Abortion Debate
[struggle]Don't start abortion debate in IOTD thread ...[/struggle]
*I'm pro-abortion, FWIW, but I also believe life begins at conception, that there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution, Roe v. Wade should not have become the de facto law of the land, and you can't unfuck the virgin ... safe, legal abortion beats back alley butchery every time, oh and public funds should never pay for abortions ... shit. I started it.
Aside form these points, I'd also like to discuss this recent study linking legalized abortion to crime reduction;
[color=Navy]
[size=2]Abstract: [/size]
We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.[/color]
and criticism of that study by an African American group;
[color=Navy]
Project 21 members are concerned that the widespread acceptance of the conclusions of studies like "Legalized Abortion and Crime" could be used to resurrect population control plans similar to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's racist "Negro Project" of the 1930s. The "Negro Project" was created to reduce the size of black families so blacks would not overwhelm whites in number. Sanger sought to use birth control policies overall for the "weeding out of the unfit, or preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."[/color]
Well, this ought 'a be good. *Gets out marshmallows*.
Let the flames begin.
I think crime comes largely from lack of parenting and a family structure. So, I can see how one could correlate abortions to reduced crime. In this case, the person who would have normally had the child and done a poor job in parenting is now killing it. However, this does not justify killing the baby. Since I believe that life begins at conception, I am pro-life for myself. I am, although, pro-choice for other people because I believe we should just live and let live. I wish other people would assume more responsibility and that way unwanted pregnancies would decline and so too would the abortions.
I'm all for the 'viable outside the womb' verbage. I guess that would make me pro-choice for about the first half or so of the pregnancy and pro-life for the second half, althought I do have some reservations about the second half.
Oy. I had a three hour discussion on the UofM campus about this with some hardcore pro-lifers. They had reasonable arguments, except for the fact that they based them all on the concept that we all had a 'natural' and shared moral outlook. They couldn't understand that the morality they believed in was socially constructed.
Until the day that there is 100% infallable birth control, I am 100% pro choice. After that day, I'll re-evaluate my stance.
No, abstinance doesn't count. Rape still causes pregnancies.
A child should be a choice -- a positive one, not a negative one!
- Pie
Until the day that there is 100% infallable birth control, I am 100% pro choice. After that day, I'll re-evaluate my stance.
Amen. Choice, choice, choice! Pro-choice, childfree by choice...choices is what makes this country great...well, as good as it's gonna get (since nothing is perfect).
;)
Compel a woman to carry a child to term and you reduce her in effect to an incubator. I can totally understand the distress abortion causes to those who disagree with it. It's not a pretty thing and the manner in which it is carried out often leaves a lot to be desired ....once a feotus ( or baby) is capable of experiencing pain then precautions must be taken to ensure the abortion is painless and swift but we should not confuse a working set of nerves with a consiousness.
It's a tough one really and even someone who is ardently pro choice as I am, would no doubt be much moved by the sight of an aborted feotus which displays the beginnings of life in movement. At no point though should that little life take precedence over the woman's bodily freedoms. As beautiful and viable as that baby may be it is not yet a conscious being and should not be afforded rights at the expense of a thinking and feeling human.
So when does consciousness start?
Immediately after the abortion debate stops.
"So when does consciousness start?"
Very good question. As I understand it the human baby starts to see itself as a self in some way around the age of 4 or 5 months ( though my recollection of the facts on this is not brilliant ;P) At first it sees itself and the world as one. When it moves the world moves. Eventually it works out that when it willls movement only it's hand ( for example) moves ratherthan the cot or surroundings and in such a way it realises it is an it and has limits.
Prior to that there must be some kind of consciousness but the nature of that is largely indeterminable. There is a definate point however at which the brain is receiving messages from the nervous system. I believe they have pretty much isoltaed the point at which that occurs but i dont recall how far along in the feotus' development that is.
Abortion is one of the few, maybe the only, raging debates that truly hinges on a single point of contention: the definition of a personhood. I think we can all agree that there are certain, hmmm, what’s the word, “inalienable” rights attached to personhood that trump the rights contended against it. Certainly the right to live is the most fundamental of those rights.
This makes several frequently fielded arguments in the debate completely meaningless. If a fetus is NOT a person prior to a certain point, then no real argument for abortion is needed – the fetus has no legal or moral standing, the mother’s rights trump the rights of the congealed cells sitting in her womb. If the fetus IS a person after a certain point, then any argument fielded for abortion has to extend from that point forward, to born persons, to adults, to the elderly.
“Abortion lowers crime” fails that test. If the fetus is not a person, then this is a weaker argument than mother’s rights. If the fetus is a person, we can see the absurdity of extending this argument to other persons – if we kill all 2 year old children who have no stable, healthy family environment to grow up in, we would drastically reduce the crime rate, but no one would think of fielding this “modest proposal”, because the right of persons to live clearly trumps the benefit of lowered crime.
“Rape and Incest” fails that test, again because we would never extend the argument to born persons. A 2 year old child who was the product of a rape would have no less right to live than a 2 year old who was the product of a loving and committed marriage relationship. Personhood again trumps the argument.
“Viability” even fails the test, unless viability is your prime condition for personhood. We don’t abjure the personhood of someone who needs kidney dialysis, a feeding tube, and a pacemaker, but who is otherwise capable of thought, response, communication. The rights of the family to their finances and their time are not strong enough to trump the ill persons right to live. The same is true of a mother and an unborn person – if personhood exists, then the means necessary to sustain life are the obligation of the person capable of providing it. If personhood does not exists, then no argument for viability is needed.
Here’s the nutshell, for those of you who skip all the good stuff and just read the 1st and last paragraph in every post. The delineation of personhood is the prime question in the abortion debate. Before personhood exists, no argument for abortion is even needed. After it exists, no argument trumps the fundamental right of a person to live.
Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?
-sm
Immediately after the abortion debate stops.
Wow, UT just doesn't get into these debates, anymore. Never, for the life of me, will I understand why. :3eye:
I'm a guy, so is it okay if I don't care?
I have been to them all: Womyn's Rights Rally's...Take Back the Night, Herstory, you name it. I have tried to be a ''sister" --tho, not so much as a sister to, ya know, disinclude BROTHERS, ya know??? :)
I like Brothers.
That being said: Abortion is an intensely private affair. Your reason for abortion may not be mine. There are all kinds of women...they're are all kinds of reasons for doing what we do--and hoping we are (at least to ourselves) true. I advocate compassionate listening to each side and admit a lot of things have been done in the wrong.
Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?
-sm
Legally, I would define it as one who has been born. One who is no longer a parasite to another person. Morally, I'd define it a bit differently but I don't think that's relevant to the legality of abortion.
The bottom line for me is that I trust women to make the right decision regarding their body and their ability to become a parent (as opposed to just giving birth). My morals are my own and my ego is not so large as to think I should have a say in the reproduction of others.
One who is no longer a parasite to another person.
should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?
Taking money and taking nutrients directly out of one's bloodstream are different.
my ego is not so large as to think I should have a say in the reproduction of others.
And that is why you'll never rule the world.
should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?
Maybe only certain ones.
Taking money and taking nutrients directly out of one's bloodstream are different.
Unless you're a Haliburton executive.
should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?
You mean lifestyle, not survival, right?
Unless you're a Haliburton executive.
well, touche! (no one thinks of that....... )
the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".
One who is no longer a parasite to another person.
But what about Siamese twins?
the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".
A rather thin argument, depending on who you are talking to.
the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".
The argument? Not my argument...
I'll take SM's bait with a serious answer to the consciousness question. Consciousness seems to occur with the development of the neocortical brain activity. This happens at about the same time as viability, 5th or 6th month. IMO, consciousness is the best possible answer to when person-dom occurs because conscious thought is what makes us unique amongst the world of all the beings we know.
This is the best scientific answer and I believe that the law should have a scientific basis with a cultural bias rather than the other way around.
A legal definition is very hard to do. You need a clear cut-off point like conception or birth. Even something like first trimester, second trimester is a little too vague in my opinion. Laws have to be black and white.
I would never dream of killing actual newborn children, but with my own, I didn't think that they were "people" until they were around four to six months old or so. That's when I noticed a spark in the eye. Some sort of reaction to the world around them that was more than just simple reflex. Before that, they were just blobs of flesh. Eating, pooping and crying. The mice I killed in traps in my crawlspace were more conscious and aware than they were.
Legally, I would define it as one who has been born. One who is no longer a parasite to another person. Morally, I'd define it a bit differently but I don't think that's relevant to the legality of abortion.
The bottom line for me is that I trust women to make the right decision regarding their body and their ability to become a parent (as opposed to just giving birth).
I agree 100%. While I am rabidly pro-choice, I personally think around 5 months after conception there's a bit of a line that shouldn't be crossed. I don't think abortion should be illegal after that point, but there's something unsettling to me about performing an abortion at that point. I personally wouldn't do it, but that's just me. Every woman should be able to make the decision for herself.
should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?
There's a bit of a difference. The welfare recipient is already a born and likely fully grown person who is surviving outside of the womb. A fetus generally cannot.
I think there should be a cutoff point after which medical justification should be required for abortion, but I couldn't go so far as to suggest when that should be.
I think there should be a cutoff point after which medical justification should be required for abortion,
Why? Do you think there are so many women who would just enjoy a late term abortion, sans good reason, that we need to pass laws against it?
I haven't the slightest idea if it's frequent enough to merit legislation. If not, great.
I'm sure there aren't many of them, but my other message board pointed me in the direction of a Yahoo group that was "pro-abortion" in the sense that they like it and get off on it. They post really disgusting stories and pictures of aborted fetuses, etc. and have tons of fiction/fantasy tales they have written themselves. I'm not posting a link.
I'm not posting a link.
Thank you, Thank you!
:vomitblu:
I'd guess that some of those people get off more from pissing off anti-abortion people than they do from the stories. Sort of like the "Hermione from Harry Potter countdown to 18" page - set up as a joke, but attracts a few wierdos.
Very interesting quote from Ayn Rand on this subject....
"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.' "
— Ayn Rand
Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?
Sentience.
(total self-awareness...something no other animal besides humans have and is measured in alpha brain waves which are present even in those who are in a coma and are not brain dead)
Although there really is no need to define it. That decision is only up to one person, the host (pregnant woman) of the parasite (fetus).
Note: I'm not using the word parasite in a derrogatory manner. It is merely an accurate biological description of the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the pregnant woman. A fetus is a non-human because it does not have sentience.
Some things are often confused with human life so let me make a short list of things that are not human life.
[list][*]a beating heart
[*]reflexive actions (sucking thumb, response to stimuli, kicking, etc)
[*]the shape of a human being
[*]fingers, toes, arms, legs or other body parts
[*]human dna[/list]
None of these alone or even combined constitute a human life but even if the fetus did have human life (defined only by sentience/alpha waves) it would not give it any claim to the body of the host/pregnant woman. Nobody on earth has any claim on our bodies but ourselves, not even something that may be living inside us, even if it is a human.
