally I have nothing against abortion, even when used as a last measure preventive for women who just don't feel like it yet, it should be their choice. It's not like we're short of people on this planet. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 08:18
|
From Conception a fetus begings forming in the womb it's own little person, and in just a few weeks can feel pain and sense danger. This is not just me saying this, it's a proven scientific fact. Knowing that they feel pain, how can you say that it should be "the mothers choice" when she is not the one who will feel that pain, she isn't the one who's life is going to be ended. If it were meant to be, We would have an automatic eject button, don't you think? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 08:36
|
That said, couldn't it also be said people are either "pro-life" or "anti-life"? The boat rows both ways, deductive thinking can always come back and bite you on the butt don't ya think? Instead of analysing the supposed gramatical errors of the choices, look deeper. Things are either black or white, there are no grays. It is either wrong or it is right. I'm not going to shove anything down your throut, but deep down everyone knows the truth about abortion- It's wrong. People spend years trying to convince themselves and everyone around them of Abortions innocence, but the fact is they naturally know the truth. And in the end it's plain, and simple- everyone has a conscience- everyone knows the truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A little food for thought: " http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/30765.html - He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak. " |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 09:35
I have already explained in my post why that doesn't work. Please read it more carefully. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 10:11
|
I just speak as I find, It's black or white- not grey.
If you don't believe a fetus has the right to live....your anti-life, plain and simple. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 10:39
|
Its hard and wrong to deal in absolutes in this case. A victim of rape or worse incest deserves a chance at a proper life. A women who already has children should not be faulted for not risking her life by carrying it to term, since well her olders childrens welfare comes first. And their are numerous other situations where abortion will be the only sane route. Now, what I am against is abortion on demand. And the "control of bodies" argument dose not really cut any ice here. After all we give up many rights to live in a civilized society. And if in this society the state must interfere than it should always protect the weaker party. So in "on demand" abortions the weaker party is the fetous. Its "mother" is an adult who freely chose to enter into intercourse , knowing full well the possible consequences. The fetous on the other hand is defenceless and on the whim of otehrs. If the state must interfere, than let it be for it.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 11:46
|
I understand where your coming from... but there is such a thing as adoption, The mother could just as easily give her baby up for adoption and not risk all of the side effects of an abortion.
It not only kills the fetus, but also can cause depression and regret in the mother's case. If they truly believe it is not wrong, why do they regret it in the years to come? ------------- |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 13:16
|
Thank you all for your enlightened contributions to this topic. A woman's choice to have a medically safe abortion is a very important issue for women, as the "Roe v Wade" decision is constantly being challenged in the courts by the anti-abortion and pro-life groups. I fear the day that said decision is ever overturned, only because many women will die from having abortions performed with unlicensed personnel and under unsafe and deplorable conditions (as it was before the Roe v Wade decision).
Quite frankly, I believe that most woman don't want to be subjected to such a procedure, but it is important for all women to know that they have a medically safe alternative to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, if they choose to do so. As a mother of three, and as a woman, I can honestly say that if I ever found myself in a situation where I had an unwanted pregnancy, even though I may not choose an abortion, I would want to know that said medically safe option/alternative is available to me. What I don't want is for some organization to tell women what to do with their bodies, when it should not be any of their business at all. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 13:24
You must be a man.  You obviously don't realize that pregnancy has many more risks than you know (not to mention many side effects, i.e. nausea, vomiting, backaches, liquid retention, swelling and the obvious gain of weight). Also to be encountered are tubal pregnancies (where mothers have died due to loss of blood), breech births (again where mothers have died), episiotomies that some women undergo because they don't dilate enough, etcetera. Let's not forget the prenatal depression and crying spells PLUS the postpartum "blues" that women endure for NINE MONTHS PLUS!!!!!!
If a woman regrets her decision in the years to come, she'll have to live with it, just as we all do when we make decisions we regret later on in life. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 13:34
It is a very cliche remark,dear Morticia Adams.
If that body also accomodates one human beingin the meantime, it is for sure a special concern for others than women also. A life is more important than individualism.
My philosophy teacher once told me that ''never wish something for others that you would not wish for yourself!.''
Put yourself into the shoes of that infant in one women's body,who is in the mood of abortion. would you wish not to be given birth?
------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 14:03
|
I am not pro-choice or pro-life. I am pro-sanity. Abortion is way different from say body piercing, when its nobody's business but your own. In abortion, a human lfe is being snuffed out. The fetus may no have been human, but it would have become one.
OTH we can't expect a 12 year old rape victim, to carry to term. Or a women with three children who was advised not to become pregnant.
It depends on the circumstances. ------------- |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 14:04
My dear friend, Diplomat!  If I was in the shoes of the infant I don't think it would matter what I thought because, even if I was born, I would not remember anything. Do you remember when you were in your mother's womb? Do you even remember anything about the day you were born? I seriously doubt it! Maybe, just maybe, that is the reason nature does not let us remember! Ever thought of that?
