| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Abortion |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 12 2004, 03:59 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > Abortion Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 03:33 PM I know that this can be a slightly contentious topic, but hell, why not? Abortion has always been a weird issue for me. I just don't get it. As a fundy, some parts of life were much easier because of the pre-fab answers to life's problems that we are given. My former church considered abortion to be the only litmus test for political office. The guy could say "fuck it" about everything else, but as long as he was pro-life, he was our geck. I always had trouble with this amount of simplicity, but it was there and it was easy, so I went with it. Now, though, I realize that life is not quite this simple, and there are other things to consider in choosing our leaders. On the topic, I DO still consider myself pro-life, though I do believe that victims of rape, incest and physical defects which prevent the safe carrying of a baby should be allowed access to the procedure, BUT they should do it VERY early. These third trimester abortions and partial birth things have got to stop IMHO. As an atheist, I just see life as very valuable, and though a fetus may or may not be conscious, it is a developing human being who deserves life. I think that their should be a cut off for elective procedures. I have thought about once there is a detectable heartbeat, but that is very early. I don't know what the solution is, but I think that the abortion industry has gotten a little out of hand. Sometimes in the course of fighting for peoples right to do things, people lose sight of whether it SHOULD be done or not. Just trying to start an interesting conversation and see what you all think. Here is a link to a freethinker pro-life site I know about: http://www.godlessprolifers.org Xpen Posted by: Lokmer Jan 27 2004, 03:47 PM I'm one who has done a great deal of thinking on this issue, and for me it comes down to this: Abortion can and is used morally to save the life or health of the mother, to end severely defective pregnancies (no brain, for example) and other very legitimate reasons. It can also (and is) used for reasons of shallowness and immaturity. A necessary medical procedure should not be outlawed because it can be abused. My personal opinion is that life begins when you have encephlographic activity (brainwaves), and that abortion after that point is far more morally sticky. However, the decision to abort is a medical one - politicians have no business in it. -Lokmer Posted by: Reach Jan 27 2004, 03:50 PM Xpen, I'll be joining you on this topic, Xpen, as soon as I get my desk cleared off and have time to check your link out. Back in a day or two. This ought to be really interesting. I hope it also serves as a nice educational and informative or entertaining distraction for you. Everyone of us needs a break from our own personal real life once in a while. Count me in. reach Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 03:53 PM Good point, Xpen. I never really thought about abortion all that much while in the Morg. Even while still a good little drone, I realized that there were sometimes extenuating circumstances which could make having the baby--even if given up for adoption--not necessarily the better choice. I agree that there should be a sort of cutoff point. If the woman has carried the unborn fetus for that long, I can't think of a legitimate reason why she can't continue to do so for the short period of time remaining. Admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about the childbearing/birthing process, save that it is extremely uncomfortable, inconvenient, and painful at times. So please none of the wonderful women on these forums draw the mistaken conclusion that I'm speaking on this topic with even the slightest imagined degree of authority or experience. In the end, I think it all boils down to the circumstances of the pregnancy and the girl/woman involved. That's really all it can come down to, isn't it? Some girls will be raped and, upon finding out they're pregnant, be possessing of the utmost conviction to keep and raise their child in the best possible way they see fit, almost as if in defiance of the rapist. Others will accidentally become pregnant while engaging in consentual intercourse with a man, knowing full well the possible risk of impregnation--and promptly panic and make the soonest possible appointment to get rid of it. I've known women in both cases. Unfortunately, I've also known some from the former who had miscarriages and were devestated by the loss of the child they were so fervently hoping for; as well as some from the latter who later regretted their decision and wished for all the world to have the opportunity again. If you ask me, men can offer their respective/respectful opinions on the subject, and try to help the woman in coming to a decision she's comfortable with. Other women may empathize from previous experience and, again, try to help the woman in coming to a decision she's comfortable with. When all is said and done, however, the simple fact is it's entirely up to the woman in question wether or not to lose the baby through abortion. Just my $0.02 Posted by: moorezw Jan 27 2004, 04:02 PM Xpen- As I am not physically capable of giving birth, the decision to abort a fetus is precluded. Likewise, my influence on any other's decision to abort a fetus is precluded, with one exception: the occasion of my wife's pregancy. But even then, the final decision is not mine... it remains only for me to accept the consequences. Posted by: Reach Jan 27 2004, 05:32 PM QUOTE (xpen @ Jan 27 2004, 03:33 PM) I know that this can be a slightly contentious topic, but hell, why not? Xpen, This topic is more than just slightly contentious. There are ramifications to the legalization of abortion in this country and they are playing out before our very eyes, as though we were watching a stage production. None of us can escape entirely the consequences of Roe vs. Wade. To deny that there are consequences is woefully ignorant. My friend, I do believe you might have opened up Pandora's Box with this topic, but I intend to participate regardless of the difficulty. I'll just try to be gracious. reach Posted by: lostandconfused Jan 27 2004, 05:41 PM the decision to end another human life should not be left up to an individual's choice. that being said, the issue becomes, when does life begin. some say at conception. some say at some arbitrary chronological point such as the second or third trimester. some say at birth. some say sometime after birth when the child is capable of independent thought. to be on the safe side, it is best to just go with conception, and say that abortion is equivalent to shooting a 5-year-old in the head with a gun, all that is different is the timing. Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 05:46 PM QUOTE However, the decision to abort is a medical one - politicians have no business in it. -Lokmer Very good point Lokmer, though sometimes politicians HAVE to protect us from the doctors. I am a Tennessee citizen, so one of my Senators is also a doctor. I wish that the medical community, as a whole, could figure out an ethical answer to the dilemma. The abortion INDUSTRY is too much of an industry and is therefore too caught up in sustaining itself to look realistically at the issue. Ladies, I do want to point out that I am not trying to make judgements or decisions for anyone else or anything. I know that women can at times get touchy over males meddling in this issue, but I think as a human that we all play a part in the game of life which is at question. This being said, good dialogue on the issue from all sides of the gender wall can be beneficial. The purpose of the thread is just to start a discussion on a serious and controversial issue. Xpen Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 05:48 PM L&C, you're not taking into account the effect this may have on the mother's life and health. What if a girl is raped and the doctors tell her this pregnancy could paralyze her from the waist down for life? She's been brutally and mercilessly victimized, and now she's to be expected to lose the use of part of her body due to unforseen and totally unwanted circumstances as a result of that victimization? My sister in law has a problem with childbirth. When she gave birth to her first, her tailbone got pulled out of place. The second time, it happened again, and worse. The third, again and worse. She's unsure if she's going to try to have another child because of it. As with everything else in life, there are infinite shades of grey to the issue. Nothing is as simple as that. Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 06:00 PM QUOTE My personal opinion is that life begins when you have encephlographic activity (brainwaves), and that abortion after that point is far more morally sticky. Also another good point I forgot to mention. I wonder when this is actually detectable. Hmmmm. Any medical experts running around? Xpen Posted by: michelle Jan 27 2004, 06:15 PM Okay lets say a female is pregnant without rape or incest, lets say the condom broke or lets say she was stupid and went unprotected. Would abortion be wrong? I dont think so, its her body and her choice. But I dont think that abortion is okay more than once. There arent any laws that say how many times you can get one & Im not going to go so far as to say there should be a law on it. All Im trying to say is that abortion shouldnt be used as birth control. Heres an instance where I think abortion is okay, you have a daughter who is 16 yrs old, she comes home and says "Mom, Dad, Ive made a terrible mistake, Im pregnant and I dont want the baby". What are you as a parent going to do? Are you gonna give her the 300 bucks for the abortion or are you gonna make her life very hard by forcing her to have it? Personally, I would give her the 300 bucks. Speaking as a female who did have an abortion at the age of 17, I can tell you, it was the right thing to do. The way I understand it is if you get the abortion as soon as you realize youre pregnant, its only the size of a grain of rice. How can that be a baby? I know some people might call me a murderer but that their problem, it is perfectly legal and therefore not murder. I do remember the clinic and I remember the face of every woman that was there. And you wanna know what? Almost everyone of them was a teenager. There was plenty enough conversation going on between us. There was about 10 of us there and only 2 were older woman. To me they looked over 40 and thats probably why they were there in the first place. Its dangerous to have a baby at that age. And by the way, all of the patients were white. Some had their boyfreinds there with them in the waiting room so I can see where it is 2 people making the decision together. Planned parenthood is a good place to bring a daughter who is having sex, thats if you know about it. Also I dont think that any teenager should be forced to keep a baby by religious parents. If abortion were illegal you would see many young girls dead. I took womans studies in college and I remember the horrific stories about woman receiving abortions from men & woman who were not really doctors. And in some cases, death from trying to perform it on yourself. Before I was born, my mother was pregnant as a teenager and abortion was not legal at that time. She had to have it. And gave it up for adoption. Somewhere out there I have a sibling Ive never met. What can I tell you, some of us come from disfunctional backgrounds. I can tell you one thing, after my episode at the clinic I sure as hell found out where the free birth control pills were. If I brought any shame to this thread, too fucking bad. All I can say is, if it was your teenage daughter what would you do? GIVE HER THE PILLS, PLEASE! Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 06:25 PM I totally agree with you Michelle that women should not be forced to have children, and I am not and will in no way judge your decision. I firmly believe in a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit, as long as it is only her body. Emergency contraception is a viable option. You screw up, and go in to the doctor to prevent the implantation of an egg. As far as I know, there haven't been any medical complications. We should work to make an ethical decision, and remove the stigma from ethical abortion so that girls are not ashamed to say that they messed up and might be pregnant. If it weren't for the instilled fear and the stigma, maybe a lot of these late 2nd Trimester and 3rd Trimester abortions could be prevented. If girls were free to say when they screwed up, then it could be taken care of right away before the natural process of life really gets underway. Xpen Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 06:27 PM QUOTE I firmly believe in a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit, as long as it is only her body. Just to clarify what I meant by this. I simply meant that we also have to not negate the reality that, at least, at some point, there is another life and another body in the equation. Xpen Posted by: michelle Jan 27 2004, 06:30 PM Oh yeah and dont forget to supply your sons & daughters with condoms too considering the death situation thats out there today. I wonder, are condoms available from the high school nurse? I realize that not all teens are having sex but some are. Most people I know had sex before the age of 20. Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 06:39 PM Just adding one quick post relating to Xpen's comment about girls not being able to come clean about "screwing up." Here in the Profit's back yard, this is a huge mess, and one hell of a circular contradiction with virtually no way out. If a girl--let's say--elopes and later learns she's pregnant, she'll be afraid for her life of coming out with it. If she tells her parents, they'll be so disappointed, and she'll be branded by the entire community. People may act understanding, but it's obvious everyone has passed judgment and sentence on her as a sinful base slut. Of course, abortion is out of the question. If it's done before anyone learns about the pregnancy and the whole deal is discovered later, she's shamed for killing an innocent human life like that. If they find out before and she gets an abortion, again she's shamed for killing an innocent. So she's stuck with the kid wether she likes it or not. The few "lucky" people have miscarriages. For the rest of the girls in this situation, once the baby is finally born, it is immediately ripped from their arms and placed up for adoption by the parents to remove this "black mark" from amidst the family. Nevermind that the girl has been carrying this child for nine months and has by this point almost undoubtedly formed a bond with it. Her feelings aren't important, it was her lack of restraint that brought about the whole mess in the first place, so why should anyone care about her? It just sickens me. Lose the baby, or keep the baby and lose it anyway. And either way, you're branded by society. Posted by: michelle Jan 27 2004, 06:42 PM at some point there is another life & another body in the eqation? The doctors must agree. Appartently there is a cut off point to when you can have one no? I honestly dont see where a woman could abort after feeling life move inside her. I would like to see a photo of what the unborn looks like right after the female misses her period. I was told that it was the size of a grain of rice. Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 06:42 PM I'll sure as hell supply my children with protection. I don't know if they still do it, but the local sex ed. program used to offer free condoms from the health clinic. Of course, again the guilt factor comes into effect. Since the program centers on abstinence, anyone who goes to the clinic to take up the offer is shamed and looked down at, even though they're doing the responsible thing. And quite a few teenagers are having sex while in high school. A lot of the ones I learned about came as surprises to me. I didn't think they were the kind of people to do such a thing. Regardless, even though I may not like the idea of my kids having sex, pretending it isn't happening isn't going to make it go away. That's how babies and statistics are made. Posted by: michelle Jan 27 2004, 06:49 PM Another thing Im wondering, does the father of the unborn have a legal right to stop an abortion in some states? Im thinking he should have at least some say in it but I dont see how its possible when he cant prove if the unborn is his until its born. Im outta here, its getting way too complicated. Its legal thats all I know. And I would hate to see a lot of woman dead over something that I dont see as a baby. If I were male I might think differently. I am, what do you call it, biased? Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 06:52 PM Michelle's right. Gettin' mighty hot in here, I think I need to just stick to my original post in this thread. Posted by: michelle Jan 27 2004, 06:57 PM I didnt want to say this but I cant help myself, its the damn truth. I bet that 9 times out of 10, a womans abortion is due to a man who doesnt want the child. Maybe 9 times out of 10 is high but I know it plays a part. It did in my case anyway. I dont want to come off as a man hater, I fully respect most men. Im just saying, 2 people are involved in the making of a baby. And lets get really honest, how about some of the teenage girls who are so into the males approval, that you hear of them giving in to stupid comments like, dont worry baby, I'll pull out, you wont get pregnant. It happens. Then she has the baby & he cant even come up with his half of the diaper money? Ive seen it. Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 07:05 PM And that's why I'm still unsure about the whole deal, and why it kind of scares the shit out of me to this day. I know with absolute certainty that I'm not ready to be a father yet. I also know that, were I to impregnate a girl, I wouldn't be able to just run away from the problem like so many other guys seem capable of doing. It's just not in who I am. It's a bad idea to play with matches, but I just love the fire so damn much! Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 07:09 PM Very good point Michelle. I am sure that a decent percentage of teenage abortions ARE egged on by even girls being overwhelmed from a deadbeat kid walking out on them as soon as she pops up pregnant. There's also a lot of young guys that will pressure the young lady to get one despite her personal objection. On your earlier comment about the grain of rice. Yes, they are that size for a little while. There are plenty of abortions out there after the fetus is somewhat viable though. As long as they are done at the earliest possible time as to not take a viable human life, I have absolutely no problem. The debate is to where to draw the line. I think that heartbeat, or Lokmer's brainwave idea, are decent middle ground. I believe that they finally banned partial birth abortion, which is particularly heinous, last year, but I am not entirely sure. I knew that I might stir up a hornets nest with this topic, but that's what we're here for, right? To discuss things and learn from each other. Xpen Posted by: michelle Jan 27 2004, 07:16 PM Woodsmoke, youre the best. The world needs more guys like you. Epen, I agree we do learn from each other. I dont mean to be a hornet in the nest but all you can do is be yourself, right? Its a good thread, Im glad you started it. Ive come to the conclusion that abortion should only be performed early on. I still dont know what the cut off is before a doctor wont do it. Even 2 months pregnant seems late to me. Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 07:25 PM Don't worry Michelle. You can be our resident hornet. We don't mind. You don't sing too much, and there's always a little honey sitting around when your all done. Xpen P.S. That was a fancy way of saying, "You're cool." Posted by: lostandconfused Jan 27 2004, 08:04 PM abortion doctors are willing to do it right up till just before birth, unless they actually did ban the PB abortion. abortions done to save the mother from bodily harm are a grey area, i agree. but every effort should be made to save both lives, perhaps through an incubator or surrogate mother. abortions done to protect the mother's social reputation or because of financial reasons, no. that's why there's a such thing as adoption. Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 08:06 PM QUOTE (xpen @ Jan 27 2004, 07:25 PM) Don't worry Michelle. You can be our resident hornet. We don't mind. You don't sing too much, and there's always a little honey sitting around when your all done. Xpen P.S. That was a fancy way of saying, "You're cool." Ha ha ha. Not to add levity to our serious discussion, but I just noticed this. It's okay if you sing Michelle. I obviously meant "sting". Sorry. Xpen Posted by: bob Jan 27 2004, 08:20 PM QUOTE (lostandconfused @ Jan 27 2004, 05:41 PM) to be on the safe side, it is best to just go with conception, and say that abortion is equivalent to shooting a 5-year-old in the head with a gun, all that is different is the timing. Sure sounds like christianity rearing it's ugly head L&C. I'm no fan of abortion, but this is one of those things that must be left up to the woman. I almost believe that men should be forbidden from expressing an opinion one way or the other. Let's let the women sort it out. I have always wondered why christians feel so compelled to address the issue of abortion when their guide book is completely silent on the issue. Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 08:27 PM QUOTE I have always wondered why christians feel so compelled to address the issue of abortion when their guide book is completely silent on the issue. That's easy, Bob. Any baby aborted is a future drone lost. Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 08:34 PM QUOTE (woodsmoke @ Jan 27 2004, 08:27 PM) QUOTE I have always wondered why christians feel so compelled to address the issue of abortion when their guide book is completely silent on the issue. That's easy, Bob. Any baby aborted is a future drone lost. Not to make too light of what I see as a serious issue, but I think that they don't think anyone has a right to kill a human baby unless god tells them to bash their heads against a rock. It's pretty sick logic. I may agree with their GENERAL pro-life stance, but it amazes me that so many of them place the value of that life on the "made in the image of god" concept, when their god, himself, doesn't seem to give two shits about that little fact. I NEVER based my opinion on that. It was and always has been for me the inherent value of another human being. I also don't understand why they insist that a fertilized zygote, before even the slightest amount of real development takes place is already a human being. Who knows. Xpen Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 27 2004, 08:35 PM I feel the same as I always have. Having the choice is important whether you use it or not. If they manage to ban that, then they would break down the gate to ban everyother freedom we have. Another reason, I'd rather have women having abortions in clinics than dragging out a fetus with a coat hanger, ironically enough the symbol of the pro-"lifers". Most of the horror stories I've heard usually involve a poorly trained doctors or nurses, and why is that? The constant badgering by the pro-"lifers". It's hard to have professionals who know what they are doing when the entire industry has to be half underground. Posted by: Libertus Jan 27 2004, 08:40 PM I agree with you also SpaceFalcon. I guess I haven't made that point at all. I do NOT think that abortion should be unilaterally outlawed. I do think that we, as a society, need to evaluate the value we place on life as a whole, and that on this issue, the medical community should figure out how to provide this freedom while also keeping their Hippocratic oath in regards to the child. Major alteration of the laws is not really going to do the trick, though some more regulation and guidance could. We have to draw a line in the sand, and stop putting women in a closet of shame that requires that they sneak around or get late term abortions because they were too scared to seek help early when it was more humane for the child. I don't know, but I am going to leave this topic alone for the night. I'll check back tomorrow. Xpen Posted by: HeathenM0M Jan 27 2004, 09:23 PM QUOTE (xpen @ Jan 27 2004, 06:33 PM) I know that this can be a slightly contentious topic, but hell, why not? I used to be rabidly anti-abortion, but I'm definitely pro-choice now. I finally realized that abortions wouldn't stop just because someone decided to make them illegal. Women would still have abortions, they'd just have to go to some unsafe back alley "doctor" to have them done. This realization really opened my eyes and then I started to see so many other reasons why it should be an option. I do agree that there should be a cut-off date for how late in the pregnancy one can elect to end it. This partial-birth abortion stuff seems awfully inhumane to me, unless, of course, it is a life or death situation. Thanks for bringing this up, Xpen. It's interesting to see what everyone has to say. Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 09:30 PM With a little editing on my part..... QUOTE I finally realized that marijuana wouldn't stop just because someone decided to make it illegal. People would still have marijuana, they'd just have to go to some unsafe back alley "druggist" to have it. If this offends you, I offer my sincerest apologies. I'm not a user of MJ myself, however when I read this segment of your post the thought just hit me like a ton of bricks, and I had to comment on it. Posted by: HeathenM0M Jan 27 2004, 09:35 PM QUOTE (woodsmoke @ Jan 28 2004, 12:30 AM) With a little editing on my part..... QUOTE I finally realized that marijuana wouldn't stop just because someone decided to make it illegal. People would still have marijuana, they'd just have to go to some unsafe back alley "druggist" to have it. If this offends you, I offer my sincerest apologies. I'm not a user of MJ myself, however when I read this segment of your post the thought just hit me like a ton of bricks, and I had to comment on it. Nah, you didn't offend me. Posted by: lostandconfused Jan 27 2004, 09:39 PM QUOTE Sure sounds like christianity rearing it's ugly head L&C. actually i believed this long before i "got saved". when i was 9 or so and first heard what abortion was, described as "a woman who's pregnant goes to the doctor and he makes her not pregant anymore" my reaction was "what happens to the baby?". and i was horrified to learn that such a thing was legal. so i think it's as much an instinct thing as anything. call it moral instinct, conscience, whatever. Posted by: chefranden Jan 27 2004, 09:50 PM It is up to the woman, plain and simple. For Lost, so called Partial birth abortions are done for the health of the mother, not for women who just change their mind at the last minute. Sure some will have an abortion for what might be labeled frivolous reasons. I think that is better than having a child for frivolous reasons, which is by far the greater tragedy. As to lost futures, not every sperm and not every egg has to produce fruit. Billions of them don't. If you must take this preservation of every bit of reproductive material to the nth degree, you better not be masterbating but even then if you don't use em you lose em. And for the ladies, you would have to get pregnant every time you make an egg or you are flushing a life down the toilet. I read some where that about 1/3 of fertilized eggs are not implanted or are miscarried. It would appear that abortion is either a natural process or an act of god. Having an abortion is not the moral equivalent of shooting a 5 year old. That is just plain lazy thinking. Posted by: Cerise Jan 27 2004, 10:13 PM "here's a toast to all those nurses and doctors who daily provide women with a choice who stand down a threat the size of oklahoma city just to listen to a young woman's voice" I have a feeling 90% of the population is looking at several myths when pertaining to so-called "partial-birth" abortion. I asked seven people what they thought partial-birth abortion was and they gave me this answer, "an abortion that takes place late in pregnancy." Partial-birth abortions is not restricted to post-viability abortions (third trimester, past the 23rd week abortions). In realty, the ban covers abortions from the 12 to 20 week pregnancy mark. This ban has nothing to do with viability and everything to do with a certain method of abortion procedure, the dilation and evacuation method. This ban contains no exceptions to compensate for a woman's health, which means essentially that if a woman's health was in danger from pregnancy and the safest way to remove that woman from danger would be to use the D & E method of abortion (at any stage of pregnancy) then doctors would be unable to do so. If Congress wished to pass a law banning abortions past the viability mark of a fetus they could have done so. Instead they chose to mislead America with colourful myths about "partial-birth abortion" a term that pro-lifers came up with themselves. This ban is unconstitutional, but I expected as much from your President. Much of the hullabaloo concerning this issue has to do with certain graphic pictures of fetuses with limbs cut off and brains sucked out and so on. My mother's a neo-natal nurse with strong opinions (like me) so there isn't much I haven't heard of when dealing with babies, fetuses, abortion, and pregnancy. I've seen pictures and yes they are gruesome. But so are pictures of chickens being slaughtered for your next McNugget Meal. I'm not a vegetarian, by the way, I don't believe that animals are persons. And I don't believe that a fetus, up until its 23rd week is a person. So, while pictures of bloody and mutilated chickens and fetuses may disturb me, they will not change my views on the subject of vegetarianism or abortion. Unfortunately, there are some wishy washy souls out there that are easily swayed by pictures. I came across a website that seemed to glorify in these pictures, giving them obscured Biblical scripture to go along with massive red fonts and lovely titles such as "BLOODY DEATH" "TORMENT" and "DARKNESS" just incase you thought you were going to approach a serious subject. I did look at a few pictures, noting that most of the fetuses appear to be well behind the viability date if size and development are any indication (and they are). One fetus was positioned beside a quarter, perhaps to represent its helplessness in diminutive size. All it did for me was point out that no fetus that underdeveloped would have survived outside the womb anyway. Fetuses smaller then your thumb are not viable. Posted by: I Broke Free Jan 28 2004, 06:51 AM A fact that may influence your opinion. 