# Are you For or Against Abortion?



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Discuss it if need be.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm personally against abortion, but I'm also pro choice. I believe every woman has a right to choose, and should have the medical services available to them. That being said, I also believe that there should be counseling to help them to make an informed decision and consider all options -- especially adoption.

As far as abortion due to deficiencies? Most tests aren't nearly accurate enough to clearly say one way or another... so unless it's obvious defects, then I would be pro in that instance and that particular instance only. I've heard far too many stories from mothers who were thought to have had babies with "problems" that in actuality turned out just fine at birth.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Oh boy... after same sex marriage and the planethoth thing... you really are trying to stir up the pot.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

I'm pro choice, too. Better to have the option of abortion than an unwanted (and worse yet, unloved) child IMO. Things get more difficult as you get into genetic screening and such. Some tests are quite accurate, but others, as MannyP mentioned, are not quite as good. And then you could wonder about designer babies and such (how far will our ability to predict genetics, and perhaps in the future, even alter genetics to suit, progress) but thats a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Depends on circumstance. What about Rape victims? What about someone financially/mentally unfit to be a parent?

I however do not agree.. that abortion be used as a method of birth control.


----------



## andrewenterprise (May 22, 2005)

You are absolutely right Vexel. It is not right to bring up a child in an unloving environment, or an environment that is just unfit for a child. In extenuatiing circumstances, such as teenage pregnancy, parents without the financial means or parents who are just totally unfit (alcohol and drug addicts). But on the other end, someone should not abort pregnancy just because they were stupid and didn't use protection when they engaged in intercourse, that is totally wrong. Just my take on the issue.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah misogynism is alive and well. Shall we discuss the price of chattels.

Gentlemen, using the terms rather loosely.......it's not our call.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Personally, I would rather it be used as a method of birth control than to have a child be raised by unsuitable (unloving, or unable to support a child) parent(s). I think an abortion would be better than having an unwanted child (although there is still adoption). Just my opinion though.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> Ah misogynism is alive and well. Shall we discuss the price of chattels.
> 
> Gentlemen, using the terms rather loosely.......it's not our call.


The question was asked... answers were given. Thanks for overstating the obvious. And pardon me... what the [email protected] does misogynism have to do with one's opinion on abortion?


----------



## smilecentral (Jan 27, 2005)

I am against abortion for myself. I struggle with others doing the same, but ultimately, that's their choice. This is not a religious thing, so please don't make it into a religious issue. But, I value life highly, and to me these children have not had their say as to whether they wish to be born or not. No one wants a child to grow up unloved or unwanted, but given the option of no life at all, or potentially a hard one, I think some of those aborted children may have chosen life. It's not for me or anyone else to know truly.

I do feel that abortion and reproductive rights aren't dealt with correctly in society. For example, I think it's pretty barbaric that in CONSENSUAL intercourse situations that the man rarely has a say in the termination of a pregnancy. It takes two to make the child, why does only one get to decide to end it? I am a woman by the way, and although it's my body, any baby I help to create was not my doing alone, and thus I should not have the only say in what happens to that baby. (Rape, incest victims....that's another story).

II think our society is way oversexed, and way too promiscuous in general. There are a lot of people using abortion as birth control, which in my opinion is sad - and expensive. I think our legal age of consent is disgustingly too low and does NOTHING to discourage teen sex - but that's another issue. Our society needs to wake up and not just pass out condoms (which IS good by the way). Society needs to truly promote more mature relationships and mature behavior in these relationships, like waiting more than 15 minutes after knowing someone to sleep with them (for reasons of not only preganacy, but also the risk of STDs and the emotional impact involved). I'm not exactly pro-censureship, but the media REALLY needs to be turned down.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

"these children have not had their say as to whether they wish to be born or not"

smilecentral, that brings up another interesting part of this debate. Are these unborn children truly children yet? Or just a mass of cells, not truly "human" yet? And at what stage do they become "human"? I personally don't know (and some would argue its inconsequential at which stage in development it is), but this is similar to the huge embryo debate and is a very difficult question.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I'm personally against abortion, but I'm also pro choice. I believe every woman has a right to choose, and should have the medical services available to them. That being said, I also believe that there should be counseling to help them to make an informed decision and consider all options -- especially adoption.
> 
> As far as abortion due to deficiencies? Most tests aren't nearly accurate enough to clearly say one way or another... so unless it's obvious defects, then I would be pro in that instance and that particular instance only. I've heard far too many stories from mothers who were thought to have had babies with "problems" that in actuality turned out just fine at birth.


That pretty much sums up my opinion. I think there should be a waiting period involved along with an information session. There is nothing wrong with making an informed decision. This is a decision you don't want to regret in the future.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Gentlemen, using the terms rather loosely.......it's not our call.


MacDoc has it right. None of our (guys) business.


----------



## smilecentral (Jan 27, 2005)

CN said:


> "these children have not had their say as to whether they wish to be born or not"
> 
> smilecentral, that brings up another interesting part of this debate. Are these unborn children truly children yet? Or just a mass of cells, not truly "human" yet? And at what stage do they become "human"? I personally don't know (and some would argue its inconsequential at which stage in development it is), but this is similar to the huge embryo debate and is a very difficult question.


CN, I completely understand what you're saying, and I've struggled with that myself. While I think stem cell research is very important, are these embryos people or just the possibility of people? I realize they are just cells, but they are incredibly complex, and doing the most impossibly beautiful things. After studying a little embryology I'm flabbergasted at how amazing it is that our stem cells "know" where to migrate, how to specialize and at what rate. There is so much we don't know, and so research must continue on.

On the other hand do we have the right to harvest these embryos? They are still developing, but on the other hand so are people after they are born. If we didn't continue to develop, the world would be full of babies who never grew, matured, learned and changed. One could argue humans are ALWAYS at one stage of our development or another, so why discriminate against people who are still in the womb? 

Everyone would aruge it would be a horrific crime to kill a seven-month gestation infant born early, but not everyone would argue that it's wrong to end a pregnancy of seven months, even eight months or just before full term. Why is that? What constitutes a person? Does life only begin when you leave the safety of the mother's body? If so, and we had the technology to completely raise a zygote to full term baby in an incubator, would it be a person from the start? Does "life" begin at the heartbeat? When you breath your first breath? (Note that many pre-term babies have so much trouble because the lungs aren't well developed until very late in pregnancy, and so often premies rely on much assistance in breathing if born too early). Certainly it's been shown that quite early fetuses can feel pain, suckle, move and kick. What is it that makes us human, and when?

These are hard questions. Very hard. It's why it makes me sad to think that so many women terminate pregnancies without (likely) thinking about these exact issues. If you can make a decision after weighing all of the issues and live with it, good for you. I cannot judge because I am not you. But please, don't just rush down to the clinic to terminate a pregnancy because it's inconvient for you. Make an informed choice. That's my opinion.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Simplistic question - I don't think that anyone is "for" abortion, any more than they're "for" any other drastic, risky medical procedure. If it's necessary, it has to be done, but the decision is to be made by the woman involved, in consultation with her doctor. The govt. doesn't have any place in the decision other than paying for the procedure under medical insurance.

