Political Discussion #1: Abortion

[jonb]

As I said, passions run high about this issue. And why wouldn't they? I mean, you're killing something. At the same time, if you don't, you might bring the baby into a very painful environment.

@mindseye:
And Jains don't even kill earthworms, Listeria, or cockroaches.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by jonb@Apr 9 2005, 07:53 PM
And Jains don't even kill earthworms, Listeria, or cockroaches.

[post=299013]Quoted post[/post]​

And I completely respect that level of commitment, which few people have.

 

[jonb]

Hey, it's impossible not to kill SOMETHING. That's the way life works. Sadly, that doesn't shed any light on the abortion debate.

 

[Altairion]

Just throwing out my opinions on the matter:

Jana, I like your points that men shouldn't have much say in this matter. There are a lot of people out there who just want to force their beliefs on others who have no right do to so.

I believe that women should have some choice in the matter. It is not my place to force upon them whether they can or can not do a thing, but I would certainly prefer to not see any abortions take place after the 2nd Trimester unless the mother's health is in danger. To me, the further the growth of the baby progresses from small unidentifiable cells towards a sentient being, the less accepting I am of abortion, but I still support it early on as long as the decision has been thought out and can be supported.

I should also probably point out that I am a supporter of stem cell research too. My mom worked as a nurse in a nursing home with patients afflicted with Alzheimer's for several years, and that is just one of the things that stem cell research can help cure or at least delay/lessen the effects of. Anyway, this is just me and my thoughts. I have never been in a situation with a woman that we would need to consider abortion nor have I known anyone who has considered having one, so be sure to take these with a grain of salt.

 

[steve319]

Man, you don't know how much I was hoping this topic would just slide down the list and disappear without getting any more replies. But, at the risk of bringing it back to the top and extending its presence, here I go.

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 9 2005, 07:37 PM
No man can ever put himself in their position, so all I was saying is that men who wish to have an opinion that has meaning should direct it toward themselves.

[post=298991]Quoted post[/post]​

That so completely captures it for me. I think it's really easy for men to make proclaimations about this issue because we can never, ever put ourselves in that position. I can't fathom what it must be like to carry a baby to term and to know that this is a person who will be counting on me for years and years to come. A BIG responsibility (is there a bigger one?), and one that, ideally, we all would go into fully prepared on an emotional and financial level.

But we all know that doesn't always happen. The world is messy and life happens. This is really an issue of sexual politics in a lot of ways, relating to a woman's rights as compared to a man's. And yes, it's a moral issue too. And biology has made things unequitable. But let's face it, fellows: we got the easier end of the bargain in this situation.

Sure, I have opinions. I have feelings about it and I'd like to think that I can empathize significantly with a woman in that position. But the truth of the matter is that I can't. No way.

It makes me think of all the parents who tell me that they know what would "fix" our schools these days. Yeah, I know our schools are in crisis. As an insider, I'm as critical as anyone. Sure, they have kids, and sure, they should have a say-so in what happens in our schools, but to tell me that they know how to fix everything (with, say, prayer every morning or whatever) is deluded and uninformed on their part. How could they know the intricacies and complexity of the situation?

So, speaking as someone with no womb, who am I to open my big, uninformed mouth about this issue?

If we want to discuss controversial issues, alienate everyone, and ruin the positive atmosphere at LPSG, let's at least pick a topic that everyone can truly relate to.

(I don't mean to belittle the heavy import of this issue. But I'd like to see us lighten the mood and move on.)

 

[Dr Rock]

I don't see what the "when life begins" argument has got to do with it. we routinely execute adults whom our society rejects; we send troops overseas to kill THEIR adults when we feel like it; and we spend most of our lives hastening our OWN deaths through our critically unhealthy lifestyles. it seems just a BIT hypocritical to start worrying about what point a fetus becomes a living, self-aware human being, because the odds are that within a few decades we'd end up killing it anyway.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam I think I'm going to have to take issue with your stance that men shouldn't be allowed to vote on the issue of abortion.
I do understand your point, and I can see how you feel that men are more easily let off the hook when it comes to unexpected baby, but i dont think it's quite as simple as you put it.