------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 14:08
When I was taking my American Jurisprudence class for my Law Degree, my tutor (who was pro-choice BTW) pointed out that Roe was based on faulty premise anyhow. So it would be far better for the pro-choice crowd to go for bills passed in the state legislature (and most states would pass them anyhow) ------------- |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 14:13
And how, may I ask, does this person's decision to have an abortion affect your life? Will you be supporting said human life that came out of her? Will you be feeding said human life, educating said human life, or in any other way contributing to its development? If the answer to any of the above is NO, then it's none of your business! ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:00
Very few things in life are black or white. One of the most famous logical fallacies is confounding dichotomous with continuous variables. Even some apparently dichotomous variables such as life and death are NOT dichotomous if you think about it.
What I do not and cannot accept is the certitude that some people have (most of whom have an exclusive claim of knowledge of all sorts, including the most unanswerable questions about life) on what is and is not life, whose life worths more, and what a worthy life means. For me, all these questions have a question mark that no one has the exclusive right to take away. I live life with the knowledge that there are many things I don't know and am not certain about, and I won't be that pompous to dictate my view on others. That is, in my dictionary, what choices are about.
------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:09
No, women aren’t VCRs. I don’t see what pain and emotions has to do with it, how that makes the fetus inviolate, if the woman carrying it – much like an outgrowth on her body- should want to dispose of it. We kill so many things that have emotions and nerve systems, without regard to how these creatures must feel. I can see nothing wrong per se in killing anything that there is sufficient reason to kill, yet it doesn’t mean I’m anti-life, I’m just not pro-all kinds of life.
Again, what is so great, so inviolate about human life if there is sufficient reason to have it “snuffed out”, as you say?
Irrelevant; we should care more about the quality of the life for the woman living now, than the potential life of an unwanted child.
Absolutely, otherwise we’d find ourselves in a society which forces women to carry forth children of rape and incest, meaning every woman has reason to fear not only rape itself but a lifelong reminder and consequence thereof. I think TheDiplomat should put himself in those shoes. Of course, I’m willing to go much further than that and accept abortion as simply a last measure preventive method. ------------- |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:12
Remembering the first day you opened your eyes to this world does not matter, opening your eyes to life itself matters.
The right to live is undeniable. ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:17
 Irrelevant yourself, Reginmund.
The thread itselfs bears the title pro-choice or pro-life,rather than living standarts of mother. So the right to life of an infant should also be pointed out.
Your individualism must have reached the point where one's economic standarts come before the importance of a ''potential'' life. But the worth of a human life can not be even priced  ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 17:25
|
No Morticia, probably to your dismay, I am definantly not a man.
I understand how complicating some pregnancies can be, however the physical and mental effects of an abortion can be much worse in the end.
I have quite a few close friends who have had abortions, and in their words, " I'll regret it till the day I die." ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 17:38
|
Reginmund, Let me clarify, A "Fetus" ... is really a small baby, the begining of new life.
I don't know if you have children, but most parents wouldn't put their child through pain, unless they are seriosly delusional or mentally disturbed.
Also, an unborn baby is not just an "outgrowth" on the side of it's mother's body as you compared it to earlier.....it is a little life....just as you once were.
All I am saying is there are options other than abortion. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 18:23
Usually that's a good ethical maxime, but in this case it's quite useless, since I can't be aborted any more.
So the question is: when does life start? During conception, during birth, or somewhere inbetween? As other people pointed out, the first time after conception the fetus is just a bunch of cells, which really can't be considered a living person. Since it's not yet a person, 'killing' it cannot be considered murder. The fact that it would have become a person without the abortion is irrelevant. It's not worse than simply not having children. Besides, in daily life virtually everybody, including anti-abortionists, seem to agree that birth, and not the concepcion is the beginning of someone's life. After all, nobody celebrates his 'conception day' instead of his birthday, embryos are not being counted in censuses, you can't open a bank account for a yet unborn baby, etc. |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 22:29
Nooooo, Un-Edu-Genius, not to my dismay!! On the contrary, I welcome you and am honored to converse with an intelligent woman in this predominately male dominated history forum. Yes, some women regret having terminated their pregnancies, but it was a decision that they made of an option which was available to them. While some regret it, others do not. I know a few women who terminated unwanted pregnancies and do not regret it at all. Some even subsequently had wanted pregnancies, and, today, one is a mother of three and another is a mother of two. Just because some women regret their termination does not mean that abortion should not be an available option for others. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 22:34
Absolutely correct...but, abortion should always be one of those available options to women. The choice should be made by each individual in such a predicament. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 22:51
|
Morticia, I understand what you're saying, But that little child can't voice it's opinion.... It isn't given it's right to have a choice when and if it is aborted... why should a woman have the choice to abort her baby, and that baby be denied the right to choose it's fate?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 00:16
If we go by that standard, than almost nothing will affect my life. However niether you, nor I nor anybody else lives in a cave yet. We live in a civilized society, and in such a society we give up certain rights for the benefit of society, i,e benefits of everyone.
Abortion is an issue with no clear answers. Anyone can see that. However, if we have to take sides, we should always err on the side of life.
------------- |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 05:23
 similar to Reginmund,who put the economic standarts of a person before the importance of a potential life,you made a point which represents the extend to which people living in post-modern western culture reached in terms of interprating the world by one's economic gains only.
and this is the result:
In Europe 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement level. These are national averages
Ireland: 1.99
France: 1.90
Norway: 1.81
Sweden 1.75
UK: 1.74
Netherlands: 1.73
Germany: 1.37
Italy: 1.33
Spain: 1.32
Greece: 1.29 Source: Eurostat - 2004 figures
I think abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances like an illnesss that would efefct the woman's health dramatically,or if the pregnancy is an outcome of a horrible thing as rape,which would effect the psychology of women significantly later on...etc
But if you just didnt want to use birth pills,or forgot by mistake, it should not be a potential life who should pay the price for your msitakes!
