Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[Hachimitsu]

(and the government is busy trying to take away adoption rights from those Evil Gay People who want to do monstrous things like give children homes.)

I haven't read entirely what you posted TP, but what you said here is the number 1 reason why I support gay marriage. (Maybe eventually we could have another thread on that. (still back reading).

[anthriel]

Judging by the way my two kids rook me for cash they are still parasites in their 20's. Lovable ones though.

[Jnyusa]

What Voronwë said!

I've also seen a number of key decision factors suggested in this thread, and it would be nice if we could summarize and refine them at some point. It really is neat to see a bunch of intelligent people talking about such a difficult subject and managing to winnow down their ideas to the main principles that rule their decisions.

I wish the country as a whole and its lawmakers could have this kind of discussion. We'd be a lot farther ahead on this issue than we are right now.

Jn

[Hachimitsu]

I have finally read the whole entire thread. Unfortunately I have a long commute ahead of me before I can fully post my ideas, but I will try to say something now.

First I find early on in the thread there were a lot of very difficult hypothetical quetions asked but there didn't seem to be any attempts to answer them. So I will attempt to answer one of Cerin's question although it will be difficult.

I pretty much agree with Hobby on a couple of things particularly life begins at conception. I don't agree with destroying embryos for stem cells and I do not think if I were raped I would abort the baby. (Although, I understand other people deciding to have one because of the constant reminder of the trauma) the only time I think abortion is realy OK when there are deformities and ectopic pregnancies. For Down's Syndrome, in my mind I do not think I would do it since disabled people are people too but I don't know if I could handle raisng a child, maybe I could and I am underestimating myself. I am of the really realy uh strict conservative notion that if a man or woman decide to have sex then they should be prepared to deal with the idea of pregnancy. ( I put in 'decide' because alot of the time one or both people are not able to decide, there have been wars where male soldiers have been threatened with death if they don't rape female refugees so it effects men too.) I noticed TP kind of mentioned that in a quote from some activist groups but with the exclusion of women. That I do not think is fair. That is why in my life I have decided not to put myself at risk for pregnancy at all because I know at this point in my life I can't adequately deal with that issue. Also, I don't want to be a single mother. At all. so I have made sure I don't end up in that situation. At all.


But at the end of the day I can't force another person to bear a child if they do not want to. That is ultimately what it comes down to for me. I think Tosh put it perfectly. I do not have sovreignty (sp?) over another persons body ( that includes a persons sex life too I can't decide that ether). Also, if I were so arrogant to think that then I would have to be just as easily prepared to be treated in a similar fashion and let other people make decsions for me on the most important isues in my life. So although I would love if no one felt a need for an abortion I ultimately can't make that decision for them since ultimately, it's not my decision to make. Just like if I were to end up pregnant ultimately it's my decsion to make and to only consider others whose advice or opinions I care about. Not a government. That is at the crux of this whole thing for me. The discsussion on B77 about the issue really crystalized that conclusion for me. Ultimately whether it's marriage or schooling or abortion or anything else, I do not think it is right for a person to make decisions for another person or group of people.

Since I do not think abortion is a good what I really have to do rather then making decisions for other people, I have to back up my beleifs and make the world a better place so fewer people would not feel the need to seek out abortion in the first place. If there was a friend who was unsure of what to do and I encouraged her not to have an abortion, and she had the baby I would have back up what I say and support her through motherhood. For example being there to babysit. I couldn't abandon her like that. I find alot of anti abortion groups don't really follow through on what they claim or say after proclaiming that a woman should not have an abortion. THey almost never answer the what to do after the baby is born issue. Those 2 issues go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Online I have only seen 1 person really back up her beleifs on the prolife stance (Because she posted about it, I am sure there are others they just haven't discussed it.). In RL I have seen some anti-abortion people actually helping disadvantaged people who were born into situations where they were obviously not wanted.

I have a whole lot more to say but I have to go.

[truehobbit]

You are essentially saying (from my point of view, I'm not saying you mean to be saying this) that if I can only be happy by murdering you, then I should be allowed to do so. If not, then why should I be allowed to murder the person inside me for the sake of happiness?

That's why I think "happiness" is a difficult factor here and something like this killing should not be done lightly.

But if I endangered your life it would be self-defense for you to kill me, wouldn't it? And that's not punishable.
If you think this child will ruin your life so much that it wouldn't be worth living anymore, I think you could consider it a murder out of self-defence.

truehobbit, your description of the procedures in your country tell me that whoever made those rules thinks women can't think for themselves, but must be guided like children.

vison, I think women in such a situation are under stress too much to make a decision all on their own!
I think this has nothing to do with treating them like children, but with realising they need help!