First off, being a single mother is ultimately the mother's choice. There is the option of adoption, so keeping the baby and rearing it is a choice, although i understand how hard a choice it can be to make, it still is volitional (in most cases)
Second, if you believe that women should have the choice whether or not they want to be saddled with a baby, then why don't you feel that men should have the same choice? I am in no way saying that it is good to be a dead beat dad, but for consistency we really should treat the sexes equal here. If first the mother has a right to choose whether to give birth or not, and then after its born whether or not to keep it, why shouldn't the father have the same option? You seem to be maintaining that the woman should have all the choice in this matter, and if she does choose to keep it, then the father has NO CHOICE but to stick around.
Thirdly, just because we can't actually rear a child, and it isnt ultimately our bodies, doesn't mean that we can have no input on the subject. Abortion isn't as simple as just "a woman's right to choose" there are deeper more serious moral aspects of the conversation to deal with, and men, even though it doesn't directly affect us (though it does indirectly) can have a lot of important thngs to say.
Many people feel that abortion is murder, and until it is proven otherwaise, their point of view should be repescted just as much as any other. We can not win arguments by silencing the opposition. Prove that abortion only affects women, and then women can have a monopoly on the debate.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Apr 10 2005, 02:54 AM
First off, being a single mother is ultimately the mother's choice. There is the option of adoption, so keeping the baby and rearing it is a choice, although i understand how hard a choice it can be to make, it still is volitional (in most cases)

the point is, why should anyone be forced to make that choice in the first place, if they can make the much less painful choice to have the damn thing flushed?

Second, if you believe that women should have the choice whether or not they want to be saddled with a baby, then why don't you feel that men should have the same choice?

her point is that they DO. the male party already has considerably greater freedom of choice in the majority of these situations. the point isn't that both parties should be stuck with the same shit, it's that NEITHER should if it can be avoided.

Abortion isn't as simple as just "a woman's right to choose" there are deeper more serious moral aspects of the conversation to deal with

actually it is, and there aren't. a lot of people would like you to think that it's so much more complicated and heavy than that, but it really isn't. her body, her choice. period (pun intended). the "moral" argument is just so much bullshit thrown around to confuse the issue.

Many people feel that abortion is murder, and until it is proven otherwaise, their point of view should be repescted just as much as any other.

again: no it shouldn't. they are clearly and demonstrably retarded. abortion is abortion. murder is murder. abortion is when a woman EXERCISES her right of choice not to carry her fetus to term. murder is when I put a gun to someone's head and DENY them any right of choice by painting the scenery with their thoughts and feelings. the issue is an individual's choice in terms of their own life. abortion is an effect of making a choice; murder is when someone else chooses for you.

We can not win arguments by silencing the opposition.

[post=299061]Quoted post[/post]​

well actually ... historically speaking, it's been conclusively shown that silencing the opposition is in fact the ONLY certain way of winning any argument

 

[surferboy]

It's a woman's right to have an abortion. Now like, I don't support late term abortions unless it's to save the mother's life. Other than that, it's a woman's right. Now like, just because that right exists, doesn't mean that you have to exercise it. I have the right to smoke cigarettes, but I don't/ I have the right to play the lottery, but I don't. If you don't wanna get an abortion, then don't. No one is twisting yer arm and forcing you to get one.

I think the people that protest it are fuckin hypocrites. Some of them bomb clinics, yet they claim to respect all life. Most of these people also adamantly support the death penalty. Weird, huh?

I wanna tell you the story of a girl named Aimee Weiss. People here in South Florida may remember her. She was one of my friends. For those that down know, she got preggers and like, didn't tell anyone. She wore baggy shirts, so no one knew. Now even her sister, or any of us. She ended up having her baby at 5am in her bathroom while everyone else was sleeping. She cut the cord with a pair of scissors. Long story short, she ended up putting the baby into her backpack. She tok it to a lake, filled it with rocks, and sunk it. A little boy who was fishing ended up catching it. The only reason they knew it was her is because she forgot to take her school work out of the backpack.