------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 06:03
|
The issue at the end of the day is about repsonsibility. If I make a woman pregnant and she gives birth, then as an adult it is nothing less than my duty to provide for that child. If an adult enters into consesual sexual actvity, and there are no mitigating circumstances, then well they both male and female, should have to bear the responsibility. ------------- |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 13:21
That's very noble of you, Sparten, but remember that not everyone thinks the way you do, and not everyone is as responsible and logical as you are. Just because you are willing to undertake such a responsibility doesn't mean the same would work for others. That is why alternative options must exist in order to make an assessment/evaluation and then choose the option which best suits the individual's needs and desires. Just because abortion would not suit your needs does not mean it wouldn't suit someone else's. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 13:34
That, my dear Un-Edu-Genius, is not for me to decide for anyone else. Such a decision solely must be made by the individual(s) who find themselves in such a situation. If it were me, I would want to have many options to choose from, including abortion. One has to do what is in one's best interest, and if she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, then so be it. Would you like others to make decisions for you? I think not. But, if you had to ever make any decisions, I think you would appreciate having many options to choose from and then choose what is right for you and your circumstance. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 14:06
Thanks, but the fact remains that it is my responsibility. And I am not against abortions per se at all, I am a flexible man, and there are many situations where they are the only correct route. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 18:58
Again, the living standards of the pregnant (and already born) woman should come before the rights of potential children. I never said anything about economic standards, you are being presumptious about my character now. As for the worth of a human life, who’s to say it’s worth nothing or everything? “Value” is a concept, a size of reality we humans invent, nothing is de facto worth anything, we simply decide that some things are.
Of course, I never said abortion was preferable to carrying forth the child, I’m merely saying what rights of option a woman should have regarding this. I’d never encourage anyone to have an abortion, but forcing a woman not to have it is just as wrong. And no, I don’t have children, but I am mentally disturbed and delusional.  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 23:29
That, my dear Un-Edu-Genius, is not for me to decide for anyone else. Such a decision solely must be made by the individual(s) who find themselves in such a situation. If it were me, I would want to have many options to choose from, including abortion. One has to do what is in one's best interest, and if she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, then so be it. Would you like others to make decisions for you? QUOTE]
No I wouldn't, And I am sure that baby would feel the same way..... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 23:32
Reginmund, I wasn't calling you delusional and disturbed....just wanted to make sure you know it wasn't meant towards you ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 06:49
|
Don't worry about that, Un-Edu-Genius.
You know, we could ask ourselves; what would Jean D'Arc think? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 07:48
But it's not yet a baby, that's exactly the point. |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 18:25
Except for life.. The right to have a life. which has a well-deserved place in this thread ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 19:10
|
But Diplo, don't forget that the questions of what constitutes "life" and of what exacxtly defines "life" are also devoid of the certitude that some "anti-choice" people are so sure of.
I know we are starting to talk in circles here.  ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 20:37
I don't see why there is an exception for life, other than you wanting it to be so, I hope so myself too of course. I know you mean well though. ------------- |
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 08:22
Sorry I'm not quite sure what your saying in the first part. If its that you wonder why we shouldn't have the right to choose whether some-ones lives or dies then I have to ask why you would justify murder? I'm sorry if that's a bit strong-wording it but that is what abortion is. We had a talk on the subject when I was at school and the methods they use are horrendous. You just can't justify it.
As for the second part how selfish! just because a woman is lazy about contraception or is too selfish to want to share her life with some-one else the child should not have to suffer. There is such a thing as adoption or fostering you know. ------------- Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 13:52
|
Whether murder can be justified, depends on the situation.
There is such a thing as adoption and fostering, if the woman can be bothered to carry the baby forth, which is no small job. If she is too selfish to do this, she should have the choice not to, instead of being forced to ruin her life. ------------- |
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 15:24
What do you mean by that? What would justify murder for you?
And it wouldn't ruin her life if she gave the baby up. It would mean the child would get a happy loving home and stable upbringing and the Mother need not worry about it. She needn't have anything more to do with it if she wishes. ------------- Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 16:44
|
Giving the baby up isn't the only thing that might cause her post-traumatic stress, there is also the process of carrying it forth, claiming nine months of her life, and the painful birth.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying I think women should prefer abortion over giving birth and raising children, only that each woman should have the choice of whether they want to do this or not. You must agree with me on this, you can't be saying women who for some reason get pregnant and don't wish to give birth, should be forced to? Such an experience would traumatize anyone for life. I can see that you are a woman with a great love for children as well as a profound sense of responsibility, but for better or worse not all women are like you, and you should be open to the fact that other women might feel differently about this and need the security of knowing that if everything "goes wrong" and they end up pregnant, they still have abortion as an option. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 17:51
Even if it is selfish, I don't see why that hurts anyone here. You can't force people to have children. Like all anti-abortion arguments this only makes sense if you can prove that the fetus is as much a human as you or me. Because if it isn't, the egoism argument loses it's value. In fact one could also say it's egoistic for parents to have a baby just because they 'want' one. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 18:42
|
Indeed, imagine all the misery we'd be spared if we were never born. ------------- |
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 08:53
Of course I respect how other women feel but I don't like the idea that such a horrific ( and you must agree with me on that) procedure ( which is just, if not more traumitising than pregnancy and childbirth) could become jst another form of contraception for women who are too lazy to worry about proper methods.