I don't have any moral compunction what so ever about abortion. In my eyes it's akin to having a wart, a tumor, or a tapeworm removed or having a limb amputated. It's no more or less important.
I've thought about becoming an abortion doctor just so one of the services I offered would be free abortions to those under 18 without any notification of parents, guardians, husbands, boyfriends, etc. I'd even offer a free ride to and from the clinic if they lived nearby.
And I'd sleep well at night knowing I did the right thing in helping salvage real existing human life, not merely the potential for one. I put the lives of the living above those who might live later.
How would you feel about it in the 7th month then, once the fetus has at least the capacity for sentience, and perhaps has it in some way we don't fathom?
How would you feel about it in the 7th month
7th month? Man, if only I had some audio for you guys...
( :thumbsdn: straight to hell!)
I thought the Yahoo group was trying to yank some chains, too, and then I noticed they'd been at it since 2001, with a lot of the same members. I thought that was quite a while to be at the same crusade. I read some of the stories too, and they were quite explicit sexually. They post real videos of abortions and claim to get off on it. The one thing that made me believe it was real was that they weren't actively promoting it. It was a private group, or whatever you call the ones you have to get persmission/password from the person who runs it before you can see it. (I quit the group after I'd read all I could take).
How would you feel about it in the 7th month
7th month? Man, if only I had some audio for you guys...
( :thumbsdn: straight to hell!)
*CRINGING!!!*
OH god no...
:eek: :thumbsdn: :thumbsdn: :greenface
I am pro-choice in only two cases: if the mother's life is in danger, or if the child will be born with a birth defect that will shortly kill it or will make it so that there is no quality of life at all for the child.
When it comes to the "oops, I fucked up/I don't have time or money for a child" type of abortions--uh-uh. There are way too many people out there who are willing to pay all doctor bills in order to adopt for that to be an excuse. When it comes to rape or incest, all I can say is that I personally would not have an abortion, for the above-mentioned reason. It's not the baby's fault who the father is. There is no reason to make the child pay for the sins of the father.
I think that abortions should be allowed until brain waves start. It is at this point that the fetus is conscious and can feel pain. I also think that menstrual extraction is an acceptable method of abortion. Invented by a female OB-GYN, it keeps a woman from having to go through her period each month by extracting the menstrual debris via vacuum. This means that if an egg has been implanted, the egg gets sucked out as well.
I've talked to several pro-choicers about this on abortion debate forums, and I still don't understand their reasoning. It's all about them. Considering that most places have free clinics in which one can procure free birth control, there's no excuse. Granted, birth control can fail, but at least one is attempting to prevent a pregnancy and is taking responsibility for that. I'm all about responsibility and having to deal with the consequences of one's actions, as everyone well knows.
The main reason I'm pro-choice is just as Wolf said--back-alley abortions kill too many people. It should be made safe. BUT, I also think that if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, that she should be required to take birth control. It should be mandatory.
I also think that the men should have a say in the abortion issue. After all, it takes two, and fathers just don't have any rights nowadays when it comes to children--at least they have no rights if they aren't currrently married to the mother of the child. I think that if the father wants the child and says he will take care of it, then she should have to have the baby. It shouldn't die because she'll be inconvenienced by its presence.
Sidhe
Very interesting quote from Ayn Rand on this subject....
"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.' "
— Ayn Rand
I don't know how much I agree with that, but I can agree that people today, especially women, are becoming so much harder, so much more "me, me, me." I personally don't understand how someone can justify killing an innocent child--and it is murder, IMO.
Here's something I don't get: why is it that if someone causes a woman to lose her child involuntarily, that's considered fetuscide--murder--and they can be charged, tried, and sent to jail for it; but if a woman willfully kills her own child, that isn't considered fetuscide? Murder is murder, in my book. Either the child has rights and protection under the law, and is therefore considered a person, or it DOESN'T. It shouldn't be both ways.
It's like someone killing a pet. If your next-door neighbor kills your dog, that's animal cruelty, and they can go to jail for it. Likewise, if you abuse and/or kill your dog, the same laws apply to you, although you own the dog. The animal has protections under the law, and it applies equally across the board, no matter WHO violates that law.
So why isn't it the same for babies?
Sidhe
Incidentally, LadySyc, I love your AmishRakeFight link. Meant to tell you that about a hundred years ago when I first saw it, but forgot. I've sent it to so many people, mostly because I knew they'd appreciate it just as much as I did, and send it on.
:thumbsup:
Sidhe
Here's something I don't get: why is it that if someone causes a woman to lose her child involuntarily, that's considered fetuscide--murder--and they can be charged, tried, and sent to jail for it; but if a woman willfully kills her own child, that isn't considered fetuscide?
I'm not sure that's true. I remember some anti-abortion congressmen tried to pass such a law recently, but I don't know what the status is. I think the usual charge would be forcing a miscarriage, rather than murder.
It's like someone killing a pet. If your next-door neighbor kills your dog, that's animal cruelty, and they can go to jail for it. Likewise, if you abuse and/or kill your dog, the same laws apply to you, although you own the dog. The animal has protections under the law, and it applies equally across the board, no matter WHO violates that law.
Pets are killed by owners all the time, or - perhaps more often - taken to clinics to be killed.
Pets are killed by owners all the time, or - perhaps more often - taken to clinics to be killed.
uh-oh, you just had to go there, didn't you?
*sees garnet entering room carrying soap bax and flame thrower* :D
I'm not sure that's true. I remember some anti-abortion congressmen tried to pass such a law recently, but I don't know what the status is. I think the usual charge would be forcing a miscarriage, rather than murder.Pets are killed by owners all the time, or - perhaps more often - taken to clinics to be killed.
Here in La., it's fetuscide. I don't know about other states.
I'm not referring to people who bring sick pets to be put down, or vicious or rabid animals (I think that people who kill perfectly healthy pets should be flogged. If you can't take care of a pet, don't get one, IMO). I'm talking about people who abuse their animals or kill animals. I can't tell you how many people I know who have had pets poisoned by neighbors, or the like.
In La., if you abuse or kill an animal, or are found to be engaged in animal fighting, you can be fined and/or imprisoned for animal abuse, if you're caught.
Sidhe
Interesting how we treat animals as compared to how we treat murderers and babies....we'll put down a rabid animal because it's a danger to society, but not a human who is a danger to society. And the animal didn't even kill. We'll protect animals from abuse and death at the hands of caretakers, but not babies.
Pathetic.
The real problem is the strange notion that human life is somehow magically sacred, if people are that worried about 'people' dieing they should asked to sell their posessions to feed starving wretched kids in africa before that can claim some sort of moral high ground about abortion.
Hey, part of garnet's discussion was about which euthanasia methods are PETA-approved!
I saw a hilarious video regarding "putting the dog out of it's misery" the other day, but don't have the URL handy. As soon as I find it I'll post it.
Here in La., it's fetuscide. I don't know about other states.
I'd guess that they are trying to get as close to banning abortion as they can without attracting the Supreme Court.
I'm not referring to people who bring sick pets to be put down, or vicious or rabid animals
How about animal shelters? If they can't find a loving family for the animal, they'll kill it (depending on the shelter).
Interesting how we treat animals as compared to how we treat murderers and babies....we'll put down a rabid animal because it's a danger to society, but not a human who is a danger to society. And the animal didn't even kill. We'll protect animals from abuse and death at the hands of caretakers, but not babies.
The reason rabid animals are killed is that they are considered less important than people, and therefore not worth life imprisonment. Babies are more protected than animals, and fetuses are less. Animal fetuses have no protection at all.
uh-oh, you just had to go there, didn't you?
*sees garnet entering room carrying soap bax and flame thrower* :D
Hey! I've been a good girl lately! I'm learning slowly but surely how to play nicely with others. :)
(just don't start another PETA thread......pleeeeeeze!)
Hey! I've been a good girl lately! I'm learning slowly but surely how to play nicely with others. :)
(just don't start another PETA thread......pleeeeeeze!)
2 things.
1) some cellarites are partial to the opposite of a good girl. :eyebrow:
2) PETA - that is a sandwich, right? (go with me on this one, and maybe people won't even notice that PETA was brought up again.)
Interesting how we treat animals as compared to how we treat murderers and babies....we'll put down a rabid animal because it's a danger to society, but not a human who is a danger to society. And the animal didn't even kill. We'll protect animals from abuse and death at the hands of caretakers, but not babies.
Pathetic.
Sorry, just can't help myself on this one. It all goes back to what your definition of "baby" is. If you kill a human infant (and get caught) you're going to the slammer for a looooong time. If you kill a kitten or a puppy, you get a slap on the wrist (if anything).
Lots of pro-lifers hate PETA because we protect animals instead of unborn "babies." I've never understood the connection. We get tons of mail from those people. I don't get why they're wasting their time bitching at us instead of doing something useful--like helping pregnant teenagers and abused children.
2 things.
1) some cellarites are partial to the opposite of a good girl. :eyebrow:
So wait, are you saying you like the "bad" garnet better than the "good" garnet? Cuz if you do, she's lurking just around the corner :ninja:
2 things.
1) some cellarites are partial to the opposite of a good girl.
Are you trying to say you've got a thing for bad boys lookout? :eyebrow:
Are you trying to say you've got a thing for bad boys lookout? :eyebrow:
eeew. thanks but no thanks jinx. i didn't mean
that opposite.
i was simply (although with poor grammar) saying that some of the cellar dwelling guys like the bad girls... take that how you want.
and to garnet - please keep evil garnet in chains. and a ballgag. with chinese finger cuffs. in a burlap sack. in a closet. in an abandoned house. in siberia. that should do it.
and to garnet - please keep evil garnet in chains. and a ballgag. with chinese finger cuffs. in a burlap sack. in a closet. in an abandoned house. in siberia. that should do it.
Chinese finger cuffs? OUCH! Even for "bad garnet" that's a little harsh!
The real problem is the strange notion that human life is somehow magically sacred, if people are that worried about 'people' dieing they should asked to sell their posessions to feed starving wretched kids in africa before that can claim some sort of moral high ground about abortion.
A big amen from me on that one.
:thumbsup:
Or for those who say, "Every child is a wanted child"...where are they when the woman doesn't want her child? I don't see anyone lining up to take in that "wanted" child. :mad:
The real problem is the strange notion that human life is somehow magically sacred, if people are that worried about 'people' dieing they should asked to sell their posessions to feed starving wretched kids in africa before that can claim some sort of moral high ground about abortion.
I assume that you are using the term 'sacred' as a synonym for valuable. Are you saying that human life is not sacred (valuable)? If so, then I disagree.