Anyways, I brought up that story because of anti-abortionists. Her parents are strict Catholics. Like, the type that are against birth control. They told her how wrong abortion was. So like, the thought never crossed her mind that she could just get an abortion and that'd be it. Because of her, we now have this program where like, you can leave yer baby at a fire house, or a police station, and remain unnamed. See why the right to abortion is important? She fuckin gave birth and killed her baby.

I'm sorry, but a fetus isn't a human yet. Yes, it can develop into a human. But until it's born, it's not. It's a collection of cells. Like, to me, if yer against the termination of a group of cells, then you shouldn't use anti-biotics. You shouldn't use Lysol to kill germs. After all, those are just cells.

 

[Altairion]

Very, very, well said Nix. That is a rather depressing story, but it does show the truth of what strong anti-abortion can result in. A daughter was so afraid to tell her parents about her baby that she was completely alone and did the only thing her mind led her to. I feel horrible for her knowing that she couldn't even bring the matter up to her parents to even consider the option of having her baby adopted.

On Lysol and germs, some people will consider those cells to be different since they are germ cells and not potential cells of humans. Of course there is definitely a line that needs to be drawn somewhere, but if we draw the line on when a group of cells become something we can't kill.....where is the line on animals? We kill cows all the time that have a much greater capacity to enjoy their lives than a barely formed group of cells.

 

[surferboy]

Oh, and if ya wanna know what happened to Aimee...She's now in a place for the "criminally insane". She had like, such a bright future ahead of her too. A total waste. *sigh*

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Apr 10 2005, 02:54 AM
Madam I think I'm going to have to take issue with your stance that men shouldn't be allowed to vote on the issue of abortion.
I do understand your point, and I can see how you feel that men are more easily let off the hook when it comes to unexpected baby, but i dont think it's quite as simple as you put it.

First off, being a single mother is ultimately the mother's choice. There is the option of adoption, so keeping the baby and rearing it is a choice, although i understand how hard a choice it can be to make, it still is volitional (in most cases)
Second, if you believe that women should have the choice whether or not they want to be saddled with a baby, then why don't you feel that men should have the same choice? I am in no way saying that it is good to be a dead beat dad, but for consistency we really should treat the sexes equal here. If first the mother has a right to choose whether to give birth or not, and then after its born whether or not to keep it, why shouldn't the father have the same option? You seem to be maintaining that the woman should have all the choice in this matter, and if she does choose to keep it, then the father has NO CHOICE but to stick around.
Thirdly, just because we can't actually rear a child, and it isnt ultimately our bodies, doesn't mean that we can have no input on the subject. Abortion isn't as simple as just "a woman's right to choose" there are deeper more serious moral aspects of the conversation to deal with, and men, even though it doesn't directly affect us (though it does indirectly) can have a lot of important thngs to say.
Many people feel that abortion is murder, and until it is proven otherwaise, their point of view should be repescted just as much as any other. We can not win arguments by silencing the opposition. Prove that abortion only affects women, and then women can have a monopoly on the debate.

[post=299061]Quoted post[/post]​

GBO, I've missed you so much! I hope you're back to stay a while, sincerely.

A few misunderstood points:

The father will not have to CARRY the baby, so it's automatically the woman who has the vast majority of the responsibility.

The fathers can LEAVE, and do! Single motherhood on welfare is no laughing matter.
I said I'd be willing to have men participate in the voting if we were to instigate laws where men had to share equally in the child's rearing, but no one wants to think about that. As long as the percentiles are so high of men abandoning their children, I can't see this as fair to suggest that women should be forced to raise children that neither one WANTS to raise. I also said that if a father is willing to be solely responsible for raising the child, he should be able to, but I feel a contract should be drawn up in advance negating the woman's responsibility if she does NOT want to rear the child. This would be an acceptable solution for men who adamantly oppose abortion. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. Unfortunately, men have choices (as it stands) that women do not.