My Mother got pregnant with me at 18. She could have ( as most women at that age probably would) decided to get rid of me and save herself unessecary trauma and worry. But she didn't. And I've truned out just fine. So by the way has she. She's happy, healthy and hard-working. And I am grateful to her. Thats why I can't understand women who in later years can just be rid of a child for fear of ruining their perfect lives. ------------- Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 10:30
|
QueenCleopatra, not all circumstances are the same. While many women who become pregnant go forward with the births, please don't deny other women the right to not go forward with them if they choose not to. Having options is necessary to make an informed decision of what is right for each individual. What may be right for one person may not be right for another. Each person's decision should be respected. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 11:10
|
Morty, one of my first cases as a lawyer was to defend a women who had killed a feotus illegaly, (that is without a physician). She had four children, her husband was KIA, and she got pregnant and well......
So I am not against abortion per se. I feel that abortion on demand is something we need to avoid.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 19:15
|
PRO-CHOICE!
No government has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her body.
|
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 15:42
BINGO!!!!!
Thanks for rendering your opinion, Gambino, and welcome to the women's forum. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2006 at 11:37
|
No, But they Definantly have the right to tell them what they CAN"T do to an unborn child's body!!
I'm Pro- depends on the situation! ------------- |
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 10:12
I know not all circumstances are the same I'm not stupid! Of I would respect it but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You must see that if a woman was as you say well informed she would see that there are also other options even if abortion is on the list. Thats all I'm saying. ------------- Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 13:26
|
Well, we all agree then. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 15:26
|
Have you read about the new abortion law in Nicaragua? All abortions are now banned, including when the mother's life is in danger and in cases of rape and incest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6089718.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6089718.stm Too bad. It appears that the oncoming elections were (ab)used to push though this law; in a catholic country like Nicaragua politicians are not likely to vote against such a strict law, because they don't want to lose votes. |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 15:39
WOW - that is so sad! The only ones who will suffer are the women! All for the sake of votes! They're going backwards instead of forward! ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 15:49
|
Why backwards?
Or do you consider that the abortion circus in the U.S. is more decent? Or that abortion is the right human sacrifice to do in honor of the godness of women freedom?
Abortion is just another primitive method of population control. Ancient peoples used to kill the children they didn't want. The same is what abortion does. Kill human beings already living.
You certainly should forbide abortion. And to prevent unwanted pregnacy:
(1) Increase coverage of pills, copper Ts, condoms and others.
(2) In case of emergency, use the "day after" pill.
(3) Research in better non-abortive methods.
Then abortion will drop to zero and mankind won't need to kill children to keep its numbers even
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 16:11
| This law has nothing to do with population control. Abortion was already illegal in Nicaragua, except in cases of rape or when the mother's life was in danger. In cases like this, abortion has nothing to do with birth control. |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 15:13
All that new law is going to produce is an increase in infanticide! ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 17:35
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 22:13
|
Pro-Life. Absolutely.
Although I am not Catholic but agnostic. However, I am against human sacrifices, by principle. No matter they are done for the god Molloc, or in the name of the godness of freedom.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 22:49
|
I was 100% pro-life before going to the UK, now I'm not thaaaat sure anymore. The cost to pay is very high, and I mean very. 1) abortion is used as a contraceptive, which is not a good idea of course as it is after all rarely innocent to be aborted, let alone several times. Psychologically and even physically it can be dangerous. 2) there is a kind of de-responsibilization of the sexual act mostly from the guy's side. The mentality become "lets shag anyway if something does happen she can abort". As a result England has both the highest rate of abortion and the highest rate of sexual transmission of AIDS for less than 20yo. 3) It is not free, it takes time and means that are badly needed elsewhere. I can't remember the figures but the NHS pays billions in GBPs yearly. So banning abortion? No surely not, sh*t happens. But lets considers all the means to prevent it are at your disposal use it, if you fail you pay… Of course some cases (not necessarily as extreme as rape or danger for the mother's life) are to be considered, but the vicious circle may be broken. Actually there are other very interesting questions more or less related included this famous and unfortunate case of a driver who rolled over a pregnant lady and "killed" the fœtus. Question: is it murder? is it to be considered as a wouned or as a broken object? The French High Court (Court de Cassassation) has ruled in favour of the last one: an object… Not very satisfying. Other example, a physician makes a mistake and fails to recommend an abortion so whether the mother dies or the baby is heavily handicaped. Can the parent sue the medic for letting them give birth to their child? Even more problematic can the child sue the physician because he allowed him to live? All these examples come from some of the most famous jurisprudence in French law but they do ask, in my point of view, essential questions and reveal that every decision however rightous (allowing women to master their own bodies) always comes with a costs that ought to be balanced with its advantages and with the cost/advantages of doing nothing. What would you say? Full property of the fœtus by its mother? Can it be a crime to let people live? What if an aborted fœtus did survive, could it sue the mother for murder??? ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 14:30
|
As usual it is a lack of perspective on life and death that blurs the minds of the pro-life agitators. I've already explained this in former posts.