20 Percent of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted by the female body. The longer it takes for the fertilized egg to attach itself to the lining of the womb, the more likely this is to happen. I once brought this up in a xtian web site and was told that God knows which eggs will be naturally aborted and does not give them life. (What page of the bible is that on?) Apparently god will not do this for eggs that will be aborted by a medical procedure. It is much more important to god that someone be guilty of of murder than it is to preserve a life. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 28 2004, 07:47 AM This is an issue that I continue to struggle with. I can't offer a firm opinion since I'm still at odds with myself over this. Here are some of my thoughts (and I'm aware that some of them may conflict with others). * Adoption is better than abortion in most cases. * Legal, safe abortions are better than illegal abortions. * Abortion shouldn't occur after viability of the fetus, and because of technological advances, viability is possible at progressively earlier stages of the pregnancy. * Abortion before viability should be the choice of a woman and her doctor. The state should not be allowed to enforce criminal penalities against women and doctors who choose to abort before viability - this could lead to state control of reproduction. * Education and readily available protection are key to reducing unwanted pregnancies and therefore reducing the number of women who have to face this decision. Again, these are just my personal thoughts, and they are still subject to change as I learn more about this topic. Posted by: .:ºstankdeezº:. Jan 28 2004, 08:41 AM i have always been pro-life ifi i have to wear that stupid label then i will. whateva. my reasons for why are simple, i cant have children and there are so many women and men who cant. lovely gay couples, older couples who've been trying for a very long time... all those people would do anything to have a child. i have a friend who is in the same boat i am. and she actually has said to me once if someone charged her 10G's shed pay it just to have a child. she really would do anything to have a baby. and then there are these babies gone every day... that could make some people very very happy and have wonderful lives and if you just dont care about the baby, who says you even have to talk to the parents again? as per my think-about-the-issue-fully mentality, i say, incest, rape and life threatening illnessthat endanger the life of the baby, mother and/or both, and physical or mental defects that would leave the child no better than a head of lettuce, it sitll saddens me to know the child is going to leave, but i understand how hard it would be to go through rape and on top of that i couldnt imagine finding out a product of the rape is going to be hanging out with you for the next 9 - 10 months. thats me in a nutshell on abortion and i just woke up 10 minutes ago so i can only hope its coherent. stank Posted by: Lokmer Jan 28 2004, 09:56 AM QUOTE Xpen said: I believe that they finally banned partial birth abortion, which is particularly heinous, last year, but I am not entirely sure. That's a hell of a thing to say. How many people here actually know what partial birth abortion is for and when it is used? >>crickets chirp<< Yeah, that's what I thought. Partial-birth abortion is a highly necessary medical procedure that is not used for birth-control purposes. It is designed for fetuses that form without brains above the brain stem - children that, if born, would be unable to feed themselves, be in constant pain, have no consciousness, and die before their 2nd birthday (in rare cases, such as that of my cousin, they might live to be 11 years - she died last week without ever having lifted a spoon or learned her name - but those cases are extremely rare). The cranial cavity is instead filled with amniotic fluids and blood, which have to be evacuated (that's french for "sucked out) in order to pass the corpse through the birth canal. It's a nasty procedure, and it's one that's a candidate in nearly 1 out of every 4,000-6,000 pregnancies (there are a few other birth defects - failure of formation of the spinal cord, unsucessful twin splits where the fetus has two heads or a dead fetus inside a live one developed to a point that neither can survive, pre-natal death, or lack of differentiation where the 8 month fetus is just a blob of protplasm with no organs). "Partial-birth" abortion is a vitally necessary medical practice that is rarely if ever used for birth control (I have known many OB/Gyns, and none of them would perform an abortion at that stage for birth control reasons). The colored picture the religious right paints of it - one of discrete infanticide - is bure unmitigated bullshit. -Lokmer Posted by: Erik the Awful Jan 28 2004, 10:16 AM Pure unmitigated bullshit supplied to us by the religious right? Oh no! Say its not so! </sarcasm> The blind, absolute, "abortion is never ever right and were going to LEGISLATE that moral viewpoint" attitude is another one of those things that makes me want to cuss christians crispy. I used to be Pure ProChoice. Still, after having a child I think I'm having some more balance. QUOTE * Adoption is better than abortion in most cases. Absolutly. QUOTE * Legal, safe abortions are better than illegal abortions. Again, I totally agree. QUOTE * Abortion shouldn't occur after viability of the fetus, and because of technological advances, viability is possible at progressively earlier stages of the pregnancy. At somepoint, it will be possible to perform the "adoption" before the birth of the child... QUOTE * Abortion before viability should be the choice of a woman and her doctor. The state should not be allowed to enforce criminal penalities against women and doctors who choose to abort before viability - this could lead to state control of reproduction. This is precicly the reason I can't go along with te "Pro Lifers." The government should have NO influence in this kind of profoundly private decision. But there is something missing here. The biological father should have an opprutunity to help decide. Terminating a healthy viable fetus for the sake of the convience against the wishes of the father is a problem for me. Gotta go. More later. Kid hungry NOW... Posted by: Lokmer Jan 28 2004, 10:17 AM A second thought - and BTW, sorry for being so pointed - I wrote that before I read some of the posts on the last page here. Anyway, a second thought: A full treatment of this topic including statistics going back 40 years from both the U.S. and Britian can be found in Judith Levine's book "Harmful to Minors", which should be required reading for any parent or potential parent in this country. There are a myriad of ethical issues involved with abortion that are ignored and blown by by the "It's a child/It's a choice" argument. Among them: Economic issues, health issues more complicated than a tubal pregnancy (in some cases - even with a viable fetus - it's advisable to abort because the woman is a good candidate for death in childbirth which is statistically far more likely even in our western medical world than is death from