Abortion II

Not to mention those of us who DO know people who have been faced with terminating a pregnancy out of necessity, those who struggled with the option when they had an option, and having been in that position myself (twice), the experience has done nothing but strengthen my conviction that we are not discussing one life but at least two in every decision. And I remain staunchly pro life.

0 Replies

If this is strickly a moral discussion I'm very simply don't agree with abortion.

However when it comes to politics, the rational side of me can't say make it absolutely illegal.

We can hardly take care of the people already alive, i can't feel it's justified removing options for those who have to make that choice. I always encourage adoptions but we don't have the resources to take care of that many children. And if you have any doubts look at how many un-adopted children there are. Make Abortion 100% illegal, now I promise we don't have the resources.

Some people will say that it's because people want babies and not older children. I'd say that this is about NEEDS not WANTS. If we can cahnge as a culture and truly be able to provide homes (good, deserving homes) for the unwanted children, then abortion becomes a thing of the past. we're not there yet. It takes a village to raise a child they say. Where's the village? Pro-lifers may stand outside the clinic and scare away a scared woman, they may convince someone to keep their child. But where are they afterwards? Again, where's the village?

I'd be interested in hearing what people think about who gets abortions. There is a loud chorus of people who think that the women (and couples) that get abortions only get them to selfishly protect their abitions. The reality is much diferent. Usually young (couples) who live in impoverished neighborhoods and live well below the poverty line.

Obviously we can afford internet, I imagine everyone on these forums have had or are involved in a at least a highschool education. I will also go as far as to guess that everyone reading has had some form of Sexual education in school explaining reproduction and safe sex. The people who often have these abortions do not have this. They do not have a supportive family who would (or often can) help with the finacial burden. Quite frankly a pregnacy can put some people in a situation of questionable survival.

I will most certainly conceed that there are people who get abortions for less than noble reasons, but I having experianced what I have, can't say that this is anything but the minority.

My only platform is to not judge. This issue is not a black and white issue. Foxfyre, thank you for sharing your personal experiance with childbirth (I don't know if you are a mother or a father). I am very happy that you were able to bring a child(ren) into this world. I'd ask you to think about what kind of support it took. Who was there. What kind of jobs you were able to find to help you bear the cost. Groups who were able to help you. And not knowing if you kept the child(ren) or opted for adoption, think about them. Now, imagine that you didn't have that. You may have made the same choice, but I would guess you can at least understand the terror of being alone with this could make a mother want to explore the option of abortion.

I ask: "Where is the village?"

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

If this is strickly a moral discussion I'm very simply don't agree with abortion.

However when it comes to politics, the rational side of me can't say make it absolutely illegal.

We can hardly take care of the people already alive, i can't feel it's justified removing options for those who have to make that choice. I always encourage adoptions but we don't have the resources to take care of that many children. And if you have any doubts look at how many un-adopted children there are. Make Abortion 100% illegal, now I promise we don't have the resources.

Some people will say that it's because people want babies and not older children. I'd say that this is about NEEDS not WANTS. If we can cahnge as a culture and truly be able to provide homes (good, deserving homes) for the unwanted children, then abortion becomes a thing of the past. we're not there yet. It takes a village to raise a child they say. Where's the village? Pro-lifers may stand outside the clinic and scare away a scared woman, they may convince someone to keep their child. But where are they afterwards? Again, where's the village?

I'd be interested in hearing what people think about who gets abortions. There is a loud chorus of people who think that the women (and couples) that get abortions only get them to selfishly protect their abitions. The reality is much diferent. Usually young (couples) who live in impoverished neighborhoods and live well below the poverty line.

Obviously we can afford internet, I imagine everyone on these forums have had or are involved in a at least a highschool education. I will also go as far as to guess that everyone reading has had some form of Sexual education in school explaining reproduction and safe sex. The people who often have these abortions do not have this. They do not have a supportive family who would (or often can) help with the finacial burden. Quite frankly a pregnacy can put some people in a situation of questionable survival.

I will most certainly conceed that there are people who get abortions for less than noble reasons, but I having experianced what I have, can't say that this is anything but the minority.

My only platform is to not judge. This issue is not a black and white issue. Foxfyre, thank you for sharing your personal experiance with childbirth (I don't know if you are a mother or a father). I am very happy that you were able to bring a child(ren) into this world. I'd ask you to think about what kind of support it took. Who was there. What kind of jobs you were able to find to help you bear the cost. Groups who were able to help you. And not knowing if you kept the child(ren) or opted for adoption, think about them. Now, imagine that you didn't have that. You may have made the same choice, but I would guess you can at least understand the terror of being alone with this could make a mother want to explore the option of abortion.