I also find your statement to be a non sequitur. That's like saying, "If you're so worried about the spotted owls, why don't you sell your furniture and help the condors?"
I have no doubt that there are needy children in Africa and elsewhere. That doesn't mean that people can't be concerned about events closer to home, as well.
Or for those who say, "Every child is a wanted child"...where are they when the woman doesn't want her child? I don't see anyone lining up to take in that "wanted" child.
I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US.
Or for those who say, "Every child is a wanted child"...where are they when the woman doesn't want her child? I don't see anyone lining up to take in that "wanted" child. :mad:
You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.
-sm
You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.
I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US
So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?
There are lots of children already available for adoption. They just don't happen to be the right age, the right color, the right background, etc. for most prospective adoptive parents.
There are people out there who desperately want children but for whatever reason can't have their own. And that's really sad. But that has nothing to do with with whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?
Neither of us said that. Lady's comment said "where are they [people who will take the baby] when the woman doesn't want her child?" The correct answer is, "everywhere".
The reason this issue is so difficult is that both sides want to throw a broad blanket over a wide range of scenarios. I don't understand how people can have such simplistic viewpoints. I find it a very difficult topic.
I don't understand how people can have such simplistic viewpoints. I find it a very difficult topic.
"Simplistic"? Not exactly. Some people just have a different opinion that you--that doesn't make their view simplistic.
"Simplistic"? Not exactly. Some people just have a different opinion than you--that doesn't make their view simplistic.
Doesn't have anything to do with differing opinion. "abortion is always a moral choice" and "abortion is always an immoral choice" are both over-simplifications of a complex set of moral issues.
I wrote this big old long thing...
And it was way slanted and not what I wanted to put up here, so I put it on my blog.
I'm moving today!
It was my birfday yesterday! (Thanks to those people who wished me a Happy Birthday, you know who you are!)
Fear not! I'm still lurking, just taking a posting break.
Love you guys....
Abortion isn't a moral dilemma and it isn't murder. Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves, not even anything growing inside of us. I support abortion for any reason or no reason. I support abortion as a means of birth control. I support abortion if the pregnant woman wants to do it on a whim. I support it even if she has one every month. I support abortion in all circumstances because it's not my decision to make. I would hope my wife wouldn't make the choice to have an abortion, but it's her choice, not mine.
A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.
This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.
A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.
This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.
The biological definition of the progeny as a parasite is true, even up until they are old enough to do dishes or cut the grass. Taken in the long term, the relationship can be defined as symbiosis, especially if they are raised right and pass through the whole relationship until the parent becomes the parasite.
Now, the scientific fact that you are asserting exists only in that someone believes that to be true. It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.
It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.
Actually, that's a tautology, one of the few facts that's objective. What's subjective is whether this guy :3_eyes: is blue.
/end pedant mode
This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.
Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?
A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.
This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.
Actually this is the problem with the whole debate and the reason it will almost always exist. Science
can't say for sure when "life" begins because you can't ask a collection of cells if it is "alive" yet. I think we can all agree that if it could be categorically proven that a "soul" or "consciousness" (or whatever you want the distinction between a living cell and a living human to be) does not enter a fetus until a specific time then nobody would have a problem aborting that pregnancy prior to that time. Alternately, if it could be proven that a fetus had the same "living" qualities as a 30 year-old man at the moment of first cell division, then nobody could reasonably argue that aborting that child intentionally would not be murder.
The debate will rage. I'm not even going to state MY position on this whole thing because it won't change anybody's mind, and quite frankly, I don't know the right answer. I just wish others might admit that they don't know all the answers before they start calling pro-choicers evil murderers, (If a 15 year old girl is raped by her uncle, it isn't evil for her to want to be released from that burden. It is arrogance to assume that in the same situation you wouldn't feel the same.) or even assuming that a child is only alive based on the choice of the mother. (If a person kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two murders. If that mother had not been murdered and had decided the next day to have an abortion, no charges against her would have been filed. Therefore, in the eyes of the law a fetus is only alive if the mother says it is. It is arrogant to believe that the timing of life is up to the mother.) At some point, both arguments are wrong.
So, as with anything, we need a compromise. But in the case of this issue there probably is no compromise that will make everyone happy without a signed agreement from God and the Surgeon General. I'm meeting with both of them this week. I'll see what I can work out. :biggrin:
I am all for adoption.
And usually it works out quite well.
However, it really is a "pig in a poke" situation.
A lot of my patients have either ceded parental rights or have had them taken away.
Many of these are babies that would be considered "high premium" on the adoption market ... cute, white, blue-eyed bundles of joy.
With a family history of mental illness and/or extreme substance abuse from both parents.
I see a lot of frustrated parents whose story starts with "Well, I adopted Timmy at birth, and it turns out that his mom was ... "
I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US.
Lady's comment said "where are they [people who will take the baby] when the woman doesn't want her child?" The correct answer is, "everywhere".
sm said:
"You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption."
I don't want kids so why on earth would I try to adopt one? :confused:
Sorry...apparently you guys took me literally when I asked, "where are those who say every child is a wanted child". What I meant was that I don't see a riot of people (read: pro-lifers) knocking down the doors of every woman that carries a child to term and is willing to take in those particular children. I'm addressing those pro-lifers that want to impose on a woman's private and personal decision. All I keep hearing about are couples that spend gobs of money to go overseas to adopt a child from some other nation when there are children here that need a good home.
dar said:
The reason this issue is so difficult is that both sides want to throw a broad blanket over a wide range of scenarios. I don't understand how people can have such simplistic viewpoints. I find it a very difficult topic.
It's quite simple for me: abortion, as it stands now, is legal. And that to me means that absolutely no one has the power to make a decision for me about me and my fetus/baby/zygote/embryo..whatever the fuck anyone wants to call it. See, I don't have an "abortion argument": I really don't care when life begins and all of that. Harsh? Maybe, but I'm keeping it verrrry real right about now. That argument will go on until time ends, but in the meantime, if I choose abortion, then so be it.
Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves
Shouldn't that read noTHING, not noBODY?
So, let's do the math on this one
Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body.
Premise: Carrying a fetus to term is an infringement on another person's body
Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the fetus in any way she deems appropriate.
I think that's a fairly accurate sketch of your argument. You hold premise 1 to be true, and premise 2 can go uncontested, we would all agree with that (certainly anyone whose carried a baby). If both are true, then the conclusion stands. But your first premise, if its an absolute, has some dangerous extensions.
Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body
Premise: Taking care of a 6-month old is an infringement on the time, resources, and strength of the parent, and thus on the actions and fruits of that body
Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the 6-month old in any way she deems appropriate, including abandoning it on a freeway overpass, or placing it in the oven.
Any reason why the first one is right and the second is wrong? And don't say "because in the second one, it’s a human life” because that's a separate argument - your argument doesn't derive from the humanity of the fetus, but from the infringement on the parent. If your first premise is absolute, then the personhood or non-personhood of the infringement makes no difference.
A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. …
This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.
No, that's not a scientific conclusion, it’s a philosophical conclusion drawn from an interpretation of the "Scientific fact". Science says, "It has no alpha brain waves." Philosophy says, "Alpha brain waves define life." The biggest problem scientists run into is when they presume to take up the task of philosophy under the guise of science.
-sm
Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?
Good one. :thumbsup:
So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?
There are lots of children already available for adoption. They just don't happen to be the right age, the right color, the right background, etc. for most prospective adoptive parents.
There are people out there who desperately want children but for whatever reason can't have their own. And that's really sad. But that has nothing to do with with whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
You have to live under a rock to not know what causes kids. Yes, IMO (which everyone will probably disagree with, of course) she SHOULD have to be a human incubator. Inconvenience and/or irresponsibility is not an excuse for murder.
You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.
-sm
Yup, but if more women had the children that they so carelessly kill, it might be easier to adopt. At least, that's my opinion.
*sigh* And to Radar....too bad HIS mother didn't believe in abortion, huh? Snide remark aside, a fetus is enough of a "person" to have protection from unwanted termination, under the law, so yes, a fetus IS a person, to an extent. Once it has brain waves, I consider it a person. Again, my opinion.
/my opinion
Sidhe
It was my birfday yesterday! (Thanks to those people who wished me a Happy Birthday, you know who you are!)
Love you guys....
Happy Birfday Onyx! :grouphug: :drunk: :biggrindu :guinness: :band:
Sidhe
I assume that you are using the term 'sacred' as a synonym for valuable. Are you saying that human life is not sacred (valuable)? If so, then I disagree.
I also find your statement to be a non sequitur. That's like saying, "If you're so worried about the spotted owls, why don't you sell your furniture and help the condors?"
I have no doubt that there are needy children in Africa and elsewhere. That doesn't mean that people can't be concerned about events closer to home, as well.
Whether it is valuable or not is a whole other debate, whether it's percieved to be valuable is more the point. Society as a whole lets people die and depending where you live, kills them with amazing regularity. Heck, 20000 dead on the news is barely going to make the headlines a few days running. Why on earth should women lose legal control of their own bodies to protect the 'sanctity of human life' when clearly we have such little respect for life in general. I think insurance companies put the value of a 30y.o male at around 10k or so.
Ani Difranco put it best, anti-abortion campaigners are like fish that don't know they're wet.
This abortion debate has been much better since I've put together my iggy list. I see lots of non-posts with names of people for whom I have no desire to know what they're saying.
ah, the infamous, fingers-in-the-ears, lalalalalalala method. good form.
Ho lee crap. A
pending bill in Virginia would force women to report miscarriages to police within 12 hours, and provide as much of the following information as possible:
[size=1]place of occurrence[/size]
[size=1]usual residence of patient (mother)[/size]
[size=1]full maiden name of patient[/size]
[size=1]medical record number and social security number of patient[/size]
[size=1]Hispanic origin, if any, and race of patient[/size]
[size=1]age of patient[/size]
[size=1]education of patient[/size]
[size=1]sex of fetus[/size]
[size=1]patient married to father[/size]
[size=1]previous deliveries to patient[/size]
[size=1]single or plural delivery and order of plural delivery[/size]
[size=1]date of delivery[/size]
[size=1]date of last normal menses and physician's estimate of gestation[/size]
[size=1]weight of fetus in grams[/size]
[size=1]month of pregnancy care began (sic)[/size]
[size=1]number of prenatal visits[/size]
[size=1]when fetus died[/size]
[size=1]congenital malformations, if any[/size]
[size=1]events of labor and delivery[/size]
[size=1]medical history for this pregnancy[/size]
[size=1]other history for this pregnancy[/size]
[size=1]obstetric procedures and method of delivery[/size]
[size=1]autopsy[/size]
[size=1]medical certification of cause of spontaneous fetal death[/size]
[size=1]signature of attending physician or medical examiner including title, address and date[/size]
[size=1]signed[/size]
[size=1]method of disposal of fetus[/size]
[size=1]signature and address of funeral director or hospital representative[/size]
[size=1]date received by registrar[/size]
[size=1]registrar's signature[/size]
[size=1]registration area and report numbers.[/size]
This is all information that a doctor would currently provide to the police (!), but this bill adds the requirement to a woman who doesn't have a doctor's assistance, and gives her half the time to report it that the doctor would have.