You said "thirdly, just because we can't actually rear a child..." Are you serious? Of course you CAN actually rear a child! What rubbish to assume this is the woman's job! And this is the crux of the matter. Men want to have a voice in the matter, but still maintain the right not to be the custodial parent. I deeply resent that.

Of course a man will have an opinion of what happens to the fertilised seed he plants, I don't disagree there. I don't think that the decision to abort should not include HIM. I am saying that men shouldn't vote on the legalities surrounding the issue. The man involved should definitely have a say, although not necessarily an equal one, since his share in the aftermath won't be equal.

Certainly this is not a light topic, and no one should be using abortion as a form of birth control, but any form of birth control has a failure rate, and I think people shouldn't have children who don't want to be parents. If a man is prepared to accept full responsibility for a child after it's birth, I do agree that he should have the right to have his child born. I don't think there will be a long line of men clamouring for that right, do you?

My problem with any theoretical discussion is the intervention of reality. By huge numbers, women get stuck with unwanted children alone, and their lives become the stuff nightmares are made of. Until this FACT is rectified, I'm afraid theories leave me flat. You have a brilliant mind, and I always appreciate a candid discussion with you, but in this instance I think your brilliance is clouding your assessment of the way thing actually turn out. I wish it would serve some practical purpose to discuss how it ought to be, but nothing is changed by that.

 

[Onslow]

I am personally against abortions however I feel very much that it is the woman who has first rights (and only rights) to making the decision. It doesn't matter whether or not the guy wants the baby, he isn't going to be carrying it for 9 months. And let's consider the man who swears he wants the baby and convinces the woman of this and then when she is 7 or 8 months along, he skips town? Clearly the woman has to make this decision for herself. Even if the man wants to raise the child and is willing to take full responsibility the fact remains that it is not his body that is being affected. If a man is that desperate to have a genetic offspring of his own it can be done through surrogacy, with a woman who is willing to do this (and it is their choice to decide if money should be exchanged beyond medical costs). If he just wants to raise a child so he can be called 'Daddy' he might consider the novel idea of adoption. Government funding? I believe the government should be obliged to pay for up to 3 abortions. Why do I stop at 3? Because in my view if a person is going beyond that then they are clearly not doing everything they can to prevent pregnancy. (exceptions to this idea of mine are in cases where rape, or involuntary incest(I know this is also rape) are involved after a woman has had 3 or even more abortions).
Clearly my views will irritate some which is fine because it tells me you have your own minds and ideas which takes a heck of a lot of pressure off of me. (is my halo slipping again?)

 

[madame_zora]

Wow, Onslow, are we really agreeing on something? This might start a new trend- now who will I have to argue with? :lol: Just kidding, guy- you know I luv ya.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

My take on it:

Should a woman do it in lieu of better birth control? no. If you really don't want children, then use 2 methods of birth control, and make sure that you are using them correctly. Or better yet, abstain.

Should it be legal to get an abortion? yes - we already seen what kind of atrocities can come of it when it's not, ie. botched procedures.

I don't believe in it as I think that there ARE plenty of people out there ready to adopt. On the other hand, I think it's a personal choice. Thankfully it's not one that I've ever had to make. I'm not sure how I'd feel about giving up my own child, especially now that I've had 2. Maybe I'd change my opinion if I were ever faced with the decision.

In cases of rape, incest, health issues....then I think it's a different situation.

When my mother got pregnant with me, she wasn't married nor knew who my father was for sure. (no, she's not what I'd refer to as a "model citizen") My grandmother advised to to get an abortion as she herself had a son out of wedlock and was shunned by her own family and society and she didn't want my mother to go through that as well. As all bad girls do, she didn't listen to her mom and I'm thankful as I wouldn't be here otherwise.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Sorry madam, when i referred to "rearing" i mispoke, i meant gestate i guess, or something else i forget the word, but carry and nurture a baby in our wombs.