I ask: "Where is the village?"

So if I think that it might be too expensive to keep someone fed, it's morally OK, or at least should be legally OK to kill them?

0 Replies

No. I don't think that at all.

All I'm saying is that don't be so quick to judge someone who believes the best option is to not bring someone into THEIR world. It's not just about things being expensive, their are other sacrifices that mother's (couple's) must make to survive and raise a child.

I dont' like abortion, my stance is that if you must make this choice it should be done so quickly. I.e. - the first tri-mester.

MORALLY, I don't support abortion, and would never have one (with my partner.). However, I don't/can't condem those who have had to make this choice, and I think that those who do are naive and arrogant.

LEGALLY, I believe that abotion laws are too loose and need to be changed. I do believe that all laws should allow for abortions when the mother's life is in danger. I also don't believe a woman should be forced to bear a child from rape or insest or other forms of sexual crimes. I dont' believe that the morning after pill is abortion (MAP) and therefore should be just as leagal as any other form of BIRTHCONTROL.

I know that this issue insipres a certain passion in everyone, but please, the hostility is unwarranted and unnessisary. I am not the ambassador for Pro-Choice. In fact I'd make a horible one. All I am saying is that this is not as simple as Black and White.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

No. I don't think that at all.

All I'm saying is that don't be so quick to judge someone who believes the best option is to not bring someone into THEIR world. It's not just about things being expensive, their are other sacrifices that mother's (couple's) must make to survive and raise a child.

I dont' like abortion, my stance is that if you must make this choice it should be done so quickly. I.e. - the first tri-mester.

MORALLY, I don't support abortion, and would never have one (with my partner.). However, I don't/can't condem those who have had to make this choice, and I think that those who do are naive and arrogant.

LEGALLY, I believe that abotion laws are too loose and need to be changed. I do believe that all laws should allow for abortions when the mother's life is in danger. I also don't believe a woman should be forced to bear a child from rape or insest or other forms of sexual crimes. I dont' believe that the morning after pill is abortion (MAP) and therefore should be just as leagal as any other form of BIRTHCONTROL.

I know that this issue insipres a certain passion in everyone, but please, the hostility is unwarranted and unnessisary. I am not the ambassador for Pro-Choice. In fact I'd make a horible one. All I am saying is that this is not as simple as Black and White.

I hope you don't think my tone is hostile, because it's not intended to be so.

However, I do tend to ask rather pointed questions.

The reason for this is that, like it or not, abortion IS a black and white issue. There are no half abortions.

The child either lives or dies.

When you have a law stating abortion is or isn't legal, then a specific time or date must be chosen.

For instance, you seem to allow for abortion in the first trimester.....as measured how exactly? Doctors give an ESTIMATED due date, based upon (among other things) the woman's recollection of her cycle. However if she is irregular, this date can be off by several weeks, or more, easily.

Since a human life is at stake, if we are to err then the benefit of the doubt should go to life.

If we are unsure when life begins, then let us proceed as if we may be dealing with a living human being rather than plunging on recklessly as though we are not.

0 Replies

DiestTKO writes

Quote:

All I'm saying is that don't be so quick to judge someone who believes the best option is to not bring someone into THEIR world. It's not just about things being expensive, their are other sacrifices that mother's (couple's) must make to survive and raise a child.

I appreciate your willingness to debate this on something more complex than an all or nothing basis. Based on their arguments, most in the pro-abortion-rights group want to reduce the entire argument to women's rights and accuse anybody who advocates even regulating abortion as wanting to strip women of all their rights, etc. They either refuse to consider the developing baby as a second life to be protected or else they declare it to be something subhuman and entirely disposable until it is actually born.

I think most pro lifers don't see the issue as a matter of judging anybody. The issue transcends those heart wrenching choices that must sometimes be made out of necessity due to medical conditions, etc. The prolife agenda focuses on one principle: whether a life shall be exterminated purely on the whim, impulse, desire, or for the convenience of the parent who has the power to do that. The prolifers does not see the issue as just affecting the parent's world but also the child's world, and the child merits equal consideration. And for us, the point at which the child is a separate life is so easily drawn at so many weeks, months, etc.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The reason for this is that, like it or not, abortion IS a black and white issue. There are no half abortions.

The child either lives or dies.

