Abortion

[Kulindahr]

Other than that, for the most part, get your grubby hands off our female citizenry. This is not a civil concern. The prerogative in this matter is a deep and ancient action of Nature.

It is a civil matter if the unborn is a person -- see above.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not a wrench, it's more like a playing card that flaps around, constantly making lots of noise, but actually does nothing.

Here's a wonderful video demonstrating the ignorance of such arguments. It appears that most anti-abortionists spend a lot of time thinking about what kinds of anti-abortion signs to make but don't think too far beyond that - even a simple followup question that you would think be inherent to their protests can not be answered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

[STRIKE](copy and paste into your address bar and remove the space after the first "h" - the video won't allow embedding and jub won't allow an internet address to be posted without wrapping the url html code around it, embedding the video)[/STRIKE]

1. I don't see where the video even touches on that argument, which happens to bring up a very serious question.

2. I can't find any indication of how much time they spent deciding what kind of signs to make.

3. Insufficient sample size to say "most" -- I'll grant "many", but it's too easy to piece together a video with just the clips you want to even be certain of that.

Being unable to articulate a punishment for the woman who has an abortion is not surprising. Most pro-life groups consider the woman to be almost as much a victim as the aborted, and when you see a person as a victim it's hard to prescribe a punishment. That's why the pro-life groups I've been part of have focused on preventing abortions, by providing care and funding for women who considered abortion only because they couldn't afford a child. Many members of those groups gave 10% of their income to the church, and another 10% to the pro-life fund, all of which went to paying hospital bills, providing food and diapers and whatever else.

Even when a woman is convinced it isn't a person she's getting rid of, the agony can be terrible. I spent time counseling a girl who kept saying, "It was going to be a person!", and her abortion was early in the first trimester. If for no other reason, that agony is sufficient to make an effort to end all abortion.

One option that keeps getting knocked down is for those who want children but can't have them, but who have money, to pay for the whole pregnancy & birth, and then adopt the child. I see this called "buying babies", but I see it as saving the agony of abortion and granting a wish to people who dearly want to be parents.

 

[Alpha1851]

What the environment is, is irrelevant: the only thing relevant is whether there is a person in the womb. If there is, killing it is no different than killing the kid down the street whom you'd like to get rid of.

A woman can choose for herself -- when it's just her self that's involved. But if that unborn is a person, it isn't just her self, is it?
For that matter, it isn't just her, anyway -- unless she managed a latter-day virgin birth.

Actually, the environment isn't irrelevant just b/c you say so. In no other instance do we force one human being to play the host, to be the environment for another entity. The woman IS a person. A person w/ full legal rights and full obligations and protections. The fetus, on the other hand, is merely a POTENTIAL person.

Certainly pregnancies effect more than just the woman. But the effects and consequences aren't the same on others as it is on the pregnant woman. The woman is the one who becomes pregnant. The woman is the one who swells up and becomes huge. The woman is the one puking her guts out w/ morning sickness. The woman is the one w/ tremendous back pain. The woman is the one who must attend all the doctor visits and take prenatal vitamins. The woman is the one who gets the stretch marks. The woman is the one who'll be ridiculed at work for taking maternity leave. The woman will have to deal w/ these problems for six months. The woman has to deal w/ the pain of giving birth. And in the end, if the man chooses (and they often do in an unwanted pregnancy) to not be involved, the woman is the one who is trapped raising the baby.

Don't misunderstand, there are some fantastic fathers out there. I had one! However, the man can come or go and the pregnancy will carry on. While the woman has no choice but to participate.

So, until modern medicine/science finds a way to create a womb for men, your choice is to make sure that you use condoms and don't get any women pregnant. Of course, being gay, I guess that's one less thing to worry about. My choice is whether or not to have an abortion. It's my body. Not yours.

 

[naked gent]

Let's throw a wrench in all of this. A man kills a pregnant woman and gets 2 charges of murder. A doctor aborts a baby and get's nothing.

The fact a man who kills a pregnant woman does get two charges of murder is a good example of how nutty the religious right has become on the abortion issue.

In their zeal to judge others they go beyond what Almighty God deems to be justice which hardly makes sense given that He is infallible and they are not.

Exodus 21:24 says "And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall surely be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow then thou shall give a life for a life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand.......

Why do we find it necessary to go beyond God's justice?

There's no christian like an overly judgmental one.