That looks more like a Lumberjim "New Cellarite Quiz".
This is all information that a doctor would currently provide to the police (!), but this bill adds the requirement to a woman who doesn't have a doctor's assistance, and gives her half the time to report it that the doctor would have.
It would be interesting, I think, if there was some way to have our Right Honorable Legislators have to deal with some of the effects or consequences of some of the laws that they pass.
Obviously some of the "Right Honorable Legislators" should have been abortions. :mad:
Obviously some of the "Right Honorable Legislators" should have been abortions. :mad:
You're saying that they aren't? :yelsick:
Ho lee crap. A pending bill in Virginia would force women to report miscarriages to police within 12 hours, and provide as much of the following information as possible:
[size=1]place of occurrence[/size]
[size=1]usual residence of patient (mother)[/size]
[size=1]full maiden name of patient[/size]
[size=1]medical record number and social security number of patient[/size]
[size=1]Hispanic origin, if any, and race of patient[/size]
[size=1]age of patient[/size]
[size=1]education of patient[/size]
[size=1]sex of fetus[/size]
[size=1]patient married to father[/size]
[size=1]previous deliveries to patient[/size]
[size=1]single or plural delivery and order of plural delivery[/size]
[size=1]date of delivery[/size]
[size=1]date of last normal menses and physician's estimate of gestation[/size]
[size=1]weight of fetus in grams[/size]
[size=1]month of pregnancy care began (sic)[/size]
[size=1]number of prenatal visits[/size]
[size=1]when fetus died[/size]
[size=1]congenital malformations, if any[/size]
[size=1]events of labor and delivery[/size]
[size=1]medical history for this pregnancy[/size]
[size=1]other history for this pregnancy[/size]
[size=1]obstetric procedures and method of delivery[/size]
[size=1]autopsy[/size]
[size=1]medical certification of cause of spontaneous fetal death[/size]
[size=1]signature of attending physician or medical examiner including title, address and date[/size]
[size=1]signed[/size]
[size=1]method of disposal of fetus[/size]
[size=1]signature and address of funeral director or hospital representative[/size]
[size=1]date received by registrar[/size]
[size=1]registrar's signature[/size]
[size=1]registration area and report numbers.[/size]
This is all information that a doctor would currently provide to the police (!), but this bill adds the requirement to a woman who doesn't have a doctor's assistance, and gives her half the time to report it that the doctor would have.
Since a mentrual period could be considered a miscarriage (the egg is evacuated from the body) I would have every woman affected by that law write in every single month.... until they were so overwhelmed they'd overturn it.
dumbasses.
They would just raise taxes to hire enough staff to record and track them. Woe to anyone irregular. :(
I hope they don't start tracking sperm.
I hope they don't start tracking sperm.
Uh, I believe they already do that, in a round about way. They keep DNA samples from rape victims and take same from convicted sex offenders.
They are doing that in
Truro, MA
Except they are not just retaining samples collected from crime scenes or from known offenders — in an attempt to solve a murder case, the police are seeking to take a DNA sample from
all males in the town.
“I’ve never been blogged before,” he said. “The tone of the e-mails has been disgusting. It’s, 'You’re a horrible person. You ought to be crucified.’ And those were the nice ones.”
Maybe you were never this big an a-hole before?
Cosgrove said his bill was intended to add more teeth to laws penalizing women who abandon full-term infants after birth.
It reads: “When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman’s responsibility to report the death to the law-enforcement agency in the jurisdiction of which the delivery occurs within 12 hours after the delivery.” Women who failed to report the death could have been convicted of a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
[sarcasm]I'm sure most women who lose a baby immediately think, "Gee I'd better report myself to the police cuz I must be a criminal."[/sarcasm]
Well then, we took care of that. How about this AP story from Boston.com.
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine's youngest ever mother on record, an 11-year-old girl, has given birth to a healthy baby boy weighing 3.8 kilograms (8.4 pounds), a newspaper reported Thursday.
Surgeons at hospital No. 5 in the eastern city of Kharkiv delivered the infant by Caesarean section on Tuesday, the Fakty daily said, citing the unidentified mother's doctor, Valentyn Gryshchenko.
Both mother and son are in good health, but will remain in the hospital under observation for a week.
The family of the sixth-grader refused to stop the pregnancy and "put everything in the hands of fate," Gryshchenko was quoted as saying.
The boy is expected to live at home with his mother and grandmother.
The newborn's alleged father is a 26-year-old neighbor who fled fearing criminal charges when he learned of the girl's pregnancy, Fakty said. [SIZE=3]If convicted of having sexual relations with a minor, the father faces a maximum prison sentence of three years.[/SIZE]
THREE YEARS!?!?!? WTF. :eek:
[bad accent]It's Russia. Vat do you expect?[/bad accent]
Yushchenko won, it's Ukraine not Russia. ;)
Well then, we took care of that. How about this AP story from Boston.com.
THREE YEARS!?!?!? WTF. :eek:
It's his fault for not waiting until she was twelve. :yelsick: BTW, legally, you can get married at age 12 in Kansas, Massachusetts, and some other states without specific minimum ages. When Jerry Lee Lewis was 19 he married his 13 year old cousin.
I'm not going to comment until I know more about the customs of that part of the world. Personally, if the family insists on keeping the baby, and they want it to have a father, I think a special :shotgun: wedding ceremony should be planned and the groom given a choice between supporting his child and an indefinite stay in whatever gulag is still running up there.
In other news, the VA Miscarriage Bill has been pulled.
And popped back up in a watered-down form
in Texas (Enter HR702). Happily, this version doesn't put the onus on the woman, but it does require the doctor to submit patient records to the government, even information on miscarriages the woman suffered prior to her visit to the doctor.
Until the day that there is 100% infallable birth control, I am 100% pro choice. After that day, I'll re-evaluate my stance.
No, abstinance doesn't count. Rape still causes pregnancies.
A child should be a choice -- a positive one, not a negative one!
- Pie
You know, I was reading this thread again, and even when there is 100% infallible birth control, unless the person uses it 100% of the time, it's not effective.
You know, I was reading this thread again, and even when there is 100% infallible birth control, unless the person uses it 100% of the time, it's not effective.
100% infalliable birth control would have to be not only perfectly effective, but as acceptable, accessable, and inexpensive as Tylenol. And you'd only have to take it one time, until the point in time when you wish to conceive - then you take a just-as-effective antidote.
If only. . .
The five-year under-the-skin Norplant gets pretty close.
The five-year under-the-skin Norplant gets pretty close.
Truth.
Now, just make it as easy to get (and as accepted) as Tylenol, we're good.
Progress is being made... we'll get there.
Does Norplant give you cancer after a few years like bc pills? Call me immoral all you want, I'd rather have an abortion.
When are they coming out with the male version already? Keep hearing about it, it's starting to rival Duke Nukem Forever for vapourware.
The five-year under-the-skin Norplant gets pretty close.
Negative. Got pregnant with the second child on Norplant.
Does Norplant give you cancer after a few years like bc pills? Call me immoral all you want, I'd rather have an abortion.
Doesn't <i>living</i> generally give you cancer after a few years. . . ? I don't know the statistics on it, but I personally feel it's less traumatic on your body than an abortion.
I may do the Norplant (or Depo) thing soonish. I'll let you know if I start sprouting toumors and stuff. More than likely, the worst side effect will be that it'll make me moody.
Negative. Got pregnant with the second child on Norplant.
:eek:
D'you think they'll let me have both Norplant AND Depo-provera?
Doesn't living generally give you cancer after a few years. . . ? I don't know the statistics on it, but I personally feel it's less traumatic on your body than an abortion.
Go for it elf, if you're ok with it - just don't assume everyone is.
I don't agree that just living gives you cancer, and I'm not one who would rather "enjoy" life by trashing my body. I enjoy my life becuase my body is healthy. I hope to keep it that way as long as possible.
Just being cynical again, don't mind me. If I had a little more patience<small> (and smarts)</small>, I would probably be in the same boat as you.
Does Norplant give you cancer after a few years like bc pills? Call me immoral all you want, I'd rather have an abortion.
Yes it does. If a woman doesn't give birth she has a higher incidence of cancer.
Negative. Got pregnant with the second child on Norplant.
You don't count as a statistical sample. 99.99% means
somebody is going to catch every now and again. Two of my three children are purported to be BC kids.
Several of my friends have what they call "Robitussin babies."
They were on the pill, it had been working properly, and became ineffective in the face of the common cold and Robitussin DM.
If I had a little more patience<small> (and smarts)</small>,
Don't forget the neurosis, that's key. ;)
Several of my friends have what they call "Robitussin babies."
I have a tequila baby, but I guess that's not really the same thing...
Actually, the result is the same. :)
D'you think they'll let me have both Norplant AND Depo-provera?
I have a better idea: see if the hubby will get a vasectomy. My boyfriend is "fixed"--the vasectomy has got to be one of the greatest inventions known to mankind. At least for the girls. :)
I am all for adoption.
And usually it works out quite well.
However, it really is a "pig in a poke" situation.
A lot of my patients have either ceded parental rights or have had them taken away.
Many of these are babies that would be considered "high premium" on the adoption market ... cute, white, blue-eyed bundles of joy.
With a family history of mental illness and/or extreme substance abuse from both parents.
I see a lot of frustrated parents whose story starts with "Well, I adopted Timmy at birth, and it turns out that his mom was ... "
I'm a newbie, but I thought I would contribute.
The reason adoption lines are so long is because not all of the babies put up for adoption are "high premuim." Even requesting that you want a boy or a girl can cause a major delay in the adoption process. Not to mention if the child is not of the "preferred" race. And then there is the fact that the child, like wolf said, will have underlying issues because of the adoption and/or the parents habits. Also, if the woman planning on giving up the baby for adoption changes her mind and keeps the baby, there is also the possibility for her to change her mind again and put the child/infant up for adoption. But once he/she is no longer a newborn, suddenly, no one wants him/her. At least, that is the way I understand it. All I ever hear about is how we need more people to adopt children, but everone wants newborns.
And on abortion, just because someone believes that abortion is wrong, does not mean they should force their opinions on others. I agree with stricter rules on late term abortions, but that is not my choice to make. And if it was illegal, then women would just be doing it in a back alley instead. The way I see it, it someone doesn't agree with abortion, then they shouldn't do it. But they shouldn't keep others from doing it.