Put me down as pro-choice, not pro-abortion.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC: Horsesh!t... Otherwise your logic would be easily used in the issue regarding gay marriage: Not gay? Piss off. Asking people what their belief over such an issue is not exclusive to what's between your legs. Sad to see such limited views from people who should know better. 

We (guys) have every right to *talk* about it. It's a matter that does indeed affect us all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Otherwise your logic would be easily used in the issue regarding gay marriage: Not gay? Piss off


Exactly. It's not your call there either.

As to misogynism and chattels.......THAT should be very obvious.........it's not up to YOU to dictate what SHE does about HER body. She's not your property nor the property of the state.

If she CHOOSES to discuss it or ask your counsel that's fine......beyond that in your own accurate terms. Piss off.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

** the sounds of Rod Stewart and Tina Turner fill the room**

It takes 2 baby... it takes 2 baby.

Ultimately, it is up to the woman. No ifs, ands or buts. (However) If the man is willing to discuss it.. I think it should be discussed. No one can tell anyone else what to do with their bodies. If that were true.. I wouldn't have an eyebrow ring or tattoo's. You're body is your life.. how you treat it is up to you. I don't think this situation really applies anything different.

However, if there is actually SOMETHING to talk about.. then it should be talked about. Many men really might want to have the child... And some of the reasons for the abortion.. may be the reasons for keeping the child ultimately.

Communication - Something in this day and age that a lot of people have forgotten about.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Gosh is there a lot of testosterone in this thread.... gentleman, settle down. In your corners.  And yes, you're all free to discuss this....

I'm pro-choice. After accidents and non-consensual sex, I think there basically 3 reasons for an unwanted pregnancy: momentary lapse of judgement ("just once should be okay"), ignorance ("I heard you can't get pregnant the first time"), and habitual stupidity (abortion as birth control). The third is the one that disturbs me the most. Beyond the fact that there are cheaper ways to avoid pregnancy, I'm told that repeated abortion eventually damages the cervix.

While I do think it's a very good idea for the woman to discuss things--it does take two--I do worry about women getting pressured by their partners one way or another. It's a very big decision that has to be made in a very short timeframe. No offense intended to the men on this thread, but there are some really idiots in your gender who are thinking with the wrong head. I've actually had a guy use the line "We don't need a condom, I'm sterile" on me, and he's not the only person who uses that line.

Also, as I understand it, in Ontario they draw the limit on terminating a pregnancy at (I think) 18 weeks because after this point, it's possible for the fetus to survive outside the uterus. (i.e., the earliest surviving pre-term babies are older than this.) Prior to that, it cannot survive on its own.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly. It's not your call there either.
> 
> As to misogynism and chattels.......THAT should be very obvious.........it's not up to YOU to dictate what SHE does about HER body. She's not your property nor the property of the state.
> 
> If she CHOOSES to discuss it or ask your counsel that's fine......beyond that in your own accurate terms. Piss off.


Interesting...when I was younger I used to think the exact same thing. It enraged me (and still annoyes me) to walk to school (at a University with a hospital) and see men in their 70s protesting abortion...they'd never be in the situation that females would be. Now, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion if we keep in mind who we are and what our experiences are and try to see things from the other person's point of view. 

It would break my heart if I had to get an abortion, but if it were necessary and the right choice I would do it. I honestly don't think most women would ever use abortion as a method of birth control...not only is it traumatizing but it is risky physically.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I'm surprised that this topic has never come up before....

I'm a bit biased when it comes to the subject of abortion. I'm neither pro choice or pro life, but I believe that abortion shouldn't be used as a method of birth control. You see, I could have been aborted, but my biological mother decided to put me up for adoption.

However as stated earlier, rape victims, birth defects or if the mother's life is at risk, abortion should be considered.

Of course there's the debate that the fetus isn't human. As a parent and I'm sure Manny would back me up on this one, that little zygote, embryo or fetus is most certainly alive. Once you see that heartbeat there was no doubt in my mind that that was a living human growing inside my wife.


----------



## smilecentral (Jan 27, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly. It's not your call there either.
> 
> As to misogynism and chattels.......THAT should be very obvious.........it's not up to YOU to dictate what SHE does about HER body. She's not your property nor the property of the state.
> 
> If she CHOOSES to discuss it or ask your counsel that's fine......beyond that in your own accurate terms. Piss off.


Oh now, that's ridiculous. I guess then men should just stop wanting (their biological) children, since according to your input they have no say as to whether a child should be brought into the world or not. It's not their body right?

Sorry boys, I guess if all us women decide to stop having babies, that's too damn bad for you. Please.

The woman should have the final choice, but it's irresponsible to not discuss it with all involved. When people can clone themselves, the child/zygote/embryo/fetus will truly be a part of one person only. Until then, it's the creation of TWO individuals.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I used to be pro-choice for many years. The other day, my wife who is pregnant was looking at some pregnancy CD-ROMs. I seen a baby and it was several weeks younger than when some people abort. 

I am horrified that people get abortions now. I never thought that way before I actually seen the baby with the heart beating and moving around. I think it's murder personally, it's living, why should it not be protected because it's in the womb? 

My wife is pregnant and I could never have an abortion regardless of our situation. I never had a hard time with it before, but I do now. I also know from the medical perspective that many woman have scary dreams and other problems after abortions. Subconscious at work perhaps. It's still a tough one, rape victims, abuse victims, young teens. Too hard to make a decision. Each person has to decide on their own and take the consequences. I would never do it. I would also never attack someone for doing it. Nor would I tell them how I feel, it would not make the situation any better.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

smilecentral said:


> Oh now, that's ridiculous. I guess then men should just stop wanting (their biological) children, since according to your input they have no say as to whether a child should be brought into the world or not. It's not their body right?
> 
> Sorry boys, I guess if all us women decide to stop having babies, that's too damn bad for you. Please.
> 
> The woman should have the final choice, but it's irresponsible to not discuss it with all involved. When people can clone themselves, the child/zygote/embryo/fetus will truly be a part of one person only. Until then, it's the creation of TWO individuals.


Thank you, smilecentral.

If a decision is made without the input of the other partner (barring rape, or other extenuating circmstances), there are additional issues at hand.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly. It's not your call there either.
> 
> As to misogynism and chattels.......THAT should be very obvious.........it's not up to YOU to dictate what SHE does about HER body. She's not your property nor the property of the state.
> 
> If she CHOOSES to discuss it or ask your counsel that's fine......beyond that in your own accurate terms. Piss off.


Ha ha ha. What a crock. So now I need permission to discuss this? Well, I talked to my wife, she says it's fine.

Now that I've gotten permission to talk about it... go away and do something constructive... unless you can get permission too.

I don't recall anyone here DICTATING what WOMEN do with THEIR body (let alone considered women objects or property for that matter.) You jumped into the thread and immediately began labeling everyone misogynists.