surgery), quality-of-life issues (i.e. health of the child), etc. etc. ad nauseum. IMHO, we would do far better to treat this as a medical issue rather than a moral one - England, Canada, and most of Europe have treated abortion this way for over 150 years and are doing quite well about it (abortion has actually been common throughout human history - you know the song "Scarborough Faire" by Simon and Garfunkel? Parsely, Sage, Rosemary, and thyme are the ingredients in a tea that induces miscarriage in the first trimester - i.e. an abortion pill). These diverse factors have to be weighed against the I want a baby/I don't want to kill/I don't want the inconvinience of a baby/etc. shallow arguments that we all associate with the debate. Now, please forgive my harshness in the following sentence, but here goes: 95% of the people in this country (and most countries) are too stupid, uneducated, or untrained to participate in this discussion. Complex ethical issues require subtlety, rationality, careful thought, and honesty - qualities that are conspicuously absent from 90% or better of the population. Don't believe me? When was the last time you met someone (not on this board) who you could describe with those terms. Someone who holds positions, not opinions. Someone who thinks through rather than **feels** their political/moral/religious attitutes. >>>crickets chirp<<< Yeah, that's what I thought. The pedigree of people on this board is far above normal. Most of the rest of the world (and I do, indeed, love many of these people) are idiots. Not without value, surely, and many of them wonderful people, but the majority of them are rank fucking morons. "Of all the people in the world, 80% can't think. Of the remaining people, 90% of them won't think, either through laziness or arrogance. What's left is 2-5% of any population who actually keep the culture alive." (Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love ) Intelligent people make the mistake in assuming that everyone else is as capable and willing to grapple with the issues as they are. But that just ain't true. But, as C.S. Lewis said "The great lie of democracy is that 'I'm as good as you.'" (Screwtape Proposes a Toast). People can believe what they want, but no one is "entitled to an opinion." People are only entitled to their reasoned, well researched opinions. -Lokmer Posted by: lostandconfused Jan 28 2004, 10:45 AM actually there are some points where i think abortion is a good thing. whenever i get depressed and start thinking just how much life sucks, i start to envy the aborted babies and all kids who die before puberty and how lucky they are that they'll never have to face all the crap of adult life. Posted by: sexkitten Jan 28 2004, 10:46 AM QUOTE we would do far better to treat this as a medical issue rather than a moral one Spot on, Lokmer! (And I'm spending way too much time watching BBC... ) QUOTE A full treatment of this topic including statistics going back 40 years from both the U.S. and Britian can be found in Judith Levine's book "Harmful to Minors", which should be required reading for any parent or potential parent in this country. I second the recommendation on this book. It also has good discussions on teen pregnancy, sex education, intergenerational relationships, and homosexuality. Its well researched and thought provoking. QUOTE you know the song "Scarborough Faire" by Simon and Garfunkel? Parsely, Sage, Rosemary, and thyme are the ingredients in a tea that induces miscarriage in the first trimester - i.e. an abortion pill Since learning this a few months ago, the song has made SO much more sense... QUOTE 95% of the people in this country (and most countries) are too stupid, uneducated, or untrained to participate in this discussion. Complex ethical issues require subtlety, rationality, careful thought, and honesty - qualities that are conspicuously absent from 90% or better of the population. And this is especially true with our current, extremely poor education system that is more focused on teaching correct thinking (whether leftist PC sensitivity or Biblical morality) than on teaching logic and reasoning based in facts. The ideologues of the world have no confidence that people, left to think for themselves with the best facts in front of them and the tools of reasoning in hand, will come up with the answers they want us to have. Posted by: Lokmer Jan 28 2004, 10:49 AM QUOTE The ideologues of the world have no confidence that people, left to think for themselves with the best facts in front of them and the tools of reasoning in hand, will come up with the answers they want us to have. Which should tell one something about their confidence in their own beliefs! -Lokmer Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 28 2004, 11:23 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 28 2004, 01:17 PM) IMHO, we would do far better to treat this as a medical issue rather than a moral one It might be more convenient to treat it as a purely medical issue, but I don't think that it's possible to dismiss the moral implications. There is a fundamental question about when an individual human life begins, and under what circumstances it is ok to terminate that life or potential life without its consent. That is a moral question, not a medical one. Posted by: Erik the Awful Jan 28 2004, 11:26 AM QUOTE It might be more convenient to treat it as a purely medical issue, but I don't think that it's possible to dismiss the moral implications. There is a fundamental question about when an individual life begins, and under what circumstances it is ok to terminate that life or potential life without its consent. That is a moral question, not a medical one. This would be ideal. In our non-ideal reality, the medical system does contain some morals. The right wingers claim that what is immoral for the child is immoral for the mother (or that mothers suffer profoundly when an abortion is performed). If there is medical evidence, potential abortion candidates would be advised of this by their responsible doctors... Posted by: Lokmer Jan 28 2004, 11:42 AM I'm not arguing that there are no moral/ethical implications involved, but medical ethics is its own field, very involved, etc. A medical decision implies the consideration of the ethical implications of medicine, not some sort of mechanistic pronouncement. I'm simply arguing that ethics and morals are not issues that are even approached when people argue from ideology. In situations like this, idealism is religion and philosophy masquerading as morality and ethics, but not actually dealing with the issues at hand. Hence, a medical decision (with everything that implies), not a religious or political one. -Lokmer Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 28 2004, 11:45 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 28 2004, 02:42 PM) I'm not arguing that there are no moral/ethical implications involved, but medical ethics is its own field, very involved, etc. A medical decision implies the consideration of the ethical implications of medicine, not some sort of mechanistic pronouncement. I'm simply arguing that ethics and morals are not issues that are even approached when people argue from ideology. In situations like this, idealism is religion and philosophy masquerading as morality and ethics, but not actually dealing with the issues at hand. Hence, a medical decision (with everything that implies), not a religious or political one. -Lokmer That makes sense Posted by: Rhiannon Jan 28 2004, 12:12 PM Thought I would jump in briefly from lurking ... My perception of the abortion laws here in Scotland is legal up until 24 weeks, when the child could survive outside the womb - all be it in an incubator, but it at least has a good chance of survival. Before that, an abortion can be carried out. The date is obviously fairly arbitrary - there are bound to be kids that can survive at 22 weeks for example, but thats where the line is drawn. (My interpretation of the date anyways not entirely sure if thats concrete) Survival rates Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17 per cent chance of survival Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39 per cent chance of survival Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50 per cent chance of survival As for should the male partner have a say - I dont see why not, he was involved in the act, if she goes ahead, he has a responsibility, but in the end it should be her decision. Child birth is a rather risky business http://www.populationaction.org/resources/publications/worldofdifference/rr2_childbearing.htm Taking the US figures, Chance of a woman dying from complications of pregnancy, childbirth, or unsafe abortion during her lifetime: 1 in 3,418. Now, this includes unsafe abortions .. but 1 in 3418 (to me at least) is a high risk! Personally, I know for a fact I would be a terrible mother, I dont have the time to look after myself properly nevermind a child. I take all necessary precautions to prevent it happening, if I was unlucky and happened to be that 1% that still gets pregnant, I would have an abortion as early as possible. I have considered it, I have discussed it with my husband, and we both think that to bring a child into the world, not just unexpected or unplanned, but unwanted from the start would be a terrible thing to do. I wouldnt get a dog under those circumstances! As for adoption rather than abortion ... theres that 1 in 3418 chance cropping in, really couldnt bring myself to carry a child I didnt want with a risk of death or other complications, asides from all the changes in my body due to the pregnancy and the pain of labour! I dont consider abortion to be something carried out lightly, I have heard stories about women requesting them because it would interfere with their bikini looks as they were going on holiday ... that is just completely trivialising what is really an incredibly serious thing. But if I had to, I would have one. Posted by: Libertus Jan 28 2004, 02:03 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 28 2004, 09:56 AM) QUOTE Xpen said: I believe that they finally banned partial birth abortion, which is particularly heinous, last year, but I am not entirely sure. That's a hell of a thing to say. How many people here actually know what partial birth abortion is for and when it is used? Lokmer (and others), I must concede that this comment was a quite uneducated one. I suppose that it would have been better worded, "I believe that they banned partial birth abortion, which as I have heard it described is particularly heinous . . .", but I still should have done a little more research on the subject before making such a comment. I guess that I didn't consider that my major source of information on this particular form of abortion was Focus on the Family. My fault, and I apologize. In my defense though, in regards to the rest of your post, I have throughout my dialog in this thread stated unequivocally that the medical community needs to come up with the most ethical solution to the overall issue of abortion. I think that the current medical stance on it is so varied throughout the community, and most choose not to deal with it because it is a hot topic. I hope that this clears up what I said here. Xpen Posted by: chefranden Jan 28 2004, 02:58 PM I dissagree that adoption is better than abortion. There is a great deal more to bringing a pregnacy to term then just have a child to raise at the end. It does take a toll on the woman's body, even if she is healthy, and she has the right not to put herself at risk physically or rather the right to choose the risks involved in abortion over pregnancy. It also take a toll on a womans mental health as well. There is too much of "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." left in this culture Posted by: michelle Jan 28 2004, 03:23 PM Excuse everybody, if you look back in this thread you will see that the point SpaceFalcon made is a very good one. He said: "Having the choice is important whether you use it or not, if they manage to ban that, then they would break down the gate to ban everyother freedom we have" I recently went to Barnes & Noble, not exactly the type of place I frequent so anyway I havent been in a bookstore since I was a Christian. I went in there to see if I could find any feminist writers & I wanted to look at philosophy too. Well what did I see? One lousy bookcase on philosophy & feminsm. And rows & rows & rows of books on Christianity. I looked at parenting books too and found a lot of them loaded with Christianity too. Not that I think I need a book on how to spend time with your kids. Its mostly paying attention to them, listening, loving them, encouraging. You dont need a book for that. I wasnt so much interested in "guidance" as I was history. I found only one book in the whole store on atheism. Fianally I purchased a book on feminism. I thought a good place to start would be Historical Writings from the women and men who first started it all. Bad choice people. I got it home and realized I just spent 14 bucks on mostly religious women. I am very dissapointed. What it was, was one book including essays & memoirs from several differnt writers. The book sucks. I realize that some of these people made a nice conribution but really, hasnt there ever been any feminist authors who were also atheist? I know I ask for a lot but I work hard for my money and I hate throwing it in the garbage where the book is going. I realize that if youre a guy you might not even need to think about these things at all. But everybodys got daughters, sisters, aunts, moms, grandaughters, ya know? Posted by: Erik the Awful Jan 28 2004, 03:25 PM Chef, You dissagree that adoption is better than abortion as a rule? Or just to make sure exceptions to the rule are allowed? QUOTE here is too much of "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." left in this culture Chef, I don't understand or agree on this point. I think we can agree that pregnancy is profoundly difficult and painful, and that as a man I'll never really understand. The "greatly increase your pains in childbearing" I view as a myth and I'm not sure why it's here or how it fits. Perhaps where I'm loosing you is that I still believe in the sanctity of life, and that the privelidge of sex carries with it the possiblitly of children for BOTH sexes. Maybe I'm still xtian brainwashed and obtuse. I guess I just want there to be a good reason for abortion, and that I think the physical risks are worth bringing the child into the world GENERALLY speaking. Before I had a child of my own, I was very happy to say this was a womans issue and that men should butt out. Now that I have a child of my own, I think I should have as much say about her life as the mother does. Maybe i should chop my tubes and be done with this. No loaded gun, and this isn't an issue for me personally. Posted by: michelle Jan 28 2004, 03:32 PM On second thought, I dont need any of these crappy books, I just need my common sense and maybe a real life woman who knows where Im comin from. Although I must say, there are some very cool women on this site. The men are great too. Posted by: michelle Jan 28 2004, 03:36 PM Aahh who am I kidding, my boyfreind John is my best freind and hes not female. I helped get him away from that Christianity maybe I can get him to be a feminst too I know, Im