I'm being redundent, sorry. :o I will post more when I am more awake.
:eek:
D'you think they'll let me have both Norplant AND Depo-provera?
Norplant IS depo. Instead of getting it once every three months, its always in there.
And over half the women on Norplant have continuous breakthrough bleeding. You've ALWAYS got to wear at least a pantyliner.
Do the patches have the same effect?
my lit'l bundle o joy is the result of an ear infection treated with antibiotics. Apparently we weren't as careful this time as we were other times...what started as a pain in the ear migrated to a pain in the ass :)
I'm disinclined to believe that baby came out of your ass. :p
He's too young yet to be the other kind of pain in the ass. That only comes when they reach their teens.
The reason adoption lines are so long is because not all of the babies put up for adoption are "high premuim." Even requesting that you want a boy or a girl can cause a major delay in the adoption process. Not to mention if the child is not of the "preferred" race....snip...
welcome to the Cellar, Iggy. :)
The daughter and her hubby, of a friend of mine just did the adoption thing in
Kazakhstan. Babies have to be 6 months old and an expensive, drawn out process. But they're happy.
I have a better idea: see if the hubby will get a vasectomy. My boyfriend is "fixed"--the vasectomy has got to be one of the greatest inventions known to mankind. At least for the girls. :)
She has to get several other women's husbands fixed too.
welcome to the Cellar, Iggy. :)
The daughter and her hubby, of a friend of mine just did the adoption thing in Kazakhstan. Babies have to be 6 months old and an expensive, drawn out process. But they're happy.
I don't understand why people are allowed to adopt outside the US. But that will just take me down a long road of isolationist thinking.
*sigh* Today's going to be a bad day. I can tell....
welcome to the Cellar, Iggy. :)
The daughter and her hubby, of a friend of mine just did the adoption thing in Kazakhstan. Babies have to be 6 months old and an expensive, drawn out process. But they're happy.
I'm not absolutely sure about one kid but I think two out of three alter servers last night were adopted from overseas.
I don't understand why people are allowed to adopt outside the US. But that will just take me down a long road of isolationist thinking.
*sigh* Today's going to be a bad day. I can tell....
I don't have a proble with people having the right to do so, but it's stupid. People really need to learn how to look at problems that are closer to home before they worry about other people's problems.
I have a better idea: see if the hubby will get a vasectomy. My boyfriend is "fixed"--the vasectomy has got to be one of the greatest inventions known to mankind. At least for the girls. .
She has to get several other women's husbands fixed too.
They already are. Mine's the only one who's not. I don't think I want him to get fixed. I couldn't even tell you why-- it's just some kind of mental block or something. I'd rather be the one rendered infertile.
Norplant IS depo. Instead of getting it once every three months, its always in there.
And over half the women on Norplant have continuous breakthrough bleeding. You've ALWAYS got to wear at least a pantyliner.
Think positive. Nearly half the women <i>don't. </i> :p
I don't have a proble with people having the right to do so, but it's stupid. People really need to learn how to look at problems that are closer to home before they worry about other people's problems.
Have you considered that perhaps it's not as much about solving the other countries' problems as it is being able to adopt a baby within a year or so (unlike domestic adoptions where you can languish on waiting lists for a decade?) In addition, while foregin adoption is expensive, domestic adoption is more expensive, and has a good deal of heart-wrenching legal options for the birth parents after the fact.
Unless, of course, one is willing to take any of the thousands of pre-adolescent to adolescent children with behavioral and developmental problems. There are tons of those up for adoption in America. But I don't believe it is wrong for people to say, "I am incapable of taking care of a child like that," and instead adopt one who has no such (known) problems who just happens to be from another country.
I don't have a proble with people having the right to do so, but it's stupid. People really need to learn how to look at problems that are closer to home before they worry about other people's problems.
In this case they aren't trying to solve other peoples problems, just their own....and it's closer to Belgium than here. :)
Reading back to the begining of this thread, I REALLY wish I had replied several pages ago. There were parts of several posts that I wanted to respond to and I just put this off way too long. I cannot begin to think of a fetus like anything as insignifigant as a potato. A potato (or any other things a fetus has been compared to) will NEVER grow, in a few months, into a baby human being. No matter how few weeks along you are, in time, it WILL grow into a person. The vast majority of the many, many abortions performed daily are NOT a result of a rape or a mother's life in danger. They are mostly just inconvient to the pregnant person at that time, and the pregnant person refuses to change their priorities, or think of the best thing for anyone but themselves.
When I was 19, in between relationships, managing a restuarant, working LOTS of hours, I had a brief fling. Working 70 hrs a week and not having sex for the past few months, I had become careless with my pills. By the time I realized I was pregnant, my "fling" was already in a serious relationship and planning marriage with a great lady. Not wanting to cause problems, and not feeling anything like a "parent", I went to my OB-GYN, he confirmed that I was indeed pregnant, and my reaction was "I am not going to have a baby!" He calmly asked if I would like for him to make a recommendation, I said yes, and within two weeks, I was no longer pregnant.
In the last twenty-five years since then, I cannot describe the feelings I have had at times about the abortion. The majority of people close to me do not even know. I wish so much that somebody back then (out of the four health care professionals that I ended up dealing with before the actual abortion) had said something - anything - such as "Has anyone discussed your other options with you?, "Do you feel that you need any counseling concerning this?", or even "Do you realize that in a few months this will be a baby!?"
Of course, I knew - or certainly should have known that there was a baby inside me, but I honestly never let myself think that specifically. I just blocked everything out except the fact that I didn't have a problem, or anything to decide or be concerned with because some people were making sure of that. Thinking back now, nineteen years old is young, you think you know it all then of course. My point is that I have a lot of concern for a lot of these girls and women who are getting all these abortions, and what they may go through later. That is one thing that I'm sure is over-looked WAY too much.
When I was 27, I had my son, at 30, I had my daughter, then I had my tubes tied. My son is a healthly 18 year old, we're very close. My daughter was diagnosed with neuroblastoma (a childhood cancer) when she was 16 months old. After two surgeries, chemo, radiation, and a two-month bone marrow transplant, she died at the age of 2 1/2 years old. (Her name is Sheena Marie Gootee - her name is posted on several child loss websites). Don't mis-understand - I never, ever thought, or think, that Sheena's death was God's way of punishing me for the abortion, but still, I do have on-going guilt and regret, even all these years later. I just don't think this aspect of abortion should be over looked. And I think it has gotten too common for women to use it as a form of birth control. I got physically sick once when I had seen a pregnant lady every day for six months, her belly growing (that would be THE BABY), then three days later I saw her not pregnant. A couple of months later, she was pregnant again. Turns out, she had dumped her boyfriend for another guy, and decided that she'd rather have the new guy's baby. So she went to Houston, Texas where she could get a late term abortion (you know those where they cut them apart, limb by limb and extract the pieces). I was mortified, and boyfriend #1 went into shock, a deep depression, and was drunk the last hundred times I saw him. I normally just stay out of abortion discussions, but I felt like writing this tonight.
If you know anyone that you're concerned about who's having problems or depression, and a past abortion could possibly be a factor, please don't over-look that possibility for their sake.
Thanks so much for letting me get this out!
BH - Thank you so much for sharing your story. One meaningful story means a lot more (to me at least) than a bunch of hypothetical situations.
I don't have a proble with people having the right to do so, but it's stupid. People really need to learn how to look at problems that are closer to home before they worry about other people's problems.
Have you considered that perhaps it's not as much about solving the other countries' problems as it is being able to adopt a baby within a year or so (unlike domestic adoptions where you can languish on waiting lists for a decade?) In addition, while foregin adoption is expensive, domestic adoption is more expensive, and has a good deal of heart-wrenching legal options for the birth parents after the fact.
Unless, of course, one is willing to take any of the thousands of pre-adolescent to adolescent children with behavioral and developmental problems. There are tons of those up for adoption in America. But I don't believe it is wrong for people to say, "I am incapable of taking care of a child like that," and instead adopt one who has no such (known) problems who just happens to be from another country.
In this case they aren't trying to solve other peoples problems, just their own....and it's closer to Belgium than here. :)
I guess part of my response is flavored by being on a college campus. It's really tiresome to here from all of these yuppies about how bad it is in other countries and how they are saving a child.
I agree that adoption is a problem in America, but I guess it's partially because there are so many children that are the result of unwant or removal from homes of less that sterling health or mental state.
The beauracy doesn't help either.
What's really important is that it matters to
that kid.
I'm reminded of the story about the fella standing on the beach after a big storm. The beach is
covered with starfish, and with the sun rising and the tide falling, slow certain death awaits the starfish. So this fella is bending over, picking up a starfish, and chucking it back into the sea, again and again and again. There's another guy, he watches for a while, he sees that there's no way these starfish are going to be saved, and he walks up to the fella and asks:
"Why are you doing this? I doesn't matter what you do, thousands of these starfish are going to die."
The first guy pauses to listen, then returns to his task. He picks up another starfish and wings it back into the sea. He decides to answer the question and says:
"Because it mattered to that one."
Adopting a child from overseas, or a child that is, for some reason, a less desirable candidate for adoption, is in almost every circumstance, a Good Thing. Or adopting any child. There are exceptions, sometimes horrid, evil exceptions, (
no link), but they're far, far rarer that the other end of the spectrum where a family is enlarged by one (or more),
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
I don't understand why people are allowed to adopt outside the US. But that will just take me down a long road of isolationist thinking.
*sigh* Today's going to be a bad day. I can tell....
Originally posted by troubleshooter (in response to OC)
I don't have a proble with people having the right to do so, but it's stupid. People really need to learn how to look at problems that are closer to home before they worry about other people's problems.
That's just wrong thinking. Your opinion, sure, whatever. There's a big difference between
talk on a college campus about "fixing the problems of those poor people" and
action in the form of welcoming a child into one's family. Big difference. Talk's cheap (especially around here), but
acting, doing this, I can't imagine the motivation for such a big lifelong, lifechanging event is about "fixing the problems of those poor people".
I see motivations like love for children, family dominating the decision making process. I am not an adoptee, or and adopter, so I can't say from first hand experience. But if I were to adopt, I mean, if we were to adopt a child, it would be because of our love for kids and each other and our family.
The truth of the statement that you can't save the world, or even a part closer to you than a part farther away is **not** sufficient reason to try to save a part you can.
This, too, is a [SIZE=4]Good Thing.[/SIZE]
*cough*
Good one, jag.
When I was 19, in between relationships, managing a restuarant, working LOTS of hours, I had a brief fling. Working 70 hrs a week and not having sex for the past few months, I had become careless with my pills. By the time I realized I was pregnant, my "fling" was already in a serious relationship and planning marriage with a great lady. Not wanting to cause problems, and not feeling anything like a "parent", I went to my OB-GYN, he confirmed that I was indeed pregnant, and my reaction was "I am not going to have a baby!" He calmly asked if I would like for him to make a recommendation, I said yes, and within two weeks, I was no longer pregnant.