That being said... you should consider taking a bit of your own advice (if you indeed follow the belief that one doesn't have the right to discuss a topic of which they do not have any direct involvement in, be it gender, race, religion or other.) Otherwise you shouldn't be participating in a lot of the discussions on this board.

So, either throw your hat in the ring or go away.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Pro choice. Won't answer the poll the way it's worded. Lived through it and it's one of the hardest things you will decide to do


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Pro-choice? Sure. It's always the woman's decision? I think not!

"It's her body. She has the right to decide." You betcha. If she wants to have an abortion, go for it. It is her body. But what if she DOESN'T want to have an abortion?

Should it not be the FATHER'S right at that point to have it aborted? Why is it only the woman gets to decide the impact this baby will have on everyone else's life?

Let's say the father is making $7/hour flipping burgers. He knows he can't afford to support a child. He's 19, just about to go to college, got his whole life ahead of him, and a baby now would SCREW up his life royally.

Mom, 19, same situation, decides "Oh, I just can't have an abortion." GREAT!

So now we have:
Mom <- won't go to college, stuck in crappy job, just to support a child
Dad <- won't go to college, stuck in a crappy job, just to support child
Child <- stuck in low income family because he was conceived at the wrong time

Compare this to IF the Dad had the right to have it aborted, and DID!
Mom <- can go to college, get herself a decent career, and THEN have a child
Dad <- ditto
Child <- because his parents waited until after college and careers, now lives in a middle class or upper class home.

Which situation do you think has a more positive overall effect on our society?


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

Pro Choice - pro choice - pro choice - no ifs, ands or buts ~ Yes, this is something that "should" be discussed by the two involved people (assuming an ongoing relationship of some sort, but don't kid yourself, lots of protected & unprotected sex goes on out5side of committed relationsips - big surprise), but ultimately the decision is the woman's, & will, like it or not, be made by her, optimally "in consultation with her doctor. The govt. doesn't have any place in the decision other than paying for the procedure under medical insurance." This is a medical procedure, to be decided upon by the patient & doctor - not by anyone else, & not by any other agency. This goes triple (or more) for those situations where a woman is using abortion as a primary means of birth control – there are MUCH better methods, but, c'mon, is someone who can't get it together to use birth control a good candidate to be a parent? 

Yes, there are other options - adoption being one, but not every woman is prepared to gestate & birth a child & then give it up. Kudos to those who choose that route, but it's not for everyone.

I grew up in the era of back alley abortions – but even when abortions were expensive and horribly risky, thousands of women each year chose to undertake that risk rather than carry & birth an unwanted child. Is this a clue? Do you really think that women will stop getting abortions just because you don't want them to? It would go underground, again, & many, many women would likely suffer the consequences of improperly, unsanitarily performed abortions, again, and we would have to fight to legalize it, again.

So, once more, with feeling – Pro Choice, & the choice will be made by the pregnant person.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Do you love your partner/mother/sister/daughter?*

*When abortion is illegal, women die.*
Women die from botched, illegal abortions. 
Women die from successful, well-performed illegal abortions that result in easily treated complications, but she can't seek medical help because she has committed a "crime".
Women die from abuse when they're locked into a bad relationship and can't run because the abuser uses the child as threat/blackmail. 
Women die of suicide when confronted with no hope and no choice.

Please, if contacting your MP on this issue, keep in mind; When abortion is illegal, women die.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I see your point, guytoronto, but that assumes dad sticks around to support the mother and child and doesn't just go off to college. It's not an easy choice, but that too, is his choice. 

Or doesn't go to college and provide whatever support he can, graduates, and then gets a good middle class job and continues to support child. Or defers college and take on a better paying job than $7/hour. Or they both work and support the child while both going to school to get higher paying jobs.... none of these things are easy, but they're all choices.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Just a quick question.

Do those for Pro Choice agree with Capital Punishment?

Isn't abortion killing a living organism? Capital Punishment is killing a living organism as well. Therefore aren't both essentially the same?

Just curious how those for Pro Choice feel. Something to make you think.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Sonal said:


> I see your point, guytoronto, but that assumes dad sticks around to support the mother and child and doesn't just go off to college. It's not an easy choice, but that too, is his choice.


The government always makes sure the dad pays. Dead-beat dads get the brutal end of the stick from Family Services.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MaxPower: There lies the dichotomy. Myself, I don't believe in abortion and I don't believe in capital punishment -- they both involve killing an organism regardless of the developmental stage. Given that women seek(ed) the services to end unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason), would you prefer the woman get it done through the medical establishment, or perhaps drinking herself into a stupor with the hopes of killing the fetus? Or worse? This is why I suggest the increase in awareness and counseling to help those who will eventually make the ultimate choice clearly see their options and make an informed decision... whatever it may be.

I have a friend who recently had an abortion who currently teaches in South Korea (ESL -- straight out of university) and regrets making the snap decision to have aborted her child. She's currently going through counseling to deal with her depression and anxiety over something she now regrets doing.

~

It's ironic given MacDoc and SINC's views on gender-oriented beliefs (and the exclusion thereof) considering a man was willing to stand up for his beliefs and the rights of women's choice by offering clinical abortions -- Dr. Henry Morgentaler whom, by their opinions, had no right in doing so because he's a man... as it's "none of his business."


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

guytoronto--yes, but if dad makes no income (e.g., is a student) he generally doesn't have to pay support--though yes, that can change once he starts making an income. He doesn't have stay in a crappy job, or even see his child. He can still run off to college and make his own choices about the rest of his life, even if he is required to pay support. 

So really, you're saying what? That the father should be able to override the mother's decision because he doesn't want to (in effect) pay a bill every month?


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Why is it not the guys business? Didn't he contribute? Are there not many men out there who want to be fathers and would make good dads, who could raise the child on his own if the mother doesn't want or cannot take care of the child themselves? The man cannot "DO" the pregnancy part - but if sex was consenual then the decision should be as well.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

"It's her body. She has the right to decide." You betcha. If she wants to have an abortion, go for it. It is her body. But what if she DOESN'T want to have an abortion?

Should it not be the FATHER'S right at that point to have it aborted? Why is it only the woman gets to decide the impact this baby will have on everyone else's life?''




So, then, when a woman doesn't want to have anymore children it is her right to tell the man that he HAS to have a vasectomy because SHE THEN has the right to tell a man what to do with HIS body!

I think that for consensual sex, should the woman become pregnant then the father should have the choice to say "If you don't want it I do" and be able to raise the child himself if so desired - then it comes down to priorities between the relationship and the baby. If the mother wants to have the child and the father wants to abort it - then it is time to decide what the priorities are then too - the relationship or the baby. It is NOT his body - why should he have the right to demand she have an abortion?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Cameo--Ideally, yes, the decision should be consensual as well.

But this isn't really an area where compromise is possible. What happens when both people involved simply cannot agree? Who makes the ultimate decision then?