Jewel, I could very well imagine that during a pregnancy there are times when you hate it. Nine months is a bloody long time to be in no good physical condition!
But to say that foetus=parasite is a different matter.
Please don't try to tell me you don't associate negative connotations with the word, whatever the dictionary says that could be seen to parallel a pregnancy!

[Jnyusa]

Wilma, there was a lot of wisdom in that post!

Jn

[Sassafras]

Hobby wrote:

No, Sassy, what you said is extremely emotional!
"Parasitical" is a word that is loaded with negative connotations, and the fact that you chose it, shows that you are not speaking factually here!
If having a child disgusts you, well, that's sad, but it's not the normal way of thinking about a pregnancy, I'm sure!

I beg to differ.

It may well be emotional for you. It is not for me.

Since you apparently find the concept of parasitism applied to a foetus as 'loaded with negative connotations' would you prefer me to use a euphemism and label the process as host dependant?

Nonetheless, as Teremia, Eru and Jewel have pointed out, the fact remains that no matter which word you use to describe the biological process of growing a foetus, the relationship IS essentially one of parasitism. I can refer you to any number of medical texts which support my statement.

I make no negative emotional connection to the word, in and of itself.
I assure you I was speaking strictly from a scientific POV. I chose that word quite carefully because, in my estimation, it best describes the relationship between a living cluster of cells which require a host to exist.

Your assumption, based upon my choice of a word, that I must therefore find pregnancy and childbirth disgusting is just that, an assumption. And a pretty baseless assumption at that.

And now back to the discussion ...

Overturning Roe Vs Wade will not prevent abortion, it will merely drive it back underground with disasterous consequences for many women.

I need to catch up on many more posts before I continue.

[Primula Baggins]

truehobbit, your description of the procedures in your country tell me that whoever made those rules thinks women can't think for themselves, but must be guided like children.

vison, I think women in such a situation are under stress too much to make a decision all on their own!
I think this has nothing to do with treating them like children, but with realising they need help!

Are there any other times, any other decisions, where government-mandated counseling is imposed on an adult about to make a decision?

I think it is, precisely, treating women like children.

Make counseling available, certainly, for those who ask. Don't impose it.

[Faramond]

I don't think this thread has settled down at all. Not one bit.

I’m looking for the best way to say this, and there is no good way. I find a lot of the arguments being made now in defense of abortion righteous and arrogant.

If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one. Counsel your wife, your daughter, your mother, your sister, or your neighbour against it. Then mind your own business.

This statement illustrates one of the problems of humanity, that people expect to do whatever they want and that there won’t be consequences outside of their own lives. The philosophy of the “mind your own business” argument is immature. We are all a part of a greater world. There are other people involved. The things we do don't happen in a vaccuum. Don't think, for a moment, that no one besides yourself is involved.

There aren't just two options here, to mind your own business or to force other people to do things. I wish people would stop acting as if there is nothing in between. Don’t make an extreme argument just because it sounds good and it “works” for the side of this particular issue that you believe in.

I don't think the people advocating this selfish argument have any idea of what it would mean if it was applied to other areas of life. How often has "mind your own business" led to tragic results? Look the other way. Just look out for number one and forget the others. How much child abuse could be justified and enabled with the mantra of "if you disapprove then don't do it yourself and mind your own business". Whether or not what you are trying to justify with the argument is right or not, the argument you are using to get there is rotten to the core.

I'm not advocating that abortion be made illegal during the first trimester. I think that would be a very bad idea and wouldn't "work" in any sense. But I am appalled at the number of people are are basically saying that a fetus is trash, and that rather than give a moment's thought to the fetus we should just mind our own business.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I wish the country as a whole and its lawmakers could have this kind of discussion. We'd be a lot farther ahead on this issue than we are right now.

Jn, I think the first obstacle to that happening are the labels that are always used to define the two 'sides'. On the one hand, we have people who are called 'pro-life'. This automatically labels the people on the other side as 'anti-life'. On the other hand, we have people who are called 'pro-choice'. This automatically labels the people on the other side as 'anti-choice'. Thus we are already butting heads before the discussion even begins.

I prefer the labels 'idealist' and 'realist'. These terms are, I think, far more neutral, since they both have both a positive and a negative connotation, and they (in my opinion) more accurately describe the two sides. People who favor abolishing abortion are driven by the ideal that killing a fetus is wrong. People who oppose abolishing abortion don't usually contest that ideal, but feel that reality trumps that ideal. If the debate were framed in those terms, I think that a lot more common ground could be found, and a lot more progress could be made towards bridging the gap between the ideal and the reality.