Bottom line; if a woman chooses to use abortion as a contraceptive I won't say I agree with it but I have no right to force her to have babies she doesn't want. On the other hand, if she chooses to keep the baby, it should be because she wants the baby and not because she has no other choice. I have yet to hear a single argument "pro-life" (quite some lives they'd live though, with the constant risk of being forced to have babies) that doesn't involve downright abuse of womens' freedom. They are especially tasteless when spoken by men, who'll never face the consequences either way. Also, as is obvious the opinions on this matter are strongly divided, which is all the more reason why abortion shouldn't be forbidden, as that would mean forcing one group's opinions on the other. pinguin, well intended suggestions, which are already followed to some extent in many countries, but you will never, never, never be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies 100%. To forbid abortion on the grounds of promoting contraceptives would be a throning acheivement of naivety. ------------- |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 17:21
|
In the 1960's there were just over a 100,000 illegal abortions performed in the U.S. However, today, the number has risen to over 1.5 million/year...and 90% of the women are not victims of incest or rape. Some abortionists claim that their clients become regular customers, and they continually perform this on a year to year basis. What do you think about that? ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 18:22
|
I categorically oppose all forms of murder, and, thus, I am pro-life.
I would ask all of those who support abortion at what point the unborn child should be protected? Pre-mature births happen all the time, and sometimes children born well before their time survive. When should abortion not be allowed? Why should it be forbidden at that point but not one day prior? Why not one day prior to that earlier day?
That said, barring anything interesting I do not think I will participate in this conversation anymore; I do not see it bearing any good fruit. I agree with those who have stated that the issue is so clouded that it is impossible to discuss. I disagree, however, with those who say that the blame for this rests solely with those who are pro-life. I definitely disagree with the absurd assertion that we redefine the dialogue (if it can be described as a dialogue) in terms of pro-choice and "anti-choice" indivudals. This laughable statement, in my estimation, is just more evidence of how blindly ideological individuals--all of us--get when discussing this.
The reason it is well-nigh impossible to carry on a rational discussion of this issue is that we, as a global society, have perverted what should be a moral issue into a political one. In politicizing the issue we have polarized it, as is evident from this thread.
I will conclude with one final observation. In deciding Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that, "Christian theology and canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century," stating further, "there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation."
Anyone who has even briefly perused the canons of the Church, or glanced at the Fathers knows that the above assertion is preposterous. One almost wonders which "canon law" they were studying; as for their lack of familiarity with Christian theology, they left little doubt.
I would encourage anyone who believes that their is room to doubt the ancient Church's absolute conviction that abortion is murder to read the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Orthodox Church to the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/abortion.aspx - http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/abortion.aspx
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 18:59
|
This is Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video "Silent Scream"...he shows a live ultra sound, and recorded an actual foetus a few weeks old actually screaming (without sound) while being ripped to pieces with forceps. The foetus is alive, in just a few weeks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJzSiAPXTiQ
------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 13:02
Of course it's alive. All organisms, from humans to sperm cells, are alive.
I think that's perfectly alright. You, evidently, don't think it's alright, and that's okay too. The problem comes when you start thinking that since you believe this is wrong, you will force others to adopt the same view through legislation.
Again, that is abolutely fine, as long as you don't try to force your stance on others, as long as you don't aspire to forcefully control the most intimate details of womens' lives. I must say it's not very realistic to oppose all forms of murder though, and I'm not just talking about abortions then. ------------- |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 13:26
|
There is no need to force an individual's stance upon others. I understand that without abortion, infanticide would increase, but abortion it self is infanticide, wouldn't you think? However, it is recommended for certain circumstances. The only concern is that many abuse this privelege. ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2007 at 00:03
Sorry, but I am very pro-society prohibiting murder, so in this instance I will have to insist that my callous, intolerant, anti-murder stance be forced on others. Although I disagree with your refusal to prohibit murder, or at least regulate it, I suppose I must defend your right to speak in favor of allowing individuals to kill each other in the name of convenience. You would do well, however, to recognize exactly what it is you are advocating. And you still have not answered the question I put to you previously.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2007 at 14:54
|
Regarding your question, the time at which the abortion takes place is under some debate and varies a lot from place to place. Personally I would say it's best to do it as soon as possible, of course, to minimize stress for both the woman and the fetus. I won't try to set any final limit though.
You can call abortion murder if you will, the words used to describe the process in these debates are always chosen to fit the speaker's agenda, mere reflections of their stance. Pro-choice people call it abortion, pro-life people call it baby murder. I find this rather ridiculous though, since abortion is taking of life, so of course it can be termed murder, but "murder" is a word most commonly used to describe the taking of life that we don't acknowledge as right - which hits the nail in your case, but not in mine. Again, categorically opposing murder, that is, any taking of life, is the cream of naivety. Throughout history murder has been among the most necessary acts of man, and it still is today, something an American should know. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2007 at 16:22
Why should we minimize stress for the fetus at all if we view it as disposable? Either it is a life or it is not.
The terms "murder" and "abortion" may generally be used interchangeably in this discussion.
If you willingly acknowledge that abortion, "the taking of a life," which "of course...can be termed murder," is murder, but still support the right of women to have abortions, I would like to know whether or not other murders in the name of convenince are justified. Can I waste someone who cuts me off in traffic? How about people in a really, really long line at the grocery store?