In my opinion, it ultimately comes down the woman's choice.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

andrewenterprise said:


> You are absolutely right Vexel. It is not right to bring up a child in an unloving environment, or an environment that is just unfit for a child. In extenuatiing circumstances, such as teenage pregnancy, parents without the financial means or parents who are just totally unfit (alcohol and drug addicts). But on the other end, someone should not abort pregnancy just because they were stupid and didn't use protection when they engaged in intercourse, that is totally wrong. Just my take on the issue.


How about adoption???

While I am ethically against aborting a fetus -- most already have a beating heart and brain wave activity when aborted, the 2 vital signs that must be present for doctors to judge a human alive -- I don't think we can dictate the choice of not to abort to women/couples. Rather, I think they should be provided with accurate information on the development of their baby/fetus, pros and cons of abortion, side effects from abortion, etc. before making a decision.

Thoughts?


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Ah, one more fact: less than 0.5% of all abortions take place in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life combined.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I have a friend who recently had an abortion who currently teaches in South Korea (ESL -- straight out of university) and regrets making the snap decision to have aborted her child. She's currently going through counseling to deal with her depression and anxiety over something she now regrets doing.


Unfortunately, this happens in way too many cases. It's sad, actually, that abortion providers more often than not believe technology is the answer to these womens' "problems", without understanding the psychological trauma many experience afterwards.



« MannyP Design » said:


> It's ironic given MacDoc and SINC's views on gender-oriented beliefs (and the exclusion thereof) considering a man was willing to stand up for his beliefs and the rights of women's choice by offering clinical abortions -- Dr. Henry Morgentaler whom, by their opinions, had no right in doing so because he's a man... as it's "none of his business."


People who suggest that it's "not man's business" always surprise me. I often wonder if, when their wives are pregnant, they really don't give a damn, since they "only have concern themselves with their wives fetus when it becomes their child".


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

*Poll doesn't have enough options*

For example, those who would allow abortion in cases of rape or severe medical danger to the mother.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> For example, those who would allow abortion in cases of rape or severe medical danger to the mother.


Interesting observation. I previously stated that I am against abortion from an ethical standpoint. However, I always considered myself for abortion on ethical grounds when it came to cases of "rape, incest, or to save the mothers' life". Not to say my viewpoint has changed, but a few years ago I had the opportunity to hear a women speak whose mother was raped, considered abortion, and ended up giving her child up for adoption. Mother and daughter were later united.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

This topic is blatant flame-bait. It shouldn't be about for or against. Abortion is a tool that is sometimes necessary... Nobody uses it frivolously.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> it's not up to YOU to dictate what SHE does about HER body.


How about, "it's not up to the mother to decide to kill her own fetus/child/etc living within her, a fetus/child/etc that usually has a beating heart & brain wave activity, the 2 signs of life"? Food for thought...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

iKV said:


> Ah, one more fact: less than 0.5% of all abortions take place in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life combined.


source please for "fact"


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Sonal said:


> So really, you're saying what? That the father should be able to override the mother's decision because he doesn't want to (in effect) pay a bill every month?


YES!!! That is exactly what I am saying!

Forcing someone to pay every month for a child they did not want does nobody any good. More often than not, the father doesn't want the child, the child is fatherless, the mother is abandoned. Nobody wins.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

rgray said:


> Abortion is a tool that is sometimes necessary...


Absolutely. There have been situations where conjoined twins where separated, because they both would have died if they stayed joined. Often, one of them dies, but there is rarely a heated debate.

If the mother's life is in any way in danger, there should be nothing stopping her from getting an abortion.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Forcing someone to pay every month for a child they did not want does nobody any good. More often than not, the father doesn't want the child, the child is fatherless, the mother is abandoned. Nobody wins.


Well, I can understand your position.

However, the flip side is that forcing someone to undergo what can be a traumatic experience--against their will--because someone else doesn't want to pay a bill is hardly a winning situation either. I guess the father wins, but not the mother, and certainly not the fetus.

Don't get me wrong. There are women who choose to have an abortion and come out of the experience fine. There are also women who choose to have an abortion who come of the experience with a great deal of guilt and personal regret. I can't even begin to imagine how horrifying the experience of being forced to have an abortion would be....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Sonal said:


> There are women who choose to have an abortion and come out of the experience fine. There are also women who choose to have an abortion who come of the experience with a great deal of guilt and personal regret. I can't even begin to imagine how horrifying the experience of being forced to have an abortion would be....


True. I couldn't imagine what women go through in this type of situation. Definitely not something that can be resolved over coffee and cookies at a midnight diner. All parties involved have to sit down and seriously examine all the options and possible outcomes.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> source please for "fact"


I got the fact (no quotation marks) originally from some literature I read. Just did a quick Internet search (search terms: half 1 percent abortions save mothers life incest rape). Here's more specific stats from one source: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3110/CWA/life/.

Stats may differ slightly, but the result is the same: a VERY SMALL percentage of abortions take place in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mothers' life.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Very badly worded question. I know no one who is "for" abortion but most of the people I know are pro choice. For the record, I'm pro choice and, quite frankly, don't think that anyone who is unable to conceive has a right to an opinion on the matter.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Forcing woment to have babies will just result in more crack babies that NO ONE WANTS TO ADOPT. 



my grandmother said:


> Those damned anti-abortionists should shut up unless they want to adopt the crack babies I have to knit blankets for


My 97 year old Grandmother lives in Berkeley, California. She knitts blankets for unwanted crack babies in Bay area hospitals. These babies are unwanted developmentaly messed up and will never have real homes. She is incensed that there are people trying to force others to have babies when we can't find homes for HUGE numbers of babies that are already here.

I agree.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

While I am pro choice, and believe that ultimately it is up to the woman to decide what to do with a fetus she is carrying, if a woman was pregnant with my child and chose to abort I think I would die a little bit inside.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Other than to say wow... what contentious topic. I have for the most part stayed out of this thread but I think I have something to ad.

Previously someone had mentioned about the benefits to society when young people have abortions over keeping their children. While I do to a degree agree with that argument on the flip side there are programs available for those who want to take advantage of them where the young people can continue their schooling.

My wife is a teacher at a local high school and she teaches a program exclusively for pregnant teens and teen moms (literately kids having kids). The kids can earn credits towards their high school diploma. This is certainly a step forward. At least the community and school board are acknowledging the issue and are trying to accommodate their needs.

Oh... and to ad, I am pro choice... I also have issue regarding paternity laws however. Pro choice should mean that both parties involved should have the option to "opt out" at the beginning.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## smilecentral (Jan 27, 2005)

Maybe I am just so hesistant to easily accept abortion because of adoption. Yes there are lots of children who are not adopted - but there are a lot of people desperate to adopt, and can't. Many people are wonderful enough to bring children in from other countries to care for, suggesting to me, anyhow, that there are lots of willing adopters out there.

My two older brothers are adopted. One of them is married and he and his wife were unable to have children themselves, and so adopted two children (not babies by the way. They were kind enough to take in these two kids who were taken away from their home by the CAS. It's wonderful to know that some people will lovingly adopt children regardless of their age, or any problems they might have).

