Please tell me that I am not a pro-lifer!

[truhavoc]

Upon careful reflection of my stance on abortion rights I have come to the general overall conclusion:

1.) I am against abortion for convienence, I feel that it does not teach responsibility especially with a subject as important as bringing a child into the world. Also I feel I need to hold this sort of view in order to be logically consistent with my anti-death penalty viewpoints

2.) I am for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or in order to save the life of the mother.

I have largely considered myself to be pro-choice based on my #2 viewpoints, but the concerns of #1 bother me. I just want to get an idea of if my feelings are simular to many on here...also I am welcome to hear dissent about those who disagree with my point #1.

[slinkerwink]

1. Abortion is NEVER for convenience!

and that's one of the lame-assed talking points of the right-wing republican party is that college women act like abortion's better than birth control pills, which is a LIE.

Abortion is for UNWANTED pregnancies. Say if I was on birth control, and my boyfriend was using a condom, and I ended up being pregnant. There is NO way that I'd want to put my life or my career on hold for NINE months to give birth to a fetus!

[JHBowden]

6. Isn't that what you're saying?

You stated that abortion is never for convenience; it is just used so that it doesn't interfere with someone's career. Hence it isn't used for convenience since it is. ???

I agree with you on choice; I'm merely examining your reasoning.

[slinkerwink]

14. think of it this way----if men had UNWANTED pregnancies, would

they want THAT to interfere with their lives, their future, and their goals? An unwanted pregnancy is just that, even with the use of birth control.

Women were unable to have careers, to have lives, to have a life outside of the home BECAUSE they could NOT control their reproduction. Now that we have birth control, it does NOT exclude abortions because there is STILL a chance of getting pregnant while on birth control. Therefore that is why abortion is a LAST resort.

[markses]

16. There is both a difference in tone and a difference in substance

Between the notion of "convenience" and the kinds of life crises that generally lead to abortions. Convenience is "I'd like to be closer to the kids school." Life crisis is "My life, and the life of those around me, will be irrevocably altered by this event, and I am not ready to cope with this physically, mentally, spiritually or socially at this time." Including a life crisis under the general category of convenience is both untrue in substance and (for that reason) obnoxious and misleading in tone.

[truhavoc]

17. Convienence may not be the right word

But my convictions still hold of needing to be at least partly responsible for your actions. Still accidents do happen (birth control and a condom), I would have to draw a parallel with unwanted children...you cannot just kill them! I would never say that women act as if abortion is better than birth control, that is an insane comment because I cannot image the type of decision it would be to decide to have an abortion! I take a very biological stance on fetal rights, I believe there should be stem cell research and things along those lines (for the betterment of humanity), but there comes a time when it truly is a convienence issue. Sure it would be a tough situation for you to put your career on hold, but I imagine I could argue that is what you risk when having casual sex.

[slinkerwink]

20. are you advocating abstinence then?

And it's just not a tough situation for me to put my career on hold, but it would IRREVOCABLY change the lives of others around me. So why should I force myself through a pregnancy as a result of sex in a monogamous relationship?

[truhavoc]

28. I'm in a deeply commited monogamous relationship as well

And we were very sexually active for two and a half years until we had a "scare". Of course (maybe as a man only) it seems like an easy choice to want to have an abortion when you are a senior in college and just got accepted into law school, it would have changed my life. BUT instead we decided instead of taking the risk we would remain abstinent until we decided we were ready to have a child. I would promote abstinence, but I am not going to take the republican idea to promote it above all other forms of sex education. I feel that if you truly think about your actions there is a responsible adult choice to make, not an easy choice, but easier than having an abortion.

[slinkerwink]

42. look at post #24

[playahata1]

176. I agree with you here:

<<I would promote abstinence, but I am not going to take the republican idea to promote it above all other forms of sex education.>>

I agree that it is one thing to say that abstinence is A birth-control option, but it is quite another thing say that abstinence is be the ONLY birth-control option that should be taught in a sex-education program.

[DoktorGreg]

92. Definately pro-life

", but I imagine I could argue that is what you risk when having casual sex."

There it is, you think a pregnancy is punishment for "poor decision making". Stay out of my bed room thank you.