I fail to see how you can admit that abortion is murder and feel, or at least appear to feel, no moral outrage about it whatesoever. That tens of millions of human lives ahve been snuffed out in the past several decades, and people are still inclined to treat this issue in theoretical and political terms baffles the mind.
No, thinking that everyone will oppose murder is the "cream of naivety" ; doing one's best to oppose the unnecessary taking of life is acting morally.
Ignoring your cheap, irrelevant (and, I grant, not entirely unjustified) shot at Americans, I will acknowledge your point regarding the historical definition of murder. What I will not acknowledge is the broad definition of when abortion is deemed "necessary" held in the present. Indeed you, yourself, argue for more than the right to murder when it is necessary; you argue for the right to murder when it appears convenient.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2007 at 17:11
I never said it wasn't life, all organisms are life, as already pointed out.
Call me crazy, but I'm one of those people who think there is a slight difference between abortion and the examples you mentioned.
I do feel sad for the loss of a potential human being, but my emotions give me no right to invade the privacy of another human's body.
It wasn't an attempt at being cheap, I was just kind of hoping you'd realise basic realities such as for example how America would still be an English colony without political rights if all Americans had had your attitude to murder back then. Murder can be necessary to reach certain goals that are all-important to our welfare. So yes, murder can be a necessity. ------------- |
Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 00:14
|
instead of aborting children when the mothers are left alone by fathers who don't want to shoulder the responsibility for their virile limb, they should abort them. one other comment, abortion is a reflection of a materialist society. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 00:26
Abortion is killing a human being.
As far as I know, killing a human being is called legally murder.
People can argue fetous are not human beings, but they are. The thing to discuss then if it is right to kill human beings when is convenient.
It is convenient to kill old people? sick people? criminals? people of other races? Should we consider all humans worth to live?
Or does it depends on how convinient is to me?
Even more important. Are some human beings more important than others?
Is woman freedom and father's irresponsabilities more important than the life of those third class humans called euphemistically "non-born" children?
Pinguin
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 00:58
Does using a condom during sex count as genocide? ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 21:20
|
I don't agree. A retarded person or a person that has lost concience during years is as human as a person that is full functional; it is possible that your kitty is more intelligent that both, but you cat is a cat, unlike those that are human beings. I don't see why fetous could be classify as non-human at all. Except that way is easy to get rid of them.
Human life starts at the conception, not before, so the idea that using condom is genocide is nonsense.
Yes, people can continue with theirs abortion business as usual, but it is only fair they know what they are doing.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 15:51
|
To me life is life, no matter what it is. The only thing that makes something higher then other life forms is if your able to kill them. So humans aren't exactly mystical beings to me. If the law allows it, then choice should be given. If it disgusts me enough, then I'll move. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 16:22
Well, this thread has taken an interesting turn! Then, does a woman's monthly menstruation count as genocide as well, for not allowing fertilization of her monthly egg/possible human? ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 16:26
Very interesting thought. I would say no in terms of the strict definition of genocide, but 'murder' possibly. Although, because fertilisation has not yet occurred, and no zygote (what some may regard as the first stage as a 'real human') has been formed, I do not believe you can call using a condom 'genocide' or even 'murder'. I am open for opinions. - Knights - ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 17:06
|
That's a fallacy.
Human life start at conception. Both sperms and eggs does not even have a complete chromosomic set.
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 17:12
Well, this thread has taken an interesting turn! Then, does a woman's
monthly menstruation count as genocide as well, for not allowing
fertilization of her monthly egg/possible human? touche------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 23:44
So everyone has there own definition and because of that, I believe it should be left up to the person. I know it's something I'd never have a g/f consider. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 03:12
Pinguin, are you aiming your "that's a fallacy" at my comment/opinion, or at the original question stated (is using a condom considered murder)? ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 10:26
|
Wow, I can't believe I didn't see this thread before, I guess I should get in touch with my feminine side more often. I've decided I'll retroactively join this conversation...by going to the beginning, and answering morticia's questions.
I think it's similar to does a baby have the right to live in the country of it's birth?
See above.
A fetus has the right to the respect, honor and dignity of life.
No they own their children as the government owns military personell. ------------------------------------ And now in response to everyone else.
One could argue that abortion is a poverty related issue.
Wow..........really your turning abortion into racism....I have not known any pro-life activists to deny their support to anyone of any race.....wow.
Technically we do, miscarriages are just natural abortions, of course there is hardly any moral or ethical problems with a miscarriage.