 

[Jack Springer]

Martina Navratilova has made that same quote.

However, she is also an advocate for animals rights and gay rights.

Therefore, following her own logic:

Don't believe in cruelty to animals? Then don't be cruel to animals.

Don't believe in discrimination against gays? Then don't discriminate against gays.

Keep government action out of our decisions because it is coercive, blah blah blah. Keep the state OUT of our wombs. Except when it's time to pay the bill. Then the state is required to be IN the womb, apparently. Confiscating the resources of taxpayers, who have no choice, to pay the bill for dismembering a fetus, who also had no choice, to cover the costs of medical staff such as nurses, who had no choice but to be complicit to the procedure if they wish to remain employed in a hospital.

And anti-abortionits get tarred with the anti-choice label? Get real. The pro-aborts are the true anti-choicers.

Thank you, very well said. Character.

 

[CupCake]

Yes, but the Bible isn't a recipe book; you can't just grab some pages at random and neglect the rest. It's more like a novel -- you have to wait till the end to find out how things turn out -- and as it turns out, that "unclean" business was for a limited period of time, and that time ended some two millennia ago.

Excuse me but I never neglected any part!.... I am NOT a Christian because I disagree and do not believe on allot of stuff the bible and Christianity teaches but I agree with some stuff but I will not sit there and pretend like the things I disagree with and don't believe do not exist!

 

[boogalee]

The OP, like so many people, lack a developed sense of ethical responsibility.
They don't understand that it's not their issue.
Pregnancy is something that happens in a woman's body and, AS A LEGAL ISSUE, it is wholly her prerogative whether or not to terminate or continue. No one else, even if Congress were made up of Pope-clones, has any decisivity in the matter.
This is the American way. It should be the universal way.

Now, to be sure, the World at large is free to discourage abortion. It may encourage births. But it does not and may never of right have decisive power.

Choice, by the way, works both ways. It is also wrong to encourage or impose an abortion that a woman DOES NOT want. That could be criminalized.

Other than that, for the most part, get your grubby hands off our female citizenry. This is not a civil concern. The prerogative in this matter is a deep and ancient action of Nature.

As a woman I Thank You Kurn for understanding the simple fact that pregnancy is a private concern. It's a decision that is made on more than an emotional level...IF you truly respect life and are responsible. There are many situations that might prevent a woman from continuing a pregnancy...an there is no reason for her to feel guilty at all. If left alone MOST women don't feel guilty...they feel relieved...they don't rejoice, they accept their reality and their ability to choose what is the best course of action for herself.

Thousands of years of women using abortion in one form or another for very good reasons suggests that until we find a 100% sure contraceptive (no not celibacy Thanks anyway) AND effective sex education beyond "Just say NO"...women need to have access to safe abortion...and privacy.

As far as "shitting" out a baby...all I can say is Wow...

 

[boogalee]

Martina Navratilova has made that same quote.

However, she is also an advocate for animals rights and gay rights.

Therefore, following her own logic:

Don't believe in cruelty to animals? Then don't be cruel to animals.

Don't believe in discrimination against gays? Then don't discriminate against gays.

Keep government action out of our decisions because it is coercive, blah blah blah. Keep the state OUT of our wombs. Except when it's time to pay the bill. Then the state is required to be IN the womb, apparently. Confiscating the resources of taxpayers, who have no choice, to pay the bill for dismembering a fetus, who also had no choice, to cover the costs of medical staff such as nurses, who had no choice but to be complicit to the procedure if they wish to remain employed in a hospital.

And anti-abortionits get tarred with the anti-choice label? Get real. The pro-aborts are the true anti-choicers.

Emotional much? You are believing too much propaganda there guy. Your mental picture of a dismembered fetus, while emotive, isn't factual. Very few women have late term abortions as a means of birth control...if a woman has such an abortion there is a VERY good reason.

NO, I don't believe the old adage that if you must choose between the woman or the baby, you let the woman die. I believe the idea is that the baby is an innocent and the woman a sinner...we must die for our sins right?

Even in that situation I would let the woman choose, without the attending guilt/judgement vibe that some health care workers would put out.

An abortion is a fraction of the cost of caring for a child. I think you over simplify.

 

[KTheLibra]

Funny how the right wingers weep for the unborn, but once the baby is born it's fuck you, your on your own.Then it's all about personal responsibilty..