[outinforce]

104. "Punishment"??

"Pregnancy is punishment for 'poor decision making'".

Really?

What are your views on child support?

Is legally compelling a man who, when he had sex, had no intention of ever having a baby, and took all reasnoable steps to prevent a pregnancy, to make child support payments to support a child he never wanted -- is that "punishment" for poor decision making?

Should we also suggest that everyone just stay our of men's wallets, thank you?

[Nobody]

177. No one ever died from paying child support

Paying child support does not distort one's body, cause you to throw up every morning for three months or more, cause your hips to dislocate so that you can only walk very slowly with a cane.

Paying child support does not come with a possible risk of death.

Paying child support doesn't carry risks that something will go wrong and require additional medical attention.

Paying child support does not cause you to endure pain for 18 to 20 hours while in labor. Paying child support does not cause odd food cravings, insomnia, or the urge to urinate every 15 minutes.

Strangers do not come up to a payer of child support with pregnancy horror stories, unwanted advice, nor do they feel that they have the right to rub their tummies.

Some pregnancies are easy, but most have one or more of these effects and others I don't have the time, space, or inclination to list.

I understand your point. However, paying a sum of money doesn't carry with it serious potential permanent health repercussions. You can't compare the two. We all get one body and one body only.

[DoktorGreg]

181. If what you want is some booty call...

You should be looking for someone with similar interests to you.

However if your intent is to "score", dont make the neighbor or church girl swoon, then act surpised when she wants a house to go with her baby. Did she lie about being on the pill? Yah probably, but you were just being naieve.

Housewives. Married women are an excellent choice. That way if there is a baby, the patrimony always resolves to the man she is married to. With an estimated 40% of American households locked in sexless marriages, this is a growth market.

Prositutes. No danger of fatherhood there... Not that you know about anyway.

[outinforce]

184. Me? Looking for a "Booty Call"? HA!

I'm gay. I do, in fact, when looking to have sex, look for someone with interests similar to mine.

Which means the chances of me becoming a father are zero.

But I am intriqued by what I perceive to be your notion of heterosexual sex.

You appear to be saying that heterosexual men should refrain from sex unless they are willing to shoulder the responsibilities of being a parent.

Tell me -- do you think the same thing about women who engage in heterosexual sex? Or do they get a pass from you?

[OKNancy]

94. Lumping all abortions together

Casual sex is not the only thing that can lead to abortions. Married sex can too. Repsonsible sex with birth control can lead to abortions. Not all abortions are done on young women, you know.
You would be surprised at how many women over 40 with grown children have abortions.

[LeahMira]

117. I'm sure there are some women...

... who do have abortions because they simply didn't bother to take other sorts of precautions against an unplanned pregnancy. I'm sure there are some women who do have abortions for other reasons that many other people would not consider indicative of "responsible behavior." Still, there are some people who accept welfare under false pretences and there are some who accept disability payments under false pretences. You can't eliminate this kind of thing in any kind of situation. Sometimes, people just do the wrong thing. That's how people are.

At the same time, we can't legislate against something because of the relatively few who abuse "the system." We can't legislate against abortion because of some who may be using it as birth control or having multiple abortions because they are just irresponsible or whatever.

In the end, it will have to be on the conscience of the woman. If she had an abortion "just because," then she is the one who will have to come to terms with that decision. Access to safe, legal abortion is a benefit that the majority of women are responsible and thoughtful about. If we want people to act responsibly, we have to give them a chance to exercise choice. Some few will inevitably miss the mark, but many, many more will not.

Let's not do what has been done to so many other good programs... point out examples of "welfare queens," for instance, and use these examples as a reason to deny assistance to the many honest individuals who certainly do deserve a break. Let's not let the people who are acting pretty stupidly be the ones that set the tone here.

[Bill McBlueState]

138. I like your analogy to the welfare situation

A few will abuse the system, and who knows how many, it's not really that important. That fact should not be used to restrict the rights of the majority who are responsible and thoughtful.

[MrSlayer]

29. I beg to differ.

I have known several people that have gotten multiple abortions simply because they didn't want to take care of a child and were too irresponsible to use protection. MULTIPLE abortions. To me this is abortion for convenience and murder.