My husband and I have thought about adopting some day as well (we're certainly not ready for children yet).

I think it's such a wonderful option, that it should be more seriously considered, than just rushing to the clinic for an abortion.

And yes, MasterBlaster it isn't hard to make more children. That's the problem. People aren't THINKING before they have sex. Society NEEDS more education about safe sex, and that it's okay to wait. Maybe if society wasn't so oversexed in the first place, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies, and fewer STDs wou


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

*I think everyone is missing the point.*

The abortion issue is clouded with idiotic catch-phases and slogans. The arguments for-and-against are so silly that if taken outside of the context of abortion are clearly ridiculous.

"A woman has a right to control her own body." Sure. I suppose we all should be allowed to sell some organs, shoot heroin, ignore our seatbelts and helmets, and go over Niagra Falls in a barrel while we're at it. Or perhaps we could ask a few feminists about legal pornography.

"I don't agree with using it as a means of birth control." Strickly speaking, abortion is the only method of birth control; everything else is conception control. If a woman gets an abortion for any reason, it is birth control.

"I think the fetus is a human life." Uh, so what? Sperm and ova are human life too. Does something magical happen at conception?

"A fetus can have a heart beat and brain waves." So? Brain dead patients can have both, but we still deny them medical care. Even worms have brain waves and heart beats.

"It should be illegal, except in cases of rape, incest, or serious birth defects." So human life is "sacred," but some is more sacred than others?

"I think abortion is morally wrong, but I am pro-choice." This makes about as much sense as "I think abortion is murder, but sometimes murder can be ok, provided that the human life is small and innocent enough." There are some unethical actions that are legal, like lying or abusing cough-syrup or being a two-timing bastard. But things like this are legal because there is little demonstrable harm worthy of state intervention. But essentially, the purpose of government is to curb harmful and immoral actions. It is immoral to murder, steal, rape, de-fraud, and so on, and we curb these things. If there was no right and wrong, there would be no need for government. To believe that it is wrong to kill a fetus but should be legal for some reason or another - that is the viewpoint of a moral coward, an uncaring dogmatist, or an unprincipled, opportunitic politician. It amounts to saying "I know right from wrong, but I will not help those who are being wronged." (In this case, the murdered fetus.) Any other murders you planning on standing-by and watching over, smugly commenting on how "above it" you are?

I AM PRO-ABORTION. It must remain legal because it is completely ethical. Managing death is a part of life. When a person is injured we must make the decision whether a particular procedure is worth doing. When someone is dying, we must decide whether to prolong their life or relieve their pain. We kill animals and plants to eat and to make our environment more suitable to us. We kill in self-defence and in war. We even kill ourselves in tragic circumstances.

I hate the expression "pro-choice." It makes about as much sense as "pro-liberty" or "pro-freedom." The issue is abortion, not choice, because all laws are about choices (either permitting them or restricting them).

So why is abortion a legal right? No one has the right to force motherhood on any woman. She may have many goals in her life, like education or employment, which motherhood would delay or deny. Forced motherhood is slavery. Just like a slave, the obligations and circumstances forced on her delimit her capacity to self-actualize. It is the Right to Life that protects women's freedom to have an abortion. She has a right to live her own life her own way. Only that is true freedom.

Paternity laws must be struck down for the same reason. Fatherhood is also a choice. If a woman chooses not to have child, she is not required to give any consideration to the man's desires. If she chooses to have it, she cannot then insist that he be responsible for it financially. This is essentially a non-issue, as paternity suits are very uncommon, and their abolition would likely go unnoticed.

The Right to Life means that you are the owner of your life. The state cannot morally enforce parenthood on anyone. It cannot morally enforce any life choices on its citizens. (For the same reason, military conscription is also immoral.) You cannot brag about the freedom where to go, want to do, and who you do it with if the most basic life choices - parenthood - remain unchosen.

I am pro-abortion because I am pro-life.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

"I think the fetus is a human life." Uh, so what? Sperm and ova are human life too. Does something magical happen at conception?
Wow, you have defined what it is to be human. Good, now you can solve the embryo debate. What is it to be human? I don't know how a sperm is human, it has only 23 chromosomes vs. a human's 46, its a gamete! Perhaps because its life that has arisen from a human, it is human? Is it murder then, when beer drinkers kill liver cells (at least they have 46 chromosomes)? I think the big deal about a sperm and ovum is that they form the 46 chromosome group that will become a human being. When is it human? I sure don't know and who could truly say? But I think it is ignorant to make such a blanket statement about human life, and to think that you could ever disprove someone who says a fetus is a human life (when human life is undefinable!)

"I think abortion is morally wrong, but I am pro-choice."
What if someone thinks that abortion is wrong because it is the murder of a fetus, but they are equally appalled by the aspect of forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want, and of stripping a woman of her rights to make her own choice of whether she wants to have a baby? These statements ARE NOT a contradiction.
Pro-choice=advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion)
Here, we see that although pro-choice refers especially to abortion, it is not limited to it, meaning that you can be pro-choice but against abortion.
Here's another: Supporters of the pro-choice agenda do not necessarily support abortion itself, only the position that women are entitled to make the decision themselves (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3357329.stm)


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CN said:


> Wow, you have defined what it is to be human. [...] When is it human? I sure don't know and who could truly say? But I think it is ignorant to make such a blanket statement about human life, and to think that you could ever disprove someone who says a fetus is a human life (when human life is undefinable!)


I never said I knew when it became human. What I did say was that it doesn't matter. So let's say the fetus is human. Let's say is has brain waves and a heart beat, and it even feels pain. That issue gives it no rights one way or the other. The only issue is that the woman has a right to live her life. I'm sure a woman goes thru much worse agony during a birth than a fetus does during an abortion. Death and pain are a part of life. Get over it.



CN said:


> Pro-choice=advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion).


I suppose you support legalization of prostitution, drug use, organ selling, "running man"-style death tournaments, honor duels, and an end to the seatbeat law, right?



CN said:


> Here's another: Supporters of the pro-choice agenda do not necessarily support abortion itself, only the position that women are entitled to make the decision themselves.


Rubbish. I have no respect for someone who thinks "yeah, innocent babies are being killed, but I won't speak out against it." I suppose the people who were sitting on the fence about slavery were in the right, too? Why couldn't someone say "yeah, innocent people are being enslaved, but I don't think it should be illegal. I just don't do it myself." Moral cowardice.

The most important thing the abortion debate requires is moral clarity. As long as the liberal side of the debate cedes the moral victory to the "'pro-life" crowd, this issue will never die.

Abortion is not merely a legal right, it is a moral act. It must be defended as such.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

"I'm sure a woman goes thru much worse agony during a birth than a fetus does during an abortion"

On what basis? This statement has absolutely no proof whatsoever. I too am pro-abortion, but I believe some of your statements are fundamentally flawed or baseless, such as this one.