Thanks for the story, BH.
IF...you had been counseled do you think you would have put the baby up for adoption?....or kept it?
Have you thought about how you would have supported yourself when you couldn't work those 70 hours a week due to the pregnancy?
Now that you've had a couple kids you're well aware of how they dominate your life and time. You must be aware how difficult it would be to raise a kid and support you both. Do you think you were ready for that challange at 19?
I think you're in a unique position to tell us these things. I also personally think you've beat yourself up too much over this...let it go and enjoy your son. :)
Wow Bruce - you've given me some things to think about. I really do not know what I would have done if I had been counseled, I guess I may even have still had the abortion. I firmly do not believe I was ready for the challenge of motherhood at 19. And maybe I have beat myself up too much over this. Reading that sentence did make me feel better! I know adoption isn't an easy decision either. I have known a couple of girls who have stressed for years after making that decision too.
I think maybe what surprised me most when I thought back to the time when I had the abortion was how easy it was, and I just wasn't sure it should be that easy.
(Maybe I feel guilty now because I didn't feel guilty then...??) When I start feeling guilt about it, I'll start thinking about those questions of yours. Thanks for the support....
What's really important is that it matters to that kid.
I'm reminded of the story about the fella standing on the beach after a big storm. The beach is covered with starfish, and with the sun rising and the tide falling, slow certain death awaits the starfish. So this fella is bending over, picking up a starfish, and chucking it back into the sea, again and again and again. There's another guy, he watches for a while, he sees that there's no way these starfish are going to be saved, and he walks up to the fella and asks:
"Why are you doing this? I doesn't matter what you do, thousands of these starfish are going to die."
The first guy pauses to listen, then returns to his task. He picks up another starfish and wings it back into the sea. He decides to answer the question and says:
"Because it mattered to that one."
Cool story, seriously, and I agree with it.
Adopting a child from overseas, or a child that is, for some reason, a less desirable candidate for adoption, is in almost every circumstance, a Good Thing. Or adopting any child. There are exceptions, sometimes horrid, evil exceptions, (no link), but they're far, far rarer that the other end of the spectrum where a family is enlarged by one (or more),
I'm not sure of your point here, but It's getting to the point where it is easier and safer to adopt from a foreign country than to adopt here. Many of the children here are castoff by by their DNA donors because they have habits that have given the child a huge case of baggage to look forward to when they're older. Also the hoops that adopters have to go through, and not all of them are unwarranted, can be arduous, additionally, if you're not a soon-to-be buclear family it can take you out of the running before the gunshot.
That's just wrong thinking. Your opinion, sure, whatever. There's a big difference between talk on a college campus about "fixing the problems of those poor people" and action in the form of welcoming a child into one's family. Big difference. Talk's cheap (especially around here), but acting, doing this, I can't imagine the motivation for such a big lifelong, lifechanging event is about "fixing the problems of those poor people".
I see motivations like love for children, family dominating the decision making process. I am not an adoptee, or and adopter, so I can't say from first hand experience. But if I were to adopt, I mean, if we were to adopt a child, it would be because of our love for kids and each other and our family.
The truth of the statement that you can't save the world, or even a part closer to you than a part farther away is **not** sufficient reason to try to save a part you can.
Wrong thinking? Possibly. But the talk I heard on campus in one instance was from a political science instructor as he and his wife went through the motions of adopting a child from China*. That's not hearsay or conjecture. I'm quite willing to bet that they will love and care for the child regardless of their motivations for going outside of the country to get her.
The problems that I see are:
1) the difficulty and capriciousness of the American adoption system
2) the history of the adoptee children or DNA donors (drugs, insanty, usually both)
3) the growing numbers of children with these problems
4) people's unwillingness to help these children
Each of those problems requires a different solution.
* Edit: That fact that it is easier to work with
China, and to fly back and forth repeatedly and so on says a lot about problem number one.
snip...(Maybe I feel guilty now because I didn't feel guilty then...??) When I start feeling guilt about it, I'll start thinking about those questions of yours. Thanks for the support....
too many people spend their lives on coulda/shoulda/woulda.
Something presents itself to you, make the best decision you can with the information you can get....then live with the results and watch for the next junction. Look ahead not back.
The fallacy of mulling over a decision you made years ago is you are taking it out of the time and place. The situation you were in and your mindset at the time of the choice has everything to do with it.
Let's see now....hmmm, I thought A was a better choice so I chose B. NO, you did what you thought was best at the time therefore it was the right choice for the time. :)
More good points Bruce! I think now that I have very possibly been thinking that losing Sheena in such a long, drawn out, painful, way (for her, me, her dad, and brother) that it was my punishment, although I kept insisting that I didn't feel that. I have decided to deal with this in a new way. After all, the kids who are HERE are the only ones who we can make a difference with now, in their lives. From what I've heard the last several months, there are two kids who I may be able to help make a difference with. I have a 17 yr old nephew who has never been acknowledged by my family, and from the problems he's had lately, being accepted by his biological dad's family may help him, according to some of his Mom's family. (The Mom refuses to discuss it). There's also a 20 yr old girl who is most likely my son's half-sister. She has desperately wanted to know who her father is, but her Mom would never let my ex-husband do the testing to find out (after he FINALLY offered, when we lost our daughter). My ex, my son, and I have agreed to do anything that this girl wants to happen - whether it is to do the testing, or just to accept her as family. My son would be her only (half) sibling. If neither of these kids want anything to do with us, we'll just have to understand, but from what I've heard, that's probably not the situation. I'm going to focus my energy on doing whatever is best for these two kids. Hopefully it will affect their adult lives in a positive way.
And this way, maybe I can avoid more of these coulda/shoulda/woulda thoughts concerning these two kids later on in my life. I will just have to approach things delicately, and put their wishes first, of course.
Again - thanks for the support!!! :)
When I was 16, I got pregnant. I had the child and gave him up for adoption to my (then) husband's aunt and uncle. I got pregnant again at 18 and went to Vegas for an abortion. (The first husband was very abusive and is now in prison for murder.)
After I was divorced from first husband, I became engaged and ended up getting pregnant again. His mother convinced us now was not the time for a baby, since we were in school and he still lived with her. I had another abortion and there were complications. It was not fun.
Years later, I had an option to go get my son back, and I did so. (Full story in the "Seriousness that changed you" thread in Philosophy.)
So I've been the abortion route, AND I've been the adoption route.
IMO, the adoption route is MUCH harder. I wondered every day how he was doing, what he looked like, what games did he enjoy, I mean, everything an absent parent thinks.
I do have some guilt over the two babies I killed (and I have no illusions that is exactly what I did) but I've learned what Bruce points out - Look Forward, not behind. My guilt about what I did then is now one of my life's lessons.
I tell my children that every action has a consequence, and every choice is your own to make.
I think that abortion SHOULD be a choice, open to all women.
IMO, that little thing *is* a baby. From Conception. Couch it in whatever terms you want, but the fact is, if not killed, a baby comes out. You don't say "I had a fetus today!" or "We're going to have a parasite!" or in the western movies, "She's with zygote!"
MY morals should have nothing to do with anyone else's morals. I don't have to like what another woman is doing, I can only state my opinion and tell my life experiences. But it's still that woman's choice to kill that baby, give it up for adoption, or keep it.
IMO, that little thing *is* a baby. From Conception. Couch it in whatever terms you want, but the fact is, if not killed, a baby comes out. You don't say "I had a fetus today!" or "We're going to have a parasite!" or in the western movies, "She's with zygote!"
Not so sure about that. I've heard 'unwanted flesh and blood' from one girl and similar stuff from a couple of others that were having abortions.
Well, again that's my opinion.
Why is it that people change the terms of something to make it sound "more acceptable". I mean, it's ALOT harder to say "Yes, I killed my unborn child" than to say "Yes, I terminated a parasitic relationship." Both mean the same thing, but one sounds less "bad".
Why is it that people change the terms of something to make it sound "more acceptable". I mean, it's ALOT harder to say "Yes, I killed my unborn child" than to say "Yes, I terminated a parasitic relationship." Both mean the same thing, but one sounds less "bad".
Actually, though both mean the same thing
to you, they don't nec'ly mean the same thing to everyone. So, some people probably use a term you would consider "less 'bad'" because it defines what that individual actually feels she is doing, you know?
Not everyone thinks of an abortion as murdering a baby, so not everyone is going to call it that.
Yes, they do mean the same thing.
The procedure is exactly the same, regardless of how you couch it in semantics.
The outcome is the same, regardless of what you call it.
The procedure is exactly the same
Forget procedure for a minute, some people don't consider a
baby and a
fetus to be the same thing. I don't. I had an ultrasound when I was pregnant, I saw a fetus - a
potential baby. Everything developed ok from there and I ended up with a baby, instead of losing a fetus at some point, regardless of manner.
We can't forget the procedure when it's the procedure we're talking about.
No, that's your opinion. Of course, people with those opinions tend to think they are absolutely right, so it's not entirely your fault.
How many times have I stated that I'm giving my opinion? How many times have I posted that it should be a woman's choice?
And I'm very rarely absolutely right. And I don't appreciate the sarcasm.
We can't forget the procedure when it's the procedure we're talking about.
You're saying the procedure is "killing a baby", and that people only use other terms to make it sound less bad. I'm saying no, some people really do see it differently. Some people don't think it's a baby, they think its a fetus, and their opinion isn't motivated by the need to make it sound less bad to anyone else.
You're right, some people may see it as merely a "bit of tissue".
But the procedure itself doesn't change. It doesn't matter what you call the life inside that no longer exists after the abortion is performed.
IMO, many (obviously not all) people DO try to couch it in terms to make themselves feel better.
You keep prefacing what appear to be statements of fact with "it's my opinion," but as soon as I pointed out something, referring to it as your opinion, and not a fact, you were quick to say that no, it was actually a fact, and not your opinon.
In case you forgot:
You: "Yes, I killed my unborn child" than to say "Yes, I terminated a parasitic relationship." Both mean the same thing.
Me: They don't mean the same thing to everyone.
You: Yes, they do mean the same thing.
This doesn't seem to be you saying that it is your opinion that they mean the same thing. It appears that you are implying that they do, factually, mean the same thing.
IMO, many (obviously not all) people DO try to couch it in terms to make themselves feel better.
Where as you couch it in term to make yourself feel worse? It's more ok to have an abortion if you beat yourself up a lot afterwards? I don't get it.
It doesn't matter what you call the life inside that no longer exists after the abortion is performed.
Well it does if you don't consider it a life to start with....