[JHBowden]

36. Does convenience even matter?

The pro-life argument states that the fetus is a human being, all human beings have a right to life, therefore a fetus has a right to life.

Suppose one grants all of this. Does the right to use someone's body for nine months follow from the right to life? If so, consider this thought experiment. Suppose someone kidnapped you in the middle of the night. You awake in a hospital bed physically connected to another human being in a coma. You learn that this man was going to die unless he was connected to someone. Hence, you have to lay in bed for nine months until he comes out of his coma. While this man clearly has the right to life, does he have the right to use another person's body at will? If not, if you chose the break the connection which would result in the man's death, it would not be murder.

[truhavoc]

41. You are confusing a natural situation with an unnatural example

The two do not equate to one coherent viewpoint, I see your idea but the logic is flawed.

[JHBowden]

46. Where is the fallacy?

It appears I have not affirmed the consequent, denied the antecedent, or any of the logical fallacies I can think of. Perhaps you can clear where the fallacy is.

Remember that the proposition I'm defending is the right to use another person's body doesn't follow from the right to life.

[DjTj]

63. The analogy isn't right.

Your story is analogous to rape, and nobody here is against abortion in the case of rape. When a fetus is in your uterus through no fault of your own, you should of course be allowed to have an abortion.

However, in cases of consensual sex, an argument could be made that the woman consented to a risk of pregnancy.

[slinkerwink]

71. that's just a weak argument to use against consensual sex

[truhavoc]

97. This is my point exactly, well stated n/t

[JVS]

123. There is another error in the analogy

The analogy assumes that pregnancy is completely debilitating physically. While it is true that pregnancy is hard on the body, it is not true to liken pregnancy to being bedridden for 9 months, at least in typical pregnancies. A pregnancy that bad would qualify as being a health risk; a situation for which I've yet to see people here argue against abortion.

[Nobody]

178. Good point about likening this to rape, but one question...

Supposing you demanded to be unhooked because you didn't agree and suppose that the people who decided that you would be hooked up claimed that you agreed to it.

Also suppose that you have the burden of proof to show that you never consented, especially in light of no evidence of broken bones, bruises, or other signs of force.

However, in this analogy, there is always the possibility of finding a willing volunteer to take your place. Unfortunately, pregnancy doesn't work that way with existing medical knowledge.

[truhavoc]

96. Here is where I see it

When you say, "right to use another person's body doesn't follow from the right to life." only one entity inherently has this "right" which is a fetus. Therefore to equate this natural situation with an artifical situation is like comparing A to C, not A to A. Along these lines I could agrue for the legality of all murders by merely asserting that it is okay to murder in self defense, your logic would follow that since it is "okay" to murder in self defense, "murder" in general is justifiable. Counterexamples to the rule must be put in the same context as the original situation.

[MrSlayer]

56. Sure it matters, if you aren't a ghoul.

Your argument is ridiculous. I didn't create the guy in the bed that they are forcing me to keep alive. That's not my responsibility. The person getting the abortion, however IS responsible for the life within them. I'm for choice, after all it's never going to affect me, but I personally find abortion for convenience repulsive. I don't believe it should be used so you can go fuck whomever, whenever and just kill the mistakes. It should be something to be used only in extreme circumstances.

[outinforce]

116. I Think Most Pro-Choice Folks would agree with you

I do think that most folks who call themselves pro-choice would agree with you when you say that abortion "should be something to be used only in extreme circumstances."

I think, though, that what you consider to be an "extreme circumstance" might differ just a bit from what many others consider to be an extreme circumstance. For some, postponing entry into law school or a high-paying job with a very prestigious firm is just about the most extreme circumstance that could be contemplated.

[dawn]

136. And that's what it is about, isn't it. The sex.

[JVS]

120. Isn't this analogy from Philippa Foot?

[outinforce]

137. This Person in the Hospital Bed.....?

This person in the hospital bed....the one that I am physically coneected to?

I have a question about him.

Did I take any action that brought him into existence? Or did he just materialize independently of any action on my part?

I think I would resent greatly being hooked up to another person and having that other person's life totally dependent upon being connected to me -- if that other person's situation were completely independent of any action I took.