No, you pretend it's a black and white issue by jumping past the important question....is it a "child" and then ranting about the rights of children.

You assume the answer is obviously yes, and therefore all human rights status is automatically granted from conception.

Those of us who don't see it as a black and white issue do so because we see the answer to the question "is it a child" as "grey".

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:

The reason for this is that, like it or not, abortion IS a black and white issue. There are no half abortions.

The child either lives or dies.

No, you pretend it's a black and white issue by jumping past the important question....is it a "child" and then ranting about the rights of children.

You assume the answer is obviously yes, and therefore all human rights status is automatically granted from conception.

Those of us who don't see it as a black and white issue do so because we see the answer to the question "is it a child" as "grey".

Whether one sees the unborn as a child or not, abortion is an all-or-nothing proposition.

There are no half abortions. Either the unborn (person or not) is wiped out, or not.

There is no grey as to timing. You either have a time/date set after which abortion is allowed/disallowed or you have none.

If we say that abortion after viability is to be disallowed, for instance, then you must have a precise legal definition of when that viability begins. You must choose a date. And you must determine how that date is arrived at. ( X days after last menstrual period? What if the woman doesn't know when it was? The unborn must measure X cm long? What if he is just naturally small?)

Then the logical question is "Do you seriously think that the day before your artificially chosen date that none of these are truly viable?"

"Or how about two days before? Are we certain that there is no viability then?"

"Three days? How sure are you that there is no viability three days before your date?"

And so on.

No matter what view you take, abortion knows no half measures.

So if you are not sure when life begins (you're in good company because a huge majority describe this as their position) and when the unborn becomes a person , then doesn't it make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to life? Isn't the most prudent course to protect life and guard against recklessly destroying a life whenever possible?

If we are to err, then shouldn't we choose to err on the side on caution, not on the side of disregard and death?

Because there is no undoing an abortion. It's black and white.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Isn't the most prudent course to protect life and guard against recklessly destroying a life whenever possible?

If we are to err, then shouldn't we choose to err on the side on caution, not on the side of disregard and death?

Yes I agree, I think we should. You, however, prefer to say that we MUST, I MUST and THEY MUST. That's a different thing altogether.

While we are on the side of life, let's also take the course that maximises the health (and reduces the suicide rate) of teenagers by keeping abortion legal.

0 Replies

RL - You are correct the the end result is absolute, but I am saying that the "Choice" is not Black or White. Grey area would be legalizing abortion but restricting it to a certain timeframe, defineing what kinds of intstitutinos and who could perform them, what procedures are legal, and what kind of couselling is need before a mother (or couple) makes a choice. Further grey is defining who has parental rights to make such a choice: woman, or both, or if under 18 does a parent or leal gaurdian choose? As for the determination of the exact point of the end of the first trimester, I agree it is hard to pin-point the moment of fertilization. How about this as the comprimise when determining it:

A woman goes to her doctor and asks about her options. The doctor signs an afidavit (sp?) estimaing the approximate time of the end of the desicion period (end of the first trimester). If the woman chooses to have and abortion she must go to couseling and learn about the risks of the surgery (like you would for any surgery or operation) and possile alternatives (adoption etc). The couselling period would have to be sucessfully completed before the end of the desiscion period if a woman could not succesfully complete her couselling in the alloted time, she would not be able to abort the child.

This plan clearly outlines accountablity and hierchy. Abortion would become regulated and probably more safe as restrictions on who could perform tham as well as what operations could be done.

This is a comprimise and therefore a GREY. It doesn't remove a right to choose, but it gives it a parameter. People on the Pro-Choice side are happy because they feel that their rights aren't being removed, and that culturally we won't be putting a strain on our population. Pro-Life people will be happy because this would remove about 139,986 abortions a year (Calculated by using Abortion survey of 2002 form CDC website.). Comprimise.

Also as a personal bonus the Goverment could also support a stance of teaching sexual education courses that educate children about sexual reproductin but also methods of birth control and STI prevention. If we were using birth control in the fist place the unwanted pregnacy rate would be down. Look at the Catholic church: Birth control is not allowed, and 31.3% of women surveyed identifed themselves as Catholic. the highest is Protestants (not sure of their stance on birthcontrol)with 37.4% (Statistics from the Center of Bio-Ethical Reform.). Eduaction would seriously also reduce the number of abortions needed in our country.

Eorl - I am not aware of any clinicla relation to Suicide rtes and pregnancy. I can conceptually understand, but I would like to know what you are basisng this on.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know