You keep saying that many women are "stuck" with bringing up a child, but like i said it is their choice. it is a touhg choice to make sometimes, but it is still a choice. Most women who are "stuck" as you say probably make the choice because they WANT the baby. It makes it hard when the father doesn't and then leaves. I have heard a lot of women say that they couldn't give away their baby for adoption because they know they'd look at it and never be able to give it away; I'm glad my biological mother wasn't as selfish. No one is forced to be a single mother, unless of course the father dies, or leaves after the baby is born after saying he'd like to have it, or because of divorce or whatever, but these situations have nothing to do with abortion, they are after the fact.

My best friend had a baby with a girl a few years ago, she wanted to have nothing to do with the baby and he now has full custody of it. He is married now, so he is not raising it alone, but the option to have him have full custody does exist, although it was difficult for him to get the custody without the mother signing it over (it was near impossible for him to show that she was an unfit mother, the courts are very biased against single fatherhood) he eventually did.

Dr. Rock, i am not maintaining that abortion is murder, but it is definately up for debate, this issue isn't as black and white as your sarcasm suggests. And if it is valid that abortion is murder then it is more than just a womens "right" to choose. If a women then has the right to choose the end the life of her unborn baby, then why doesnt she have the right to end it after its born? Whats the difference between a baby in the womb and one outside of it? I argued that if the baby can't survive on its own, and isn't developed, then it wouldn't be murder to keep it from developing, but at what level of developement do we draw the line?

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Apr 10 2005, 05:45 PM
Dr. Rock, i am not maintaining that abortion is murder, but it is definately up for debate, this issue isn't as black and white as your sarcasm suggests.

yeah it is. it's only "up for debate" because the pro-life idiots won't face the facts and shut up.

If a women then has the right to choose the end the life of her unborn baby, then why doesnt she have the right to end it after its born? Whats the difference between a baby in the womb and one outside of it?

you just answered your own question.

at what level of developement do we draw the line?

[post=299221]Quoted post[/post]​

obviously, the level beyond which an abortion operation would represent a significant health risk to the woman involved.

 

[GottaBigOne]

So Dr. Rock you think the only consideration there should be in an abortion is the woman's health? The fetus gets no consideration whatsoever?

 

[madame_zora]

I am against late term abortions. I think once the fetus is deveoloped enough to survive on it's own, it's a person.

Also, I know that some of the issues that leave women raising a child alone are after the fact, but they MUST be a consideration before the fact! I have known several girls whose b/fs wanted them to have the baby, them left sometime after, when they found out how hard it is to raise a child. This is something that is totally fair for a woman to contemplate at the beginning.

FWIW, my mother also concieved me out of wedlock. She was 19, my father was 37 and of another race. They married briefly, he beat her regularly and she eventually left him. She remarried a few years later and my step-father adopted me legally. I was lucky. Believe me, I am grateful for my life, but if I had been aborted, I never would have known, I have no memories of being in the womb. As much as I loved my mother, I would not have chosen to have her endure the hardships she did to sustain my life. We discussed it openly between ourselves. My opinions don't come lightly or without much contemplation and personal involvement.

Sadly, nomatter what we believe, the fact remains that there are far more babies being given up for adoption than there are couples who wish to raise them, or that would be a more viable option, but I can't imagine having a child, and then wondering if it would be well raised or just left for the state, I feel that would be far more cruel.
If a child isn't adopted as an infant, the damage set in early from lack of love and nurturing is deep and forever disturbing. The likelihood that it will ever be adopted decreases with each year, and the likelihood that an older child will be adopted by parents with ill intentions increases. I know that these are the exceptions and not the norms, but it's a chance I could never take.

Regardless of what we believe about where life begins, we all agree that a born baby is a person. I don't believe in bringing a person into the world, them just leaving it to chance to see what happens to it, that just wouldn't work for me. That is my choice, though, and as I said, it is that choice that I believe in. Keeping abortion legal and safe gives everyone the right to act on their own morals and principles. I would never assert that anyone should DO anything they don't feel is right, just that no one should legislate anyone else's morals.

 

[surferboy]

I am against late term abortions. I think once the fetus is deveoloped enough to survive on it's own, it's a person.

I fully agree. It's not life until Michael Jackson can dangle it from a balcony.