I mean I've talked to friends about this, they saw it, very simply as an accident, not really that much different to an STD, it was a medical problem that had to be delt with, end of story. Not a life, just a bunch of cells. Doesn't mean they don't want to have kids later in life however.
i'm a guy so i should just learn my lesson and stay out of this, but i'm also a cellarite and that requires me to stick my nose in. er, something to that effect.
i think what OC is getting at is that what bothers her is when people use euphamisms to minimalize the importance of their decision.
i understand that because i feel the same way when listening to military members talk about the experiences they've had in "eliminating enemy combatants". that one busts my chaps. when we pull the trigger, we end lives. we kill people. we destroy families. if you can't do your job without having to depersonalize it with euphamisms, you shouldn't be a trigger puller.
from my perspective, it is ending a life. a woman has a legal right to do that, but euphamisms bug me.
Thanks, Lookout. That is mostly what I meant. And 6 is right. I did do that. Corrected.
There's a heck of a lot less debate about whether pumping someone full of lead is killing them than (at the bottom end) whether using something like RU486 is murder. You shoot a living, breathing person, they die, it's fairly straightforward. Is 16 cells a life? 100? 1000?
Similarly, some people see a pile of plywood and nails and call it a pile of plywood and nails, but OC calls it a house.
[SIZE=1]being an ass and i know it[/SIZE]
it's going to degenerate from here anyway, you might as well throw in the petrol can while you're at it.
Similarly, some people see a pile of plywood and nails and call it a pile of plywood and nails, but OC calls it a house.
I like that!
Tsk tsk UT. Leave the bad analogies to me.
The pro abortion crowd doesn't think it's a house until the final coat of paint has dried and a poofy haired realtor has hammered a sold sign in the yard. Up till then, it's a uninhabitable collection of building materials - just burn it down.
Not only a bad analogy but a straw man to boot.
Or maybe, it's a house but not a home?
The pro abortion crowd doesn't think it's a house until the final coat of paint has dried and a poofy haired realtor has hammered a sold sign in the yard. Up till then, it's a uninhabitable collection of building materials - just burn it down.
No, that's just how radical pro-lifers like to portray anyone who is in favor of legalized abortion. Yup, we're all evil and our goal in life is to kill every baby we can get our hands on. Hide the kids, everyone! Hurry! :eyebrow:
petrol added, match lit.................
Similarly, some people see a pile of plywood and nails and call it a pile of plywood and nails, but OC calls it a house.
[SIZE=1]being an ass and i know it[/SIZE]
?? WTF?
How can a pile of plywood and nails be compared to an unborn child?
A pile of plywood and nails can be shaped into any structure, while a human baby, barring severe abnormalities causing miscarriage, if left unkilled, will ALWAYS come out to be a human baby.
That was a dumb analogy, UT. And people need to stop "thinking" for me. "OC calls it this" and "OC thinks that". I don't do it to you. Please offer me the same respect.
While there's a lot that OC and I don't agree on, we on the same page here. Tissue or fetus, it's a baby. I think I posted elsewhere in the thread about the pro-abortion/pro-choice semantic game.
You keep prefacing what appear to be statements of fact with "it's my opinion," but as soon as I pointed out something, referring to it as your opinion, and not a fact, you were quick to say that no, it was actually a fact, and not your opinon.
In case you forgot:
You: "Yes, I killed my unborn child" than to say "Yes, I terminated a parasitic relationship." Both mean the same thing.
Me: They don't mean the same thing to everyone.
You: Yes, they do mean the same thing.
This doesn't seem to be you saying that it is your opinion that they mean the same thing. It appears that you are implying that they do, factually, mean the same thing.
From Merriam-Webster:
Opinion:
a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
I guess, in a way, my opinion is my perception of fact. That doesn't mean it's your perception or that we have to agree or that I'm always right.
So you're right. My opinion is that saying "I killed my unborn baby" IS the same thing as "I terminated a parasitic relationship." You don't have to hold to that opinion, and obviously you don't. But until you bring forward evidence to change my mind, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
posted by Jinx
Where as you couch it in term to make yourself feel worse? It's more ok to have an abortion if you beat yourself up a lot afterwards? I don't get it.
That's not what I'm saying.
Some people have no problem with multiple abortions as a form of birth control. Some people don't hold the same beliefs I do. And that's ok. What I'm saying is that my beliefs say that killing an unborn baby is wrong (with limited exceptions) and that whatever YOU may call it, I call it a baby. So to me, it is indeed, "killing an unborn baby".
posted by Jaguar
There's a heck of a lot less debate about whether pumping someone full of lead is killing them than (at the bottom end) whether using something like RU486 is murder. You shoot a living, breathing person, they die, it's fairly straightforward. Is 16 cells a life? 100? 1000?
I believe life starts at conception. If left alone, those cells mature into a human baby.
posted by Garnet
No, that's just how radical pro-lifers like to portray anyone who is in favor of legalized abortion. Yup, we're all evil and our goal in life is to kill every baby we can get our hands on. Hide the kids, everyone! Hurry!
And of course, all pro-lifers are radical, and overgeneralize like you just did.
I am staunchy pro-choice, because my morals should not be the standard for all women. It SHOULD be the individual woman's choice, guided by her morals and her beliefs. At the end of the day, she and her baby are the ones who have to live or die in the consequence of that choice.
I posted this in another thread where I thought it was on topic but the argument roared on without me. The jumping off point was whether or not abortion is murder. It speaks to when personhood begins. I think it is appropriate here.
The core question
For a murder to happen, a person has to be killed. If the an abortion is defined as murder, and the victim as a person, then much, much more should change to be consistent with the stance that the rights of the fetus/embryo/zygote include more that just protection from murder.
I find the prospect that the abortion of a zygote, while certainly “alive”, should, could be considered “murder” as sensible as the prospect that a woman carrying this zygote should be counted as two people in any other circumstance. If she drinks, smokes, or does any other legal physical activities minors are prohibited from, is she breaking the law? If “it’s” a person, and murder-able, why--no--how can the discussion stop there? Which brings come to…
[SIZE=4][CENTER]There question in the abortion debate:
[SIZE=5]"When does human personhood begin?"[/SIZE]
A description of all viewpoints
[/CENTER][/SIZE]
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm
This is a calm, reasoned, informed discussion of the facts and opinions on all sides. I do not know of a “bright line” that separates one side from the other. I expect that search for such a line will be futile and acrimonious, because such a line does not exist. It is a range, not a point. At either end of the spectrum, the decision is clear, but in the immortal words of Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, “What was that part in the middle?”. The middle (range) is the part where lots of stuff happens, including personhood. That’s where the answer lies, along a continuum. After all, we’re human beings, taking nine months to develop. For me the emphasis here is on the being, as an active verb, as well as a noun. We don’t talk of dead people as “human was’es” or of a pregnant woman’s baby as a “human will-be’s”.
In the Roe v Wade decision, dividing the pregnancy into trimesters seems a wise, Solomonic decision, the best possible resolution in a minefield of difficult choices. To consider the independent viability of the fetus in the first trimester to be approximately zero, the court concluded that the decision was a medical judgment to be decided by the woman and her physician. In the third trimester where viability is much more likely permitted the court to consider a fetus more like a person and entitled to more recognition as such.
The search for a single marker to define personhood, and from that murder, and medical procedure and everything in between is doomed.
Saying “I’m pregnant” doesn’t work in carpool lanes either, (except in California, predictably).
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20041122.html
__________________
Yours,
And of course, all pro-lifers are radical, and overgeneralize like you just did.
Uhhh, where did I say ALL pro-lifers are radical? I simply stated that mrnoodle's comments sounded like the words of a pro-lifer who is radical on his/her position. I don't believe all pro-lifers are radical, and would never say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
If left alone, those cells mature into a human baby.
So which is it? Cells or a baby? You've called it both in the above sentence, and you can't have it both ways.
You're cells, but you're presumably also a fully grown human adult. I think the sticking point with me is that, while I'm radically pro-life (who ISN'T pro-life?), I would never do any of the things that the militant anti-abortionists do, but I'm lumped in with them. I'm not going to feign offense over being called "radical". I was answering UT's analogy with one that I thought was equally excessive and silly.
And for the record, I'm not hypocritical. I think pregnant women smoking or doing drugs when they know the effect on the baby constitutes child abuse, and maybe attempted murder. I think abortion is the killing of a living human (but I won't go so far as to call it murder - there are justifiable reasons for ending pregnancy).
People are so afraid that some religious nut is going to tell them how to live their lives that they fail to realize that there are real people on the other side of the argument. I don't give a rat's ass what you do with your body or your ovaries or what the hell ever. But if I really think that's a person living inside of you, wouldn't I be remiss if I didn't speak out in his/her defense when no one else would?
You'd do the same thing for a dog, but a human life somehow isn't that valuable. I don't get it.
Uhhh, where did I say ALL pro-lifers are radical? I simply stated that mrnoodle's comments sounded like the words of a pro-lifer who is radical on his/her position. I don't believe all pro-lifers are radical, and would never say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
Your comment was a gross overgeneralization, and I pointed it out with another overgeneralization. You
seem to call a set system of beliefs that differ from your own "radical".
So which is it? Cells or a baby? You've called it both in the above sentence, and you can't have it both ways.
Unborn babies, infants, children, adults and old people all have cells. You're a group of cells, correct?
BigV - Your post is insightful and well reasoned. And will be ignored. What's going on here isn't really debate. It's more -- demolition derby.
You seem to call a set system of beliefs that differ from your own "radical".
No, you are
choosing to read my post that way so that you can make your point and prove that everyone is picking on you and your beliefs. I clarified what I said, yet you are continuing to insist that I'm insulting you and others opposed to abortion. I'm not.
There's a heck of a lot less debate about whether pumping someone full of lead is killing them than (at the bottom end) whether using something like RU486 is murder. You shoot a living, breathing person, they die, it's fairly straightforward. Is 16 cells a life? 100? 1000?
Well, the flames are licking at the walls of this doomed thread so I'm pretty much done here. i save my overly defensive name calling posts for tw.
Jag - i wasn't comparing shooting a soldier and aborting a child. i was talking about people who display the need to couch unfortunate, unpleasant actions in euphamistic terms. that is a pet peeve of mine.
"eliminating an enemy combatant" - call it what it is - Killing a person
"terminating a pregnancy" to me has the same ring to it.
mind you, i support the right to choose i just don't like all the justifications that seem to go along with it. admit what is really happening.
*********hey look - the ceiling seems to be about to cave in on this thread*********
That was apparent by the title. Everyone always leaves miffed from this argument.
i was talking about people who display the need to couch unfortunate, unpleasant actions in euphamistic terms.
They have to be more specific than "killing a person"
I feel that killing a person can't be compared with killing a person because....