That's true the life processes that lead to becoming human starts at conception, but abortion is only morally (not ethically per se) wrong if that human has a soul (or spirit or consciousness). Christians are not told when God has ordained a human to be ensouled. This is the reason that the Vatican has decreed human life to begin at conception, since it is when a full human organism is made, it is better to 'play it safe' morally and just assume that it's a human being so you do not go into error. ----------------------------------- Now to my point. As a man, I only have second-hand information of the workings of your "lady parts" and frankly having three sisters myself I really don't want to know. However it is my belief that God has ordained women to be the preservers of life in all it's forms. And that it is up to women to make the moral decisions about the creation and destruction of life. I don't believe that it is ever a good thing to have an abortion, since doing so destroys a living human. However sometimes women must make the least bad choice, rather than the good choice. Take for instance a rape victim or a survivor of incest. Other people put that woman in that position, but she is still in that position. I think that one of the problems in society is teaching that abortion just makes the "problem" go away. We think that by eliminating the pregnancy it will eliminate the other issues, while abortions must be provided for these women psychiatric care is not, which in my opinion is more of an affront to the respect of women than anything else. Then there is the case where a women puts herself in the position to get pregnant. I.e. having sex. As preservers of life women must be prepared to do so, delaying pregnancy isn't as wrong as terminating a pregnancy, and if a woman feels that she would be tempted to do the latter she should definitely practice the former, if she chooses to be intimate with someone. For men there are few things more evil than putting a woman in a position to kill her child. It takes two people to have sex and men must not lead women into a situation where abortion is an option. Worse than what I just listed is when a woman without any input from the father of her child decides to get an abortion. Terminating a pregnancy should be a rare life-altering event, and both parties involved should come to an agreement on what should be done. Women having the role of preservers of life ultimately get to make the decision of whether to allow the child to live, however there are men that are willing to do anything for their unborn children and their wishes should not be discarded on a whim. The only thing I can think of as always wrong is when a woman in a long-term committed and loving relationship decides to use abortion as a form of birth control. The entire point of forming committed relationships with other people is to start a family and to just get rid of a member of that family is such an insult to the institution, that it is nearly unforgivable. Women's rights and children's rights do not end at each other's umbilicus. They are interwoven by the design of nature. And by nature's design women are endowed with the ability to make the choice for two human beings, not one. I think if more people understood that respect for life doesn't exist just for the woman or just for the child but for both together then there would be less blind fanaticism and more understanding on this issue. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 16:22
|
Janusrook wrote: "However it is my belief that God has ordained women to be the preservers of life in all it's forms. And that it is up to women to make the moral decisions about the creation and destruction of life".
Janusrook - You are definitely the "master of wisdom and confusion". I wholeheartedly agree with your above statement. I do not condone abortion (especially as a method of contraception), but I strongly feel that women should always have the legal option of a safe and medically induced termination, if she so desires. ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 19:11
|
Morticia do you believe that men should be involved in a women's pregnancy or that they should be excluded from it on the basis that a woman's body is her own?
------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 20:21
That egg is not fertile
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 20:23
Of course not. You are not killing human being ready to go
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 23:12
|
Let me throw my two cents in here as I just discovered this place just today like somebody else here. I believe that abortion is both right...and wrong. The reason why I say this is because if a woman is raped or if a birth has a chance of killing the woman, then an abortion is necessary. Any other reason than that is pre-meditated murder from my view.
-Let me share you a story though- My aunt and uncle living in Florida wanted to have a baby. However, right after my aunt became pregnant the doctors told them that my aunt was not fit to follow through in the pregnancy. Many doctors told her that she should abort it in order for her to live. My aunt however did not want to hear a word of it. She finally found a doctor who said that she will be able to get through the pregancy and a few months after that my cousin was born. However, my aunt went through a few problems after that and the doctors suggested that she never get pregnant again. But because of my aunt's strong will my cousin was able to be born and is absolutely healthy. My aunt a few months after the birth has recovered fully as well. It was kind of weird after hearing this story that my cousin who I love and is like a sister to me could have never came to this world because of a bunch of pessimistic doctors, but was able to pull through because of the love and determination of her mother. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 04:32
|
Well, as a woman, I do believe I am the boss of my own body. And I do not want children. For a variety of reasons, one of them being that I consider myself totally incapable of raising a kid. In a time where people are massively complaining about parents not raising their kids properly and any idiot just popping them out, I consider myself wise in this. Now, obviously, I will do whatever I can to prevent becoming pregnant (this does include getting some cooperation from male counterparts), but if I would ever find myself preganant anyway (condoms fail about 1 in a 1000, the pill fails to work about 1 in 100), I will probably have an abortion. Because me having a child is just going to ruin two lives.
Although, Janus, I do believe men are allowed to have a say in the matter, I also believe it is ultimetely the woman who has to decide. Because, no matter what, she is going to be the one responsible for it, a responsibility I personally could never handle. ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 06:30
|
I am against abortion for moral reasons and against banning abortion for moral reasons. I believe the benefits of legalised abortion, outweigh the moral reasons against abortion. As I see it, in nations like Romania where abortion has been banned and the original reason for legalised aboritons in the first place, is that illegal abortions will always take place. I think the only nations where a ban on abortion work is Ireland and Andorra - both fairly religious nations, with a high standard of living and small population. In a place like Britain where poverty is rife, you can hardly expect a ban on abortion to work. Same with the US, until society is changed and made more equal, there is no way such a ban could work. So personally, i couldn't care less about any such questions of banning it, it wont work until societies change for the better. I think that everyone, though, should be discouraged from abortions. I think they are horrific and, whatever you say, I think an abortion is more likely to ruin a life, than a child. Even if you accidently become pregnant, there is support in nearly everyones life for a child. No one is a incapable of being a parent, not really. Anyhow, Contraception is the best method. OR! Children! No Sex before marriage? That works very well - an exeptional method of contraception! You don't need abortions if you abstain from sexual activity. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 06:42
High standard of living? five years ago, Ireland was the poorest country in the EU... And the only reason the ban on abortion works is because England is near and easy to reach. There is a whole industry built on abortion trip abroad.