I don't think, though, that that is the situation with a pregnancy. At least, I learned in sex ed class that pregnancy is sometimes a result of sex.

I am only suggesting here that the situation you describe is not the same as what h appens in a pregancy -- women are not "kidnapped" and then hooked up to someone else. To suggest that the situations are at all the same seems to me to deny basic human biology.

[LandOLincoln]

75. I see you're a fellow Clark supporter. Does your post mean you

disagree with his position on abortion?

[MrSlayer]

79. No, I'm for choice.

[LandOLincoln]

125. Yes, I realized that once I'd read further down the thread.

Thanks for responding.

[SheilaT]

77. And would it be better if these

people had the babies? Would the world be a better place?

Remember what Romania was like when no one could get an abortion, the abandoned children left to rot in orphanages? Is THAT a good thing?

[MrSlayer]

81. No.

Everyone makes mistakes but you would think after the first time or even the second time you wouldn't continue to make the same mistake. Condoms, the pill, diaphragm, IUD, tubes tied......Do something to prevent it! I find wanton abuse of abortion personally disgusting but I wouldn't take the choice away from anyone. It's their life and their conscience.

[bruce21040]

82. The male has some control here also

It is a much less dangerous procedure for the male to have a vasectomy than for a women to have her tubes tied.

It is time for the males in this country to start taking a bit of the responsibility when it comes to birth control.

[MrSlayer]

85. I understand that.

But I'm not talking about a couple that is in a stable relationship. I'm talking about chicks who sleep with everyone and just kill their mistakes. That's the experience of mine that I'm talking about, I know at least 10 females I grew up with that have had more than one abortion. To me this should never happen.

[Misunderestimator]

110. 10 Just where you Grew Up??

Wow... where the heck did you grow up? I've never met a single ONE woman who had an abortion as a substitute for birth-control. I agree that such mentality is repulsive. But, how would you suggest changing that? You can't, without negatively affecting the rights of the MAJORITY of women who don't treat abortion so lightly.

[outinforce]

113. Repulsive?

Did I read that correctly?

I think you just said that you consider the mentality of a woman who has an abortion as a means of birth control to be repulsive?

Aren't you being just a tad judgmental here?

I mean, the decision to have an abortion is always justified by the woman's own particular situation and her own determination of how the preganancy will affect her life, her health, and the lives of those around her, right?

Why is one category of abortions (abortions used as a means of birth control) any more -- or for that matter, any less -- "repulsive" than any other type of abortion?

Aren't you applying some sort of moral calculus here -- a moral calculus that is your own?

[Misunderestimator]

122. You totally read me wrong

In response to the previous poster, I agreed that a woman USING abortion INSTEAD of birth control and having repeated abortions is repulsive. And yes, I stand by that. She should have learned from the first, second, or third mistake to get better birth control, no? Simply having many abortions for whatever other reason... using birth control that fails, etc. is not repulsive to me.

Yes, I'm applying a moral calculus here, and I'm also saying that you cannot (should not) regulate people's morality with laws that would strip more sensible people of their rights. So, shoot me, I think some people are stupid. Doesn't mean I want to take their rights away.

[amazona]

129. birth control isn't for everyone

I don't think you realize how limited the choices are, or at least, were. An acquaintance of mine has had 5 abortions at last count. She has very limited choices because of her health. We all know that abstinence and condoms don't work -- they fail -- indeed, looking at the pregnancy rate with condoms, I am forever impressed at how good a job they do at disease prevention against viruses -- but sperm are much more motivated than viruses! Be that as it may, she can't take any hormonal method because of a health condition. She wasn't a candidate for IUD. Some women do make diaphragms and sponges work but she wasn't one of them because she and her partners value spontaneity. What is left? For this woman, with multiple physical and emotional problems, to keep popping out one baby after another? Is that fair? Keep in mind some of the children would likely inherit her varied physical ailments. We the taxpayer would end up paying for all these babies in the end. My conclusion is that abortion is the right choice for her. She did have one baby and we're all pretty sure that she sold it. Is that better than abortion? Not all women are fit to be mothers and, sadly, these unfit mothers are more not less likely to have situations where current birth control technology won't work for them.