You get my drift? :)
Would this not lead into a debate about what killing is? Many times have there been debates about the difference between killing and murder. I see both as negative while many of my friends would nix abortion because they believe it to be murder, and not just "killing".
Apparently to my friends, you can kill someone on a battlefield, with no thought or plan and it'd be alright, but if you plan to kill them before-hand, such as murderr, having the intention of killing them, that would be bad.
But in the end, when wars start and you are put on the battlefield, don't all soldiers have the intentions and plot to kill the "enemy"? Is there a difference at all, or are they just making excuses for their bloodlust not being sin?
I'm not against abortion because there are factors that most of the pro-life people can't put into their own context. I've grown up with friends being abused, molested, etc. etc. Their biggest fear was having a child, and if that wasn't enough, the pain of just having it taken away because she can't take care of it. It's her life, her body, her child. Not everyone has the blessing of being in a situation when they can take care of a child, should they still have to bear through child-birth for the sole-purpose of it being taken away?
From
another post:
An Estonian anti-abortion ad (I think):
Smoking chicks and hatching chicksIt's her life, her body, her child. Not everyone has the blessing of being in a situation when they can take care of a child, should they still have to bear through child-birth for the sole-purpose of it being taken away?
Yes, for the same reason why you shouldn't euthanize old people. My grandmother was very ill towards the end of her life, and my parents and I took care of her. My folks tried to do it themselves, but they're senior citizens in their own right, and mom couldn't handle it. They could've put her in a nursing home (thus hastening her death and taking all the emotional pain and physical exhaustion brought by caring for a bed-ridden parent), but instead, I moved back in and took "the night shift".
When things were at their most difficult, we would go to bed at night hoping for EVERYONE's sake that Nana would just slip away in the night, but we weren't that lucky. Taking care of her was purely a labor of love, and respect for her as a human being. We each probably erased 5 years off our own lifespans in that time.
I realize there's a component to the mother/child relationship that I'll never understand, so the parallel might not be accurate. But I say we should give human life the respect it deserves, and not be too cavalier about ending it just to save ourselves heartache, pain, or other misfortunes.
So does that mean we should not respect the life and decisions of the mother-figure, herself? To respect life is to respect the choices they've made, whether good or bad. It's a question of philosophy and beliefs.
If there was perhaps a religion that had no say in this debate, one that even stated that it would agree to abortion, would this debate be thought of as prejudice? To deny rights that a religion and/or their personal beliefs?
Who says that they are not respecting life? Is mercy in guarunteeing them no pain considered wrong?
Well, the abortion debate in Kansas has certainly heated up with
this . I would bet that even many staunch pro-lifers would balk at what is being attempted here.
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas attorney general, a staunch opponent of abortion, has demanded the medical records of nearly 90 woman and girls who had late-term abortions, saying he needs the material to investigate crimes.
The two abortion clinics involved in the case say the state has no right to such personal information and are fighting the request in the Kansas Supreme Court.
But Attorney General Phill Kline insisted Thursday he needs the records because he has "the duty to investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children."
So he's trying to force his way into their medical records to
protect them.
Sex involving someone under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and it is illegal in the state for doctors to perform an abortion after 22 weeks unless there is reason to believe it is needed to protect the mother's health.
So is he looking for victims or potential defendents?
The clinics said Kline demanded their complete, unedited medical records for women and girls who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancies in 2003. Court papers did not identify the clinics.
The records sought include the patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile.
The clinics are offering to provide records with some key information, including names, edited out.
You know, after looking at how the law may be abused by an overly zealous AG, I may actually be forced to admit
that Rush Limbaugh is right about something . Of course, in Rush's case, he pretty much admitted to being an addict.
Now from
this document (PDF) from health and human services, it appears that the AG would require victims consent to release documents related to an abuse investigation, so his first argument that he is seeking these womens information to protect them won't fly.
Will this HIPAA Privacy Rule make it easier for police and law enformcement agencies to get my medical information?
Answer
No. The Rule does not expand current law enforcement access to individually identifiable health information. In fact, it limits access to a greater degree than currently exists, since the Rule establishes new procedures and safeguards that restrict the circumstances under which a covered entity may give such information to law enforcement officers.
For example, the Rule limits the type of information that covered entities may disclose to law enforcement, absent a warrant or other prior process, when law enforcement is seeking to identify or locate a suspect. It specifically prohibits disclosure of DNA information for this purpose, absent some other legal requirements such as a warrant. Similarly, under most circumstances, the Privacy Rule requires covered entities to obtain permission from persons who have been the victim of domestic violence or abuse before disclosing information about them to law enforcement. In most States, such permission is not required today.
Where State law imposes additional restrictions on disclosure of health information to law enforcement, those State laws continue to apply. This Rule sets a national floor of legal protections; it is not a set of “best practices.”
Even in those circumstances when disclosure to law enforcement is permitted by the Rule, the Privacy Rule does not require covered entities to disclose any information. Some other Federal or State law may require a disclosure, and the Privacy Rule does not interfere with the operation of these other laws. However, unless the disclosure is required by some other law, covered entities should use their professional judgment to decide whether to disclose information, reflecting their own policies and ethical principles. In other words, doctors, hospitals, and health plans could continue to follow their own policies to protect privacy in such instances.
This document from the same source actually says that providers can be forced to give up the information.
I believe life starts at conception. If left alone, those cells mature into a human baby.
Yes but if I step on an acorn, I kill an acorn, not an oak tree.
Well, the abortion debate in Kansas has certainly heated up with this .
Well, your durn tootin. All life is precious so the Attorney General should track these women down and kill them. :rolleyes:
Well, your durn tootin. All life is precious so the Attorney General should track these women down and kill them. :rolleyes:
I don't think he wants to murder them. A scarlet letter and some time in the stocks would probably suffice for him. Of course, he could just find the ones who were raped and have them relive it over and over in a courtroom.
I don't believe he won't persecute to the best of his ability, otherwise he wouldn't have started this crap. :(
I don't believe he won't [size=6]per[/size]secute to the best of his ability, otherwise he wouldn't have started this crap. :(
Don't you have a way with words.
Sad, eloquent, true.
PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed a series of anti-abortion bills, including one that requires doctors to tell women the procedure ends the lives of humans, his office announced Thursday.
The bill-signings further tighten state abortion restrictions that some characterize as among the toughest in the nation.
One of the four new laws requires doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before an abortion that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their fetuses.
...snip...
A fourth new law establishes a state task force to study the history of abortion since 1973 and to see if other laws need changing. Abortion opponents said science, medicine and technology have changed considerably since the Roe v. Wade decision.
This is just peachy. Imagine all of the new psuedo-science that can be included here. Abortion causes cancer, acne, hair loss?
severe cramps? infections that may cause sterility? uncontrollable hemorraging? death?
Controversial Wichita abortionist Dr George Tiller was shot to death today...at church. This will undoubtedly turn out to be a crime committed by someone who reasoned that they were saving the lives of future unborn children. Therefore, it can be assumed that "Thou shalt not kill" is arbitrary, even to the religious. Since they've killed Dr Tiller, doesn't that pretty much follow that it is okay to kill anyone, at any time, for any reason, as long as you think it is a really, really *good* reason?
[extreme sarcasm] Praise God. [/extreme sarcasm] :headshake
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_re_us/us_tiller_shooting_3
WICHITA, Kan. – Media outlets are reporting that late-term abortion doctor George Tiller has been shot and killed at his church in Wichita, Kan.
Anonymous police sources told The Wichita Eagle and other media that the 67-year-old doctor was killed Sunday morning at Reformation Lutheran Church.
Police spokesman Gordon Bassham would not confirm the victim's identity pending notification of relatives but said a 67-year-old "high-profile individual in the community" was shot and killed.
Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortions. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades and he was shot and wounded by a protester in 1993.
They caught him..
The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was arrested some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.
it is okay to kill anyone, at any time, for any reason, as long as you think it is a really, really *good* reason?
...or detain them indefinitely. Same rationality.
Abortion doesn't kill people. In fact not a single human death has ever occurred in the history of all abortions other than the deaths of young girls getting botched back alley abortions from butchers because some jackasses wanted to violate the fundamental right of all women to get an abortion if they so choose by making an illegitimate law.
I could care less at which point human life begins. I care about when human rights begin, and those begin at birth and not a second before.
It wouldn't matter if a fully-sentient human being was inside the body of another and they were capable of speech and begged for their life. As long as they reside within the body of another person (regardless of how they got there...it doesn't matter why someone got pregnant) and they have never been born (this prevents the idiots from using an example of someone kidnapping someone and sewing them into their own body)... they have ZERO human rights.
Killing any organism within the confines of your own body is not murder. It doesn't matter if it's a tumor, a tapeworm, or even a fully sentient human being. It has no rights.
We each have SOLE DOMINION over our own body and its contents. Our decisions as to what will or won't live within the confines of our body is not to be questioned any more than someone would question god as to why babies die. We are the GOD of our own body and no other person, group of people, or government has any say in what we do with the contents of our body.
Once again we see how the hypocritical right-wing zealots and religious wing nuts claiming to respect the "sanctity of life" don't really care about the sanctity of human life if that human happens to be an abortion doctor helping women with a medical procedure that they have every right to get.
No person, group of people (regardless of their number) or government has any authority whatsoever to forcibly prevent or punish an abortion any more than a single woman would have the authority to force all other women to get an abortion.
They caught him..
Supposedly this guy has a history of mental illness too.
...
That being said: Abortion is an intensely private affair.
Your reason for abortion may not be mine.
There are all kinds of women.
..they're are all kinds of reasons for doing what we do ...
and hoping we are (at least to ourselves) true.
I advocate compassionate listening to each side and admit
a lot of things have been done in the wrong.
To Wit:
Texas Orders Health Clinics to Turn Over Patient Data
NY Times - TAMAR LEWIN - OCT. 23, 2015
Three days after Gov. Greg Abbott announced his decision to end Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood,
state health department investigators showed up on Thursday at Planned Parenthood health centers
in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Brownsville with orders to turn over thousands of pages of documents,
including patients’ records and employees’ home addresses and telephone numbers.
Some, but not all, of the extensive records sought by the state related specifically to abortion.
...
It's no longer a religious issue, it's G.O.P. political.
.
Isn't that a violation of federal HIPAA privacy laws? I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but the feds mean privacy from everyone but them.
I'd say this is unbelievable but we have reached this point haven't we. Catch Carson's comments about monitoring speech on campus? Its like these guys feel cornered which I guess they do. They've gerrymandered the hell out of the electoral districts so they feel safe but the country is changing so fast...
Yes fast, hop on the hellbound train...
It's no longer a religious issue, it's G.O.P. political.
.
Not a political issue for the D's? dud, you are so partisanly full of shit your eyes are brown.