These same people who talk about the sanctity of life, yet,are pro death penalty,pro war and support the republicans who continually vote against programs that help the poor ''post fetus.''

Yep, they love the fetus but hate the child..

I belive that if YOU are against abortion, then YOU shouldn't have one. I don't belive hypocrites and zealots should have any say about the personal decisions a woman makes about her uterus.

Hear, hear!!!

 

[JB3]

I'm conservative, but I'm pro-choice to a point.

I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, but only within the first or second trimester. I am absolutely opposed to late-term abortions, as I think are most americans. The only circumstance that I see late-term abortions being allowable is if the health of the mother is in imminent and mortal danger.

With my family's background (mother is a physical therapist that works with a lot of adopted children) I would still prefer to see most mothers choose adoption instead of abortion. There are certainly enough families out there that would like to have families that can't, for one reason or another. I do NOT believe that women should be forced to choose adoption, however, even if it is preferable.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, the environment isn't irrelevant just b/c you say so. In no other instance do we force one human being to play the host, to be the environment for another entity. The woman IS a person. A person w/ full legal rights and full obligations and protections. The fetus, on the other hand, is merely a POTENTIAL person.

. . . .
And in the end, if the man chooses (and they often do in an unwanted pregnancy) to not be involved, the woman is the one who is trapped raising the baby.

. . . .
So, until modern medicine/science finds a way to create a womb for men, your choice is to make sure that you use condoms and don't get any women pregnant. Of course, being gay, I guess that's one less thing to worry about. My choice is whether or not to have an abortion. It's my body. Not yours.

"The fetus is not a person" is a statement of faith, not of fact. What's the scientific evidence for that? If there are brainwaves there indicating reaction to the environment, dream states, etc., then we're dealing with a person.

"We" don't force anyone to do anything: except in cases of rape, the woman made a choice, and selected the responsibility that comes with the choice. That involves the possibility of having a "guest" on board. The only time during which it's appropriate to evict the guest is before it becomes one, i.e. before those pesky brainwaves show up, before 'quickening'. Once those happen, it isn't your body any longer; there's a person there with his/her body (or multiple, in some cases).

 

[Kulindahr]

Excuse me but I never neglected any part!.... I am NOT a Christian because I disagree and do not believe on allot of stuff the bible and Christianity teaches but I agree with some stuff but I will not sit there and pretend like the things I disagree with and don't believe do not exist!

You said that the Bible says that certain animals are unclean and shouldn't be eaten. But that's not the whole story -- you neglected the part where that is overruled. To be accurate, you should have said that the Bible says that some animals used to be classed as unclean, but none are any longer.

 

[Kulindahr]

Funny how the right wingers weep for the unborn, but once the baby is born it's fuck you, your on your own.Then it's all about personal responsibilty..

These same people who talk about the sanctity of life, yet,are pro death penalty,pro war and support the republicans who continually vote against programs that help the poor ''post fetus.''

Yep, they love the fetus but hate the child..

I wish I had some of the blank looks I've gotten from other pro-life folks when I ask how much they contribute, and how much their group spends monthly, supporting mothers whose only reason for considering an abortion was because they couldn't afford a kid. It baffles me how they can get out there and protest, but not actually DO anything! One of the pro-life groups I was in supported quite a number of mothers; I had the honor of delivering checks for rent, baby supplies, doctor visits, and more for at least eight mothers a month. I always feel like telling the people on the street with their signs to go home, get out the checkbook, and out their money where their mouth is before picking up another protest sign or writing another letter.

I belive that if YOU are against abortion, then YOU shouldn't have one. I don't belive hypocrites and zealots should have any say about the personal decisions a woman makes about her uterus.

But it isn't just her uterus in question, is it? There's a biological organism in there that's not part of her body, and the question is whether it's a person. I advanced an argument about when personhood begins, but apparently hardly anyone here is interested in considering that most vital question -- it gets dismissed by slogans, or ignored with the unsupportable notion that life begins at conception thrown up as truth.

I have no problem with the morning-after pill, or abortion shortly after pregnancy is discovered; there's no basis for believing that there's a person involved (well, except the mother). But when you get brainwaves indicative of a being responding to its environment, when you get a being moving on its own, in charge of its own body, it's not just tissue, it's a guest. The time to make the decision to evict is before the unborn is a guest, i.e. a person.