Another issue is that many prescriptions are getting over $40 a month -- it is getting to where it would be financially cheaper to have an abortion even if you had to do it every year than to take the pill. Women with few financial resources might not want to think like that, but maybe they have to.

I don't think it's fair for you or me to make laws against someone's private sexual behavior or health-related decisions just because it strikes us as "repulsive." That is a dangerous precedent in my humble opinion. The lady I mentioned above is not my favorite person in the world, but I am very glad she can exercise the option to NOT have a child more than just the once. I shudder to think of a living creature in her tender care.

[Misunderestimator]

144. I swear that I have been misread

All of the reasons for having multiple abortions that both of you have made make total sense to me, and I am not judging that, and wasn't. I specifically stated that I found it repulsive unless there were reasons. Not even trying birth control, having the money to afford birth control, having no ill side-effects from birth control... then I think someone like THAT who has multiple abortions should think about what is healthier. Abortions are not walks in the park either.

I AM PRO-CHOICE. Did you not really read my post?

Apologies for echoing the word repulsive, that the previous poster had used. It is not the word I would have used.... let me try this:

It irritates me that someone would use abortion as their only means of birth control (without ever having tried anything else).

There that is what I meant.

On edit... just to prove that I did not change my position, here is a quote from the post you responded to:

"Simply having many abortions for whatever other reason... using birth control that fails, etc. is not repulsive to me."

Do you see that? I can understand that you might not have seen the "not" so I bolded it here.

[outinforce]

153. I Hate It When Someone Mis-Reads My Posts, Too.

I hate it when someone mis-reads my posts, too. I happens a lot, especially on threads such as this. I get accused of being a misogynist or of wanting to keep women under male domination or even of having "severe uterus envy".

So I know what you mean.

I have often suggested or asked about the reasons women have abortions -- only to be told that it is really none of my business -- that women ought to continue to have a pretty much unfettered right to have an abortion for whatever reason the individual woman sees fit -- whether it is because she has a serious medical condition that would be aggrevated by a pregnancy or whether it is because she is about to enter a prestigious law school and she feels that a pregnancy would interrupt her educational plans. Whatever the reason, I am told, it is completely up to the woman to decide.

I am also often told that it is most objectionable for any person to question the motives for an abortion -- or certainly to suggest that the motives are somehow not "proper". I am told that no one can walk in the shoes of another person, so it is just not right for me or anyone else ever to criticize in any way whatsoever a woman who chooses to have an abortion. I hear this over and over and over again.

Fair enough.

So I ask you again -- how is it that you can say this: "Not even trying birth control, having the money to afford birth control, having no ill side-effects from birth control... then I think someone like THAT who has multiple abortions should think about what is healthier."

Who is in a better position to judge what is "healthier" for a given woman -- you, me, or her? Isn't the suggestion that a woman who is able to use birth control, but who chooses instead to use abortion as her own preferred means of birth control, just a slight bit paternalistic?

And -- help me to understand here -- isn't saying something like "It irritates me that someone would use abortion as their only means of birth control (without ever having tried anything else)." just a bit offensive? I have posted in other threads that I am "irritated" or "annoyed" by certain types of abortions. The replies I receive to such posts are ususally "It's none of your concern" or "Why should anyone care whether you are annoyed or not". Or "Your annoyance comes from some deep hatred of women". The bottom line of most of the posters who reply is that I am judging what is for most women a deeply personal matter, and that it is downright offensive for me to even suggest that I an "irritated" by what some women choose to do.

It does seem to me that I may be slightly more "bothered" by abortion than you. Certainly, it does bother me greatly that, in my view at least, abortion is viewed by so many people as a simple matter of choice, with no more moral or ethical concern that chooseing whether to have vanilla or strawberry ice cream -- or with no more moral or ethical concern that removing a tooth or an appendix.

To me, abortion is much more than chosing vanilla or strawberry or whether to keep a tooth or not.

I do find it encouraging that you say that you find certain abortions -- done for certain reasons -- to be irritating. I tend to say that I am bothered by those same issues. But then, I don't consider the label "pro-life" to be an insult.