asking for too much. Posted by: chefranden Jan 28 2004, 05:27 PM Eric, QUOTE (Eric) You dissagree that adoption is better than abortion as a rule? Or just to make sure exceptions to the rule are allowed? To make this a rule would put undue pressure on a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her better interests. Certainly it would be a correct decision for her to choose adoption if she thinks that is in her interests. QUOTE Chef, I don't understand or agree on this point. I think we can agree that pregnancy is profoundly difficult and painful, and that as a man I'll never really understand. The "greatly increase your pains in childbearing" I view as a myth and I'm not sure why it's here or how it fits. Perhaps where I'm loosing you is that I still believe in the sanctity of life, and that the privelidge of sex carries with it the possiblitly of children for BOTH sexes. Maybe I'm still xtian brainwashed and obtuse. It is myth, but it is the guiding myth in this culture. It makes child bearing punishment for irresponsibility. Becoming “with child” without the necessary support systems in place is still considered “irresponsible”. Therefore it is felt in this culture, whether consciously or unconsciously, that the woman should carry to term as an act of redemption. Some of the onus of Genesis 3:16 has passed to the male but not much. The female is still largely stuck with the burden. Even if she does have the necessary support and is physically and mentally ready to be a mother, she still has a choice. Sanctity of Life is the reason I support choice. It is violence against a woman to force her to do something so intimately involved with her own being if it is against her will until the “child” can be considered a separate being, which it can not it logically be considered to be until it is viable. Where do you draw the line after which life becomes sacred? Human cancer tumors can survive for years and continue to grow outside of the body if the support they need is provided. It is human flesh, should it be preserved because it can be? Is it a grey area? You bet. All the more reason to keep our noses out of the decision. QUOTE I guess I just want there to be a good reason for abortion, and that I think the physical risks are worth bringing the child into the world GENERALLY speaking. Good reason from who’s point of view? If a woman gets pregnant due to irresponsible behavior before she is ready and/or willing to have the child, should she carry it to term as some sort of redemption for her irresponsibility? If the pregnancy is due to male irresponsible behavior, what reason would you apply to make her carry it to term? QUOTE Before I had a child of my own, I was very happy to say this was a womans issue and that men should butt out. Now that I have a child of my own, I think I should have as much say about her life as the mother does. So you think that you should have the right to force your wife to carry a pregnancy to term if it is against her better judgment and wishes? What if she is just your girl friend? The woman may be your wife, but that doesn’t give you property rights to her body, does it? Certainly you should have input into the decision, but the decision is hers. It is still her body, marriage or no. After the pregnancy becomes a child, then you do have a say in the matter. QUOTE Maybe i should chop my tubes and be done with this. No loaded gun, and this isn't an issue for me personally. Do you think your wife has the right to decide this for you either way, even against your wishes? Good questions. chef Posted by: feminista Jan 28 2004, 05:53 PM Thank you, Lokmer, for your solid knowledgeable posts on this topic. So-called "partial-birth abortion" can be very important for women who find, late in a pregnancy, that the embryo is either practically or factually dead. See http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/06/07/late_term/index.html for one such story. Also, if you really care to, you can go to the Mutter museum (in Philly, PA) or to the Oregon Museum of Science (Portland, OR) to learn all about the many ways in which fetal development can go wrong. The partial-birth abortion ban, as written, can be used against any doctor who brings any part of a fetus into the birth canal during the abortion. This paper: http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html contains a cross-country study of the reasons women seek abortion. While relatively few women give relationship pressure (partner doesn't want a child) as a reason, there are a couple of catch-all reasons (e.g. wouldn't fit into my life right now) that could easily include partner pressure. To the man who would like his wife to get his permission before having an abortion, you can certainly express your preference but if you want to be sure you should have a vasectomy. I mean, fundamentally unless you've physically attached her to you she's her own person, and since you can't take on any of the job of carrying or birthing a child (weight gain, high blood pressure, toxemia, stroke, broken pelvis or hip or infections in the hospital) yeah, it's a little outrageous to say you'd like it to be your choice. However, if she loves and trusts you and the situation arises, she'll probably discuss it with you and you should consider yourself honored if she does and do your best to be supportive and helpful. Posted by: RowdyHoo Jan 28 2004, 06:13 PM I personally am against abortion except for rape or incest. But I don't think it should be illegal. In other words, it's not up to the government to tell people what to do in this case. But, why can't women be expected to make their "choice" before they become pregnat or in first trimester. Posted by: Erik the Awful Jan 28 2004, 06:27 PM Chef, QUOTE It is myth, but it is the guiding myth in this culture. It makes child bearing punishment for irresponsibility. Becoming “with child” without the necessary support systems in place is still considered “irresponsible”. Therefore it is felt in this culture, whether consciously or unconsciously, that the woman should carry to term as an act of redemption. Some of the onus of Genesis 3:16 has passed to the male but not much. The female is still largely stuck with the burden. Even if she does have the necessary support and is physically and mentally ready to be a mother, she still has a choice. This is all new material for me. I'll think on it for a while. I've just started in the last few days the process of deprogramming, so please bear with me. QUOTE Is it a grey area? You bet. All the more reason to keep our noses out of the decision. Do you mean our noses as men or our noses as in "we the people." Either way, I'm moving fairly rapidly to your viewpoint. QUOTE So you think that you should have the right to force your wife to carry a pregnancy to term if it is against her better judgment and wishes? What if she is just your girl friend? The woman may be your wife, but that doesn’t give you property rights to her body, does it? Certainly you should have input into the decision, but the decision is hers. It is still her body, marriage or no. I didn't supply the proper context for this. My wife and I agreed to have a baby. She worked really really hard to talk me into it. Once I agreed, we had the fun part (woohoo!) and she got pregnant. Once she was pregnant, I felt very very protective of her and our child. So, now to answer your questions: I don't believe I have the right to force any woman to carry a pregnancy to term, although if my wife had changed her mind and aborted, I'd have divoriced her ASAP. We're talking about two things here. I agree, it is still her body, marriage or no, although the nature of our marriage ma |