I do think you made some good points, although I still disagree with you on the pro-choice thing  I don't think we can ever have moral clarity on this issue because different people have different views on (1) what a human being is, and therefore (2) whether or not killing a fetus is murder akin to murdering a baby etc., and (3) which is worse: abortion (murder?) or the potential suffering (through lost education etc.) of the mother. Its hard to weigh one life versus another (especially if you can't even decide if one of them is a life!)


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CN said:


> "I'm sure a woman goes thru much worse agony during a birth than a fetus does during an abortion"
> 
> On what basis? This statement has absolutely no proof whatsoever. I too am pro-abortion, but I believe some of your statements are fundamentally flawed or baseless, such as this one.


An abortion is over in minutes. Childbirth can last hours. That's not baseless. And, many of the women I know who have had children and also suffered heavy trauma (like broken bones) maintain that giving birth was much more painful.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

My point was this: How can you make any claim upon how much pain a fetus does or doesn't go through during an abortion. There is no way to make such an assertion.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Since you're claiming we can't know one way or the other, its not really relevant, is it? For all we know, the flies we kill with fly-swatters suffer excruciating agony before finally expiring. That isn't going to stop me using my fly-swatter when I have to. 

Its rather like saying "your Grandma died peacefully in her sleep." How do we know it was peaceful? Well, we don't see any evidence of suffering, so it's a fair assumption. In the same way, my assumption clearly holds.

This is turning into an "angels on the head of a pin" discussion. What's really important is to plainly understand the two sides: a woman who wants an abortion so she can get on with her life, and the nonsensical suggestion that she shouldn't because the fetus is a human being, or feels pain, or has a soul, or some other intangible, unprovable superstition.

I really want to emphasize my position. Women have a moral right to have an abortion. Those standing in the way are morally wrong.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Pro Choice.
Although sometimes i wish that the peolple making the choice could be capable of making wiser choices, whichever choice that may be. A little controversial, isn't it? 
well , i am all for laizzes faire as long it's my way, call me human.

and while am at it, death penalty, for it.
gay marriage, for it.

eating burgers IN the theatre. go straight to Jail, don't collect $200, and i hope they go capital on your arse. 

i remeber the good old days when the smelliest thing you could eat at the cinema was chocolate covered peanuts.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I am pro-choice...100%.
I believe it must be the most difficult decision for a woman (*and* her partner, where applicable) to make. If I were in a situation where I had to make such a choice, I would most definitely talk with my husband and we would make the decision together. But, if it comes down to it, it is a woman's right to make the final decision.
If it were me though, it would break my heart.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Pro-life

For many reasons.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Pro-life
> 
> For many reasons.
> 
> ...


Gee, that was really convincing, MacGuiver.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi lpkmckenna

I've debated this issue before. Its an exercise in futility. I've read the logic in the pro-abortion camp and its seriously flawed in my opinion but I'll save my breath because nothing will change those views.

Take care.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/19/scotus050719.html?ref=rss

Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0721/p01s02-uspo.html

The reaction of American senators to this nomination has been very muted. Since he isn't seen to have a politically-charged career, he will likely make it to the highest bench. It's been noted that he general speaks as an advocate rather than an ideologue.

It's important to remember: no matter who makes it to the bench, Roe v Wade isn't the end all and be all of abortion rights. Even if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe, the state and federal legislatures can still keep it legal.

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/07/19/gender-selection050719.html?ref=rss
I find this story to be irrelevant. The state has no right to keep women from using a medical test in the interest of preventing gender-selection. If certain communities in Canada are more prone to gender-selection, then it's those ideas that need to be fought, not this medical procedure.

The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=shapiro2
Back to Judge Roberts. The Nation has a searing article on Roberts' opinions regarding the Geneva Convention issues in the US. A must-read.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi lpkmckenna
> Its an exercise in futility. I've read the logic in the pro-abortion camp and its seriously flawed in my opinion but I'll save my breath because nothing will change those views.


How's this - if the fetus is really a live - take it out of the womb and see how long it survives.... 

I have read the "logic" from the anti-choice camp (there is no one that is pro-abortion, it's pro-choice), all I see are emotional arguments based on dogma and religion.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

Went through one nearly 6 years ago. I was 19, old enough to know better, but accidents happen. That doesn't mean my accident needed to condemn another life to less than they deserve. I am a firm believer that you should not have children until you're ready, financially and emotionally. Kids shouldn't pay for their unfit parents' mistakes.

Trust me, it was a difficult decision, and it does affect you forever. I'm not trying to stand on some feminist highhorse here, but it is a scary time for a kid, and generally they have to make the decision on their own, without support from their usual sources (parents, etc). You always have to be careful about who you tell.

I regret it and yet I don't. It's difficult to explain...


----------



## tikibangout (Jul 19, 2005)

If it has mental defects, etc. then I am for it, but if not, then the parent should accept the responsibility. They ****ed up, so they have to live with it.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

tikibangout said:


> They ****ed up, so they have to live with it.


Um, well, the kid also has to live with it, which is not fair, IMO.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

tikibangout said:


> If it has mental defects, etc. then I am for it, but if not, then the parent should accept the responsibility.


Whoa: parent? You mean, the woman, yes?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

autopilot said:


> Went through one nearly 6 years ago. I was 19, old enough to know better, but accidents happen. That doesn't mean my accident needed to condemn another life to less than they deserve. I am a firm believer that you should not have children until you're ready, financially and emotionally. Kids shouldn't pay for their unfit parents' mistakes.
> 
> Trust me, it was a difficult decision, and it does affect you forever. I'm not trying to stand on some feminist highhorse here, but it is a scary time for a kid, and generally they have to make the decision on their own, without support from their usual sources (parents, etc). You always have to be careful about who you tell.
> 
> I regret it and yet I don't. It's difficult to explain...


Thanks for sharing your story, autopilot. We don't get to hear this kind of view often enough.

But I must be critical. I'm firmly pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I support bad arguments.

"That doesn't mean my accident needed to condemn another life to less than they deserve"
"Kids shouldn't pay for their unfit parents' mistakes." 

You're not going to convince any anti-abortion person with these arguments. Trying to recast your own self-interested act as an altruistic act for the benefit of child being aborted is not very credible.

The only conceivable case of an altruistic abortion would have to be an instance of severe deformity. (But I dare you to go down to an institution dealing with the physically- or mentally-challenged and preach that!) Otherwise, women do it so as not to upset their life. If the fetus had a voice, I doubt it would say "abort me, I don't wanna be poor!"

Maybe some women really do believe this idea. But I suspect women who have had abortions tell themselves this to deal with their guilt.

Autopilot, I have to ask: do you believe in God? What do you think he will say to you about all this? I only ask because my commitment to abortion only began when I became an atheist. While I was a Catholic I could never even imagine how another Christian could justify it.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm all for it, Girls have that right, period. It's their body, and screw Religion.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

tikibangout: You used an unfortunate choice of (albeit censored) words. I can't help thinking that you just proved my theory that if babies were made any other way, then more people would be pro-choice. Many anti-choice people see having an unwanted child as a fit punishment for having done "the dirty deed". I also have to assume that you have never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy, nor have you ever made any mistakes in your life. In case you don't know it, birth control does fail sometimes.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

tikibangout said:


> If it has mental defects, etc. then I am for it, but if not, then the parent should accept the responsibility. They ****ed up, so they have to live with it.