 

[Spensed]

You said that the Bible says that certain animals are unclean and shouldn't be eaten. But that's not the whole story -- you neglected the part where that is overruled. To be accurate, you should have said that the Bible says that some animals used to be classed as unclean, but none are any longer.

Should he? The overruled part is just your view. Many folk simply don't agree with it.

I don't disagree with what you said earlier about some abortion groups helping rather than coercing pregnant women.

The point remains that that's what all anti-abortionists should all be doing, if their real concern was just preventing abortions.

 

[Kulindahr]

Should he? The overruled part is just your view. Many folk simply don't agree with it.

It isn't just my view -- the Bible flat out says that the clean/unclean stuff doesn't apply any more (Peter's vision in Acts), and later says that except for the provisions of the Noahic Covenant, that whole Mosaic Law thing doesn't apply (Council at Jerusalem, in Acts).
That's not opinion, it's baldly direct statements.

I don't disagree with what you said earlier about some abortion groups helping rather than coercing pregnant women.

The point remains that that's what all anti-abortionists should all be doing, if their real concern was just preventing abortions.

Which is why I ask picketers how much they're spending to help women so they don't have to get abortions. The blank looks infuriate me!

 

[01solara]

I don't disagree with what you said earlier about some abortion groups helping rather than coercing pregnant women.

The point remains that that's what all anti-abortionists should all be doing, if their real concern was just preventing abortions.

Who are you to specify what all people of every group should do. Their fight is on many levels and should be so long as the law is followed. We have rights to express our opinions as Americans in any legal way we see fit. Sometimes their behavior is counter productive and actually hurts their own position but it is absolutely their right to do it as they see fit. Their is extremism on both sides but the most extreme case I have seen of extremism comes from our current president who believes that if a full term baby somehow comes out alive after the mother has decided to abort should be put on a shelf to die and not receive medical care. I don't think that has anything to do with choice and is so over the line it should have been enough for him to never be considered fit for election from normal people. Most people cannot see past what the media tells them to think we are in huge trouble and there is little hope of things changing for the better.

 

[levenshulme31]

It's not like the planet's exactly short of people at the moment.

 

[boogalee]

Their is extremism on both sides but the most extreme case I have seen of extremism comes from our current president who believes that if a full term baby somehow comes out alive after the mother has decided to abort should be put on a shelf to die and not receive medical care.

Where do you get that? Propaganda? Show me...where did he say that?

 

[boogalee]

It's not like the planet's exactly short of people at the moment.

Very well put. Actually I see this as a theological argument and our country has separation of Church and State.

I also see this as a corporatist dream of keeping the supply of slaves, hungry, poor, uneducated...available for war and various other cheap uses. The last thing I see in this...(actually a couple of things)...is an effort to control women, both sexually and economically...so the authoritarians can enforce their view of women..gag...AND an issue of color, the quiverfull movement is a good example...it's about increasing the white, fundamentalist cult population.

 

[jdoe4822]

Very well put. Actually I see this as a theological argument and our country has separation of Church and State.

I also see this as a corporatist dream of keeping the supply of slaves, hungry, poor, uneducated...available for war and various other cheap uses. The last thing I see in this...(actually a couple of things)...is an effort to control women, both sexually and economically...so the authoritarians can enforce their view of women..gag...AND an issue of color, the quiverfull movement is a good example...it's about increasing the white, fundamentalist cult population.

ultimately all of this is irrelevant though. Thank you Kuli for seeing what the true issue to debate here is, when human life begins. We would all agree that none of the above matters if the person is already born because they are a human being. It's if the person is unborn that we start disagree, and so we must decide what we consider a human being, because as Kuli (and I earlier) said, if it's a human, you can't kill it (except under a limited set of circumstances), but if it's not, you can.

Kuli, while I thank you you for recognizing the terms of the debate and even coming up with a plausible alternative, I'll have to disagree with you about brain activity being the start. Once that sperm and egg join, you have something that meets the scientific criteria of being alive, you have the 46 chromosomes of a human being, the DNA codes for 100% human, and so I say you have a human being, even if it unrecognizable as one.

As far as capital punishment, war, self defense, and any other government sactioned/performed killing goes, it is (as has been said) a seperate issue. You can be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment the same way someone who can be pro choice and in favor of it - both groups believe murder is wrong and both support capital punishment, the disagreement is over whether or not the destruction of an unborn human is murder, which is seperate from capital punishment.