[outinforce]

132. Aren't The Various Forms of Birth Control.....

Aren't many or most of the methods of birth control that are available to women dangerous in some way? Don't they either introduce a foreign object into a woman's reporductive system? Didn't use of IUD's leave some women infertile? Don't most of the other methods involve the introduction of chemicals into a woman's system?

So why is it so "repulsive" if woman rationally decides not to use birth control when she has sex, and chooses instead to use abortion as her preferred means of birth control?

I think you are suggesting that such a woman is "stupid".

I think I hear you saying that a woman who makes choices that you agree with (using birth control) is someone is "more sensible" than someonw who makes choices that you disagree with (using her freedom of choice as her preferred method of birth control -- over and over and over again).

But perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you favored choice when it came to women's reproductive rights -- including, I thought, the right to choose her preferred method of birth control.

[LeahMira]

134. Chicks who sleep with everyone...

... are not "chicks" that are high in self-esteem. You might wonder why.

The abortions are the symptom, not the problem.

[dawn]

139. Why? Would you say the same about men who do the same?

If so, then fine, but if not...why?

[bruce21040]

154. I would

Men that sleep with every female that he can is no better than the female that will sleep with every guy she can.
The two deserve each other and any STD they may contract.

Respect for the opposite sex does not allow you to treat anyone in this manner.
There should be so much more to sex than just the momentary pleasure that it brings.

[outinforce]

157. I Do Have A Problem Here.

I have a problem with what you have posted here.

To suggest that two adults -- of whatever gender -- who mutually decide to have a bit of "momentary pleasrue" are somehow missing something is troublesome. What is it , exactly, that they are missing?

Or to suggest the adult human beings who have multiple partners -- again, with mutual consent and respect for each partner -- are somehow deserving of "any STD then may contract" to me is even more troubling.

I agree that anyone who uses other people sexually for his or her own pleasure without first making sure that the other person understands what is involved -- is a person who is not to be admired. Same with a person who uses another person sexually as a way to soothe his or her own feelings of low self-esteem.

But even then, to suggest that people somehow "deserve" STD's is just awful.

IMHO.

[outinforce]

142. Good Things and Bad Things

Abandoned chilren left to rot in orphanages in Romania.

You ask if that is a good thing.

I can think of no one on either side of the abortion debate who would ever suggest that that is a good thing.

But I think you might be suggesting that the world would have been a better place if all of those babies, instead of being abandoned and left to rot in orphanages had instead been aborted.

Perhaps you might like to explain your thoughts to one of those children who was adopted from one of those ophanages by loving parents. Maybe you would like to sit down with such a child an tell him or her your remembrances of how things were in Romania when no one could get an abortion. You might tell the child how it would have been better if he or she had never been born.

[Just Me Here]

161. Arguing for Genocide?

So are you claiming that we should kill off all abandoned children left in ofphanages? Are you claiming that we should get rid of these kids because the world would be a better place?

[LeahMira]

130. And what if it is?

I have known several people that have gotten multiple abortions simply because they didn't want to take care of a child and were too irresponsible to use protection. MULTIPLE abortions. To me this is abortion for convenience and murder.

So what is the remedy for this sort of behavior?

First of all, you may or may not know the "rest of the story" for these women.

Still, even if what you say is the absolute truth (and I really have no reason to think it isn't), shall all women be a "suspect category" of persons because of these several people who have had multiple abortions?

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was permitted in some states, but not in others. In states where it was permitted, women generally had to "justify" their need for an abortion by claiming that a medical necessity existed, or by claiming that they were mentally unstable (i.e. "I'll kill myself if I have to have this baby.") Do you imagine that those several people of your acquaintance would have not had an abortion because of these kinds of restrictions?

Recall, please, that before Roe v. Wade, even in states where abortions were not permitted for any reason, women aborted on their own... risking permanent damage to themselves or even death in order to do so... regardless of whether their motives for having an abortion were matters of "convenience" or not. Do you think that a woman who has an abortion because she doesn't want to take care of a child and is too irresponsible to use protection deserves to live with a painful, lifelong disability or to die simply because she is that way?

Finally, although you may know several