Ever been in a supermarket on saturday morning? One visit and I can point out a dozen parents who should never have had kids. Why do we require people to take tests before they are allowed to drive, but every idiot is presumed capable of having a child? I am quite sure I can deal with the removal of some cells, I am not sure I can deal with willfully having a child I cannot care for, or provide with what it needs. And to have it and then shove it of to my environment to care for is not really a solution.
Absolutely right. Abortion is a last resort, anything should be done to prevent it from being necessary. But unfortunately, like I already said, that is not always possible. I know girls that have gotten pregnant inspite of using various forms of anticonception.
Yeah, sure, that is gonna work. Dream on. People have sex. That is a fact. Ignoring that fact makes things worse. Research has shown that kids who swear not to have sex before marriage have sex before marriage just as often as kids who do not swear it. Problem is, in the meantime, they never have bothered with education about disease and anticonception. So they are in fact far more likely to catch a disease or get pregnant than kids who took the more realistic view. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 10:02
Actually no. Ireland was the poorest nation based on GDP, not on GDP per Capita. Ireland has and always had a very good standard of living.
Yes, I'm sure you can point out parents that may not have had children. Yet you still have no idea who they are. The fact is, you see those children in a microcosm - an instance when they are away from home. There are parents of all types that have children trouble, its another problem that is not connected to Abortion in anyway. The fact is that based on statistics we need everyone to have children anyway, its vital for the survival of most European nations. You don't honestly believe that White, Middle Class Couples are going to have many children. Nope, its the poorer communities in which this burst in populace needs to come. Anyhow, in most West European nations, parents are well supported based on benefits. Its not ideal and some parents really struggle. Again, this is NOT a question for abortion - this is a question for governments and their social policy. So no, i don't think that abortion is ever going to be the answer here. Abortion is a traumatic experience for most people and is really not advisable, even in cases where bringing up a child will be difficult. There are wealthy, well educated couples that are unable to have children that are crying out for babies to adopt. Which is much easier a method of abandoning unwanted babies.
Life has its ways. So in those incidents the "girls" have had an abortion? Shocking for someone like me, who was an 'embraced mistake', conceived whilst my mother was taking the Pill. Maybe my mother should have simply aborted me.
I didn't say ignore things. I'd love to see where this research is from. Are you really trying to make people believe that kids that "swear not to have sex before marriage" are somehow less receptive to sex education. I tell you one thing, its the kids that don't swear and do have sex before marriage and normally before the age of consent, that are offloading babies. Saying people are somehow ignorant about sexual education because they do no want to have sex before marriage is really ridiculous. As for the fact that people have sex, this is actually a social nightmare. It is one of the reasons why couples are less likely to get married or even, as it seems recently, to live with eachother. It is the lax attitude that people have towards sex that leads to the vast spread of sexually transmitted diseases and, rather ignored, the psychological problems incurred by such activities. I'm rather intrigued by this idea that if you are not 'doing' something, you don't know about the precautions. I don't drive, yet I know about Road safety. I don't play football or cricket, but i know the rules, the protection required and the way in which to play such sports. Any sex education is in the national curriculum, in more nations that just the UK. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 10:51
And yet, that does not change the fact that Irish girls simply go abroad for their abortions, and that the abortion ban is only valid for the poor.
We so do not need more people on this planet. If the current growth in population keeps coninuing, the earth will not be able to sustain us in the future. Already the western world has reached a level of living that presses so heavily on the environment that, if a larger portion of the world population would try and reach it, millions would have to die for it. I live in an overpopulated country, do not give me any 'we go extinct' crap. If there is not enough of 'us', there is plenty of people elsewhere to take our place.
Adoption is not a substitute. Recently the new christian government here did a research on promoting adoption above abortion. The results of this research on emotional problems whas so shocking they decided to change their policy. Adoption is emotionally very bad, both for mother and child.
All of that is completely irrelevant to the question of abortion. In no country, in no situation, in no case ever, is abortion used as a means of population control. It is a personal something, that has nothing to do with the world at large. To tell a girl in a problematic situation that she should have the child because 'people' think we go extinct is ridiculous.
I am sure your mother made the right choice for her and you. That does not make the same choice the right one for others. Shocking that you cannot think outside of your own box.
One of the girls in question has borderline, no steady job, no steady living space and the father was no where in sight. Moreover, she had no emotional connection at all to her pregnancy, and did not feel like she ever was going to. Nice prospects for a baby, yes? She did the right thing, and prevented a lot of misery.
And, if life has its own way, then why are people who are against abortion so often in favor of the death penalty and IVF? Perhaps, if you cannot have kids, it is a sign of nature too? BS, right? So then.
I've got a news article for you, in Dutch.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/article415806.ece/VS-onderzoek_onderwijs_in_seksuele_onthouding_werkt_niet - http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/article415806.ece/VS-onderzoek_onderwijs_in_seksuele_onthouding_werkt_niet
A research was held in four US states, by order of the US Congress. The results show that children that swore to remain chaste have sex for the first time at the same age as kids that did not swear it: at 14.9, which is shockingly young. Only about 17% used a condom. That is what you get when you propagate abstinence.
I'll try and find an English one. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 11:04
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|