That's very harsh.
Do you really think it's so black and white that anyone who has an abortion has ****ed up? You have all this compassion for the fetus yet you cannot muster up any for the woman who has to go through this and live with it for the rest of her life?


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

autopilot said:


> Went through one nearly 6 years ago. I was 19, old enough to know better, but accidents happen. That doesn't mean my accident needed to condemn another life to less than they deserve. I am a firm believer that you should not have children until you're ready, financially and emotionally. Kids shouldn't pay for their unfit parents' mistakes.
> 
> Trust me, it was a difficult decision, and it does affect you forever. I'm not trying to stand on some feminist highhorse here, but it is a scary time for a kid, and generally they have to make the decision on their own, without support from their usual sources (parents, etc). You always have to be careful about who you tell.
> 
> I regret it and yet I don't. It's difficult to explain...


Thanks for sharing. Most of us couldn't begin to know what you went through when you were 19. I am sure you made the right decision at the time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Autopilot, that was a sincere and touching personal perspective on this issue. Thank you for sharing it with us all. I agree with Mrs. F. that you made the correct decision at the time. Paix.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> How's this - if the fetus is really a live - take it out of the womb and see how long it survives....
> 
> I have read the "logic" from the anti-choice camp (there is no one that is pro-abortion, it's pro-choice), all I see are emotional arguments based on dogma and religion.


You seem to define life as the ability to live outside the womb. According to the Mayo Clinic a child has a chance of survival at 23 weeks gestation so wouldn't you think we should stop abortion from that point on? Actually babies can't live outside the womb without the aid of its mother for years after birth. Would you consider a toddler a "life" dispite its continued and complete dependance on its mother for its survival?

Your last line about emotions and dogma could easily be applied to the pro-choice argument as well. In fact the pro-choice argument is based entirely on one line of Dogma.
-The dogma being "a woman's right to her own body" despite the fact the unborn baby is a unique living being with its own unique DNA. It feels pain, it sleeps, it controls its own movements, has its own heartbeat and motor functions just as it will for the rest of its life if its allowed to live.

Lets stop with the word games shall we? If you want to be called pro-choice thats fine with me. It doesn't make abortion anymore noble. The "Choice" you're referring to is to kill an unborn child. Sorry I slipped there, we'll dehumanize it and call it a "fotus" since it sounds a lot more like "fungus". Makes abortion seem more like wart removal. If you sleep better at night calling the willful death of a baby a "Choice" then so be it. Go ahead and call me anti-choice if you like when that choice results in ending the life of another human being.

Yes emotions are also a big part of it. You'd have to be heartless to look at a picture of an aborted baby and feel no sadness or compassion whatsoever. After seeing my own children on ultrasound moving their arms and feet or sucking a thumb it saddens me to think that the same child could be killed for just about any reason.










Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

Thank you for your support. 

I don't expect that anyone would believe that my motives were "altruistic" by any means. I was backed into a corner and I made the only choice I think I could have lived with. That does not meant I don't ever think about what might have been. Do I think I made a mistake? Some days I do. But I did it, and then you have to move on.

I don't expect that everyone would understand what I went through, but there you go.

I don't know if I believe in God. I am not in any way religious, if that's what you're asking.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Autopilot, no one is able to totally walk in your shoes but you, and even you can't go back and walk in your shoes when you were 19. Thus, you made the right decision then, and now you are making the correct decision to move on with your life. Let others argue, condemn, scold, but there are those of us here, men and women, who respect you for your sincerity, honesty and conviction of conscience. I am honored to be one of these persons who respect you as a person. Paix.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver

Call me heartless.
Your "moral" code says that abortion is murder, my "moral" code says it's not. Who are you to decide how I should live my life, decide what my values should be? I'm offended by you wanting to dictate my views.

Abortion is not birth-control but will you give monetary support to a mother/family that has a child they can't normally support? Will you ensure the future of an unwanted child by giving and providing what a family/mother needs? How will you ensure the emotional well-being of a mother/child/family? How will you take care and give a certain quality of life to those involved? 
Your narrow focus on "saving" a "child" is short-sighted and selfish, a detriment to society as a whole. 

It's usually the 24th week of development that is the milestone that is given - and that is just a "reasonable chance" of survival. This is not on it's own btw, but with oodles of technology and money. Look at the Susan Torres foetus, 400 000$ later and they will only "deliver" on the 32-week-mark.

You can it murder - I don't. I see that a foetus is the possibility of a life nothing more than an egg is the possibility of a chicken. A foetus is not independent, it's not even part of a symbiotic relationship.

The choice of abortion is one that is hard on individuals involved, it has existed for aeons. 
Would you prefer that we say "Pro coat-hanger" instead of "Pro-choice"? Because that's what "banning" abortion would engender.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, an interesting point re your comment that "Will you ensure the future of an unwanted child by giving and providing what a family/mother needs?" The Bush administration is against abortion and against funding comprehensive pre-natal care and post-natal care for the mother and child. These programs have been drastically cut, and downloaded upon the states and cities in the US.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries,

It boils down to this.
You choose to see a chicken egg, a clump of extra tissue, a foetus, a parasitic growth. Its the lingo used to cloak reality. I look at an ultrasound, fetal development photos or a horrific image of a decapitated fetus and I see an unborn human with a heart, eyes, nose, ears, hands and feet just like me. All the DNA intact to map out the life of that child. To me a person has to bury their head deep in the sand to ignore those realities. 

You mentioned that I had no right to tell you what is murder and what is not. I have a right to my opinion and based on biological facts I've come to the conclusion that abortion is the willful taking of another humans life.

You gave the horror scenario of allowing that child to live. Reality is we do have programs to help people in need. We have mothers allowance, child tax credits, social housing, welfare, food banks etc. etc. We also have adoption. You're also assuming that the child and parent/parents would have a horrible life. I know many teens that had their children, and although some had a tough road to hoe they made something of it and love their children dearly. You also ignore the negative physical and emotional affects the abortion can have on the mother.
I could apply your argument to a number of groups as well to justify taking their lives. The sick, the poor, the elderly. They can pose a burden to society and to their loved ones, suffer physically and emotionally but a bullet in the head would take care of it all. As I wouldn't endorse this quick fix for them I can't endorse it for the unborn either.

No point debating this any further. Just tightly close your eyes and repeat the mantra "its just a clump of tissue, its just a clump of tissue".










Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Hi MacGuiver. I see your point that there are so many alternatives but the "reality", in my opinion, is that there are far too many mothers who carry through with a pregnancy, only to end up with a child for whom they cannot provide...financially, emotionally, whatever...but they still cannot bring themselves to do what's right for the child (adoption) because they don't want to give it up. Many women, knowing full well they are not capable of being good mothers, believe they can go through with the birth and then give the baby up for adoption but then change their minds (understandably) at the last minute, often ending up forcing the child into an unhappy, unhealthy life because they couldn't stand to give the child up. The "reality" of mother's allowance, welfare, etc. is that it amounts to almost nothing - couple that with someone who was not prepared to be a parent but changed her mind at the last minute (often for their own satisfaction) and, in most cases, you have a situation where a child is not brought up the way it deserves to be. There are far too many situations like this in the world.

I know I'm not going to change your mind and I would never try, but I'm not convinced of your "realities".


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver, I'm not sure who you're arguing against, but you sure haven't convinced anyone.

I don't think an unborn baby is "a clump of tissue." It is a human life. But I'm still "pro-choice."

If I was in a war, I would still kill. Yes, the ones I'm killing are probably conscripted peasants, given a week's training and brainwashed by Marxist or Islamist platitudes. They might even be children, born homeless and impoverished.

But the fact that they are human too wouldn't stop me. I just want to live long enough to get home, back to freedom and happiness.

A world without medical abortion would be a world without freedom or happiness, but for women. Unchosen motherhood is slavery and misery.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Whether you consider it murder or not, where safe medical abortion is not available, women have historically resorted to unsafe home or back-alley methods to terminate unwanted pregnancies--even when there are other options such as adoption available. This, I think, speaks to the level of desperation some women feel when faced with an unwanted pregnancy--whether there is social assistance or not, this aspect should not be taken lightly either. 

There is death either way. What happens when the choice is terminate the pregnancy safely, or risk terminating both the pregnancy and the life of the mother?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I have a right to my opinion and based on biological facts I've come to the conclusion that abortion is the willful taking of another humans life.


I respect your conclusion for you. I just wish that you would let women have their choice in the matter. 
"Biological facts" is just a misnomer for "bias". 



MacGuiver said:


> You gave the horror scenario of allowing that child to live. Reality is we do have programs to help people in need. We have mothers allowance, child tax credits, social housing, welfare, food banks etc. etc. We also have adoption. You're also assuming that the child and parent/parents would have a horrible life. I know many teens that had their children, and although some had a tough road to hoe they made something of it and love their children dearly. You also ignore the negative physical and emotional affects the abortion can have on the mother.


It's a hard choice for some women to make. I don't know any women who has taken that choice lightly.
Look, all the programs you mention hardly let you afford any quality of life. Children should have love and the opportunity for a good life. I love my children and wish I could open more door to them (experiences, vacations, bigger house, ect). What I can't give them materially, I think is compensated by the love and time I spend with them. A struggling family/mother would have an even more trouble.
The welfare state would not help that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He's relegated his personal choice elsewhere so he figures he's quite justified in playing the same role with another person. He kneels - he thinks she should.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

A really interesting opinion piece on abortion: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0012/articles/fitzpatrick.html.
If you're looking for "the voices rarely heard," this is an excellent example.

And another site, for the historical AND personal perspective: http://www.cbctrust.com/nochoice/begin.html.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Another interesting point-of-view: The United Church of Canada on Abortion. http://www.united-church.ca/policies/1980/c511.shtm
I've never read a religious institution speak like this. Of course, this is the "church of what's-happening-now."


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Another really interesting site: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/trends/issues_medical_services.cfm

Apparently, NARAL seems to believe that women are entitled to have an abortion, but individuals and institutions must not be given the choice whether to provide it.

This issue is still very topical:
1. Should ob/gyn ward nurses be required to participate in abortions? http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en_text/news/e_pr_markham-stouffville.shtml
2. Should ob/gyn students be entitled to their diplomas without having to perform or participate in abortion training? http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d0131pc.htm


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> He's relegated his personal choice elsewhere so he figures he's quite justified in playing the same role with another person. He kneels - he thinks she should.


Nice try MacDoc playing the religion card for the "Christaphobic among us" but what I've learned of abortion I'd be against it if I were an atheist. Heck even atheist have a heart and watch in horror when baby seals get clubbed on the head. Heck some will go to great lengths to protect the little cuties. 
Why would one have to be a "right-wing Neo-Con Red-neck Christian extremist" to have a problem with someone cutting a living unborn child to pieces, poisoning and burning it with saline solution or driving forceps through the back of a partially delivered babies skull?  

lpkmckenna
I admire you for having the balls to speak the truth instead of playing word games to sugar coat the reality of abortion. Seems we can agree on one thing, "its a human life". Thanks for acknowledging the obvious. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Nice try MacDoc playing the religion card for the "Christaphobic among us" but what I've learned of abortion I'd be against it if I were an atheist. Heck even atheist have a heart and watch in horror when baby seals get clubbed on the head. Heck some will go to great lengths to protect the little cuties.


I'm an atheist. I'm not against the seal hunt; serves the little critters right. Blood on the ice is as Canadian as hockey. But that doesn't mean I don't have a heart. The killing of animals for food or fur can be very bloody. Life sucks, get over it. Oh, and though I'm sure some anti-sealers are atheist, it's just as likely that many aren't.



MacGuiver said:


> Why would one have to be a "right-wing Neo-Con Red-neck Christian extremist" to have a problem with someone cutting a living unborn child to pieces, poisoning and burning it with saline solution or driving forceps through the back of a partially delivered babies skull?


Ever hear of hydrocephalus? It's the principle reason that intact D & X (so-called "partial-birth abortion") was created. The fetus' skull must be deflated (i.e. crushed) so that it can be removed thru the birth canal. Otherwise a larger-than-normal c-section is required. While it's possible that some intact D&X procedures are carried out on women for no medical reason whatsoever, why else would she wait until the 6th month to have an abortion?

The "pro-choice" movement is well-aware that not all opponents to abortion are "right-wing." We've hear of Feminists-for-Life, and the Catholic Church can hardly be called a den of "neo-cons." By the way I'm pretty sure only southerners can be ********.



MacGuiver said:


> I admire you for having the balls to speak the truth instead of playing word games to sugar coat the reality of abortion. Seems we can agree on one thing, "its a human life". Thanks for acknowledging the obvious.


You're playing word games, too.

The methods of abortion, whether chemical (saline or RU486) or D&C-based (with or without suction) can indeed be grisly. It's safest to say that the earlier an abortion is done the less bloodly it will need to be. But the fact that you are attempting to describe all abortions as gruesome executions is no better than characterizing all of them as bloodless medical procedures.

But the methods of "pro-lifers" make later abortions more common. Legal delays (for "counseling"), administrative obstructions, and the harrassment of protesters, and the manipulation of friends and family trying to guilt her into not having an abortion do little else than delay time and increase suffering.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Aborted fetuses make for good stew...mmm...mmm...

Just need some corn bread now!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Aborted fetuses make for good stew...mmm...mmm...
> 
> Just need some corn bread now!



 WOW!
Forget the corn bread. You just need some couch time with a good therapist!


----------