[halplm]

I can't believe I even LOOKED at this thread... just shows you how bored I am at work

Roe v Wade is an incorrect judicial decision (in my humble opinion), and should be overturned. Abortion is not a constitutional issue. That, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on the abortion DEBATE.

The Abortion debate is simple. You believe it's Murder, or you do not. There are all kinds of issues in the middle ground that complicate matters immensely... and if one side can't get the other to admit they're basic position is wrong, they'll try and get them to agree, some parts of their policy legislating all of that middle ground is wrong, which just complicates things further.

IF it's murder, there is no justification for it in any case. The ONLY case which I personally don't think this applies is when a doctor can tell the mothers life is in danger. In this case I don't think it is an abortion at all, but a choice to save a life. Of course, that could be considered middle ground as well.

IF it's NOT murder, then there's no justification for denying a woman an abortion at ANY time before that baby can live on its own.

And, of course... that means it's all a matter of belief. You can say a fetus is alive, or you can say it is a parasite. You can get hordes of scientists and doctors and politicians to back either side of that argument.

It all boils down to one of those beliefs, though.

The whole issue of an unwanted pregnancy is a horrible tragedy. My personal opinion on the matter, is that people who don't want to be pregnant, should not engage in activity leading to pregnancy. But some would call that impossible, or dodging the issue.

[Ethel]

Hi Hal. Glad you stopped by. I think it's fair to conclude that you think abortion should be illegal unless it endangers the life of the mother. Would you be willing to answer some questions?

Do you in fact consider abortion murder, in the same sense that (say) cutting the throat of a 4 year old would be? Does this go all the way back to the moment of conception, in your opinion, or do you think pre-implantation contraceptive methods are acceptable?

What do you think the penalty for seeking an abortion should be? For completing one? Should it apply to woman, doctor, or both? Are there any mitigating circumstances, in your opinion? (Rape or other types of coercion, incest, etc.)

[Erunáme]

...

[Alatar]

Alatar, I reject the term 'casual termination.'

I wasn't thinking of the statistic in terms of adoption as an alternative to abortion. I don't know statistics, but I would imagine that it is the women unable to accept the idea of abortion who end up on the adoption path.

Whether you reject the term or not, your argument speaks volumes. If 9 out of 10 mothers who choose adoption as an alternative to abortion end up keeping their children, then the only logical conclusion is that given the time to accustom themselves to their pregnancy, they would think better of it.

My point was that what you end up with is not 10 babies going to loving, stable homes, but one baby going to a loving, stable home and nine babies being raised by sometimes very young, single women who are not prepared emotionally or financially to nurture them. The emotional attachment is too strong for women to give up their children voluntarily, even when they aren't prepared practically and emotionally to be mothers.

I'm not sure what my point was except to point out that intentions toward adoption are most often not realized these days; it is probably good for people to know that when they counsel and prepare a young woman for the adoption process, the eventual outcome will probably be another single mother.

Are you suggesting that these children would be better off dead? Should you be allowed to make that decision for them? Do you envision a Utopian society where children are only born into families with two parents? Should we not then outlaw Divorce while we're at it?

[halplm]

Hi Hal. Glad you stopped by. I think it's fair to conclude that you think abortion should be illegal unless it endangers the life of the mother. Would you be willing to answer some questions?

Actually, no, I think an abortion should not be done. The legality of it is a separate question, really. That goes back to whether or not you think it's murder

Do you in fact consider abortion murder, in the same sense that (say) cutting the throat of a 4 year old would be? Does this go all the way back to the moment of conception, in your opinion, or do you think pre-implantation contraceptive methods are acceptable?

I can't conceivably see how a childs life begins at some defined moment. There are only two moment this could be if there had to be one. Conception, or the moment that child can survive without the mother. With Conception, there is no being before hand, and there is one after. For the mement that child could survive... there is no perceptable change, before and after. How can you know that moment has come? Sure, 1 week in, you know it can't, and 1 week before the end, you know it probably can, but the actual moment... is not definable.

For myself, I believe in us all having a soul... and the moment a soul enters the picture, it's a human that can be killed. Now, granted, there's no telling when a soul actually enters the picture, I just BELIEVE the logical place is at conception.

This would, of course make me a hypocrite to say pre-implantation contraceptive methods were acceptable.

What do you think the penalty for seeking an abortion should be? For completing one? Should it apply to woman, doctor, or both? Are there any mitigating circumstances, in your opinion? (Rape or other types of coercion, incest, etc.)

Again, this addresses the legality issue. What's the difference between an unwanted child from a marriage or other relationship, and a child from rape or incest? I used to think their should be mitigating circumstances, but that's that tricky middle ground that only complicates matters. Either it's murder or it isn't. How the conception happened is irrelevant to that question.

I personally believe that unborn child has every right that a child born yesterday has, or someone born 100 years ago has... So any penalties that apply if a doctor or mother kills the baby born yesterday, should apply to an unborn child murdered... provided, you believe it's a murder.

That doesn't make it easy of course.

So, even though I'm a married woman, I shouldn't have a physical relationship with my husband even though we take precautions since we do not want, can't afford, or deal with a child right now?

Yes, your idea is impossible for many. A physical relationship with your spouse is very important for a healthy relationship.

This is an issue I've been contemplating myself recently, although I'm not married, so it's a bit difficult.

There is a case for avoiding a physical relationship if you really do not want, can't afford, or deal with a child. It becomes a question of which is worse, an unwanted pregnancy or abstinence. Like I said, some will say that's impossible.

[Impenitent]

But I am appalled at the number of people are are basically saying that a fetus is trash, and that rather than give a moment's thought to the fetus we should just mind our own business.

Faramond, please do not put (such loaded!) words in my mouth. When I chose abortion, I most certainly did not consider the embryo was trash. Quite the contrary, I assure you. I ask you to take that back please.

[Erunáme]

...

[Whistler]

Folks, a reminder. Choose every word with the utmost care, please.

[vison]

Well, Alatar, I think you know that there were, until very recently, several nations in the world where divorce was illegal.

So, of course, all the marriages in those nations were happy.

halplm has it right. Abortion is either "murder" or it isn't. I don't think it's "murder" although I think it is a bad thing.

Furthermore, I don't like the "idealist"/"realist" labels, either. It clouds the already clouded issue.

The focus of disagreement is, in the end, the status of the foetus. When, if ever, does the foetus become a "person"? When, if ever, is abortion murder?

There isn't room for movement. One must come down on one side of the question or the other.

This statement illustrates one of the problems of humanity, that people expect to do whatever they want and that there won’t be consequences outside of their own lives. The philosophy of the “mind your own business” argument is immature. We are all a part of a greater world. There are other people involved. The things we do don't happen in a vaccuum. Don't think, for a moment, that no one beside yourself is involved.

Since that comment of yours was in response to a comment of mind, I have to assume you are addressing me. Kindly read what I've said. At no point, not once, ever, have I said "that people expect to do whatever they want" or "that there won't be consequences". I have never once said that "no one else is involved", but have, in fact, stated at least once that it is a tragedy for everyone involved.

It is precisely because I KNOW that there are consequences that I think abortion is such a terrible thing.

I resent, very much, your further comment that my argument is "immature". You disagree with me, which you are certainly entitled to do. But I wonder why it is necessary for you to make such comments? I have managed, in every debate I've ever engaged in on this issue, to refrain from making personal, condescending and insulting remarks to those who oppose me. I feel as passionately as anyone, have agonized over it, and admit that my heart is moved by the anti-abortion arguments.

My heart, but not my head. There is no one who has the right to tell me what I may or may not do with my own body. I have no right to tell any other person. That's where the rubber meets the road and that's that.

It is at this point that I realize I've said what I have to say and will now withdraw after finishing this post.

To return to Ethel's question once again, I will say AGAIN that to reverse the decision in Roe vs Wade is a retrograde step.

[Faramond]

Please. All this talk about "minding your own business" and "parasites" and the comparison of a fetus to cancer makes it perfectly clear what is meant. I will take back nothing. If you compared a fetus to a parasite or cancer then yes, I am accusing you of calling a fetus trash. If you didn't do these things, then I'm not. Those are extreme, disgusting, foul ways to characterize a fetus, and I'm not going to let them pass without condemnation! I must make a stand on this. I don't want to hear this biased garbage about how it's scientific. That's a devaluation of human life. If you think a fetus is a parasite you don't understand parasitism. I've seen what cancer does to a person and it's nothing like being pregnant. NOTHING

This has nothing to do with anyone's decision to have an abortion. I do not say that someone who has an abortion necessarily views the fetus as trash. I can see that there are a lot of conflicting things that go into that decision, and I'm not going to reduce it to triviality by saying it's murder on one hand or calling the fetus a parasite on the other hand.

I've had it with the ridiculous arguments in this thread. Oversimplification everywhere. Now Hal is doing it by trying to reduce it merely to a question of if it's murder or not. Please. Just as bad as the arguments that try to make is solely about bodily rights.

It's just not as simple as one thing. But the demagogues on both side try to make it about one thing, reduce it to a catchy soundbite, and we are left with the currect abortion debate mess in the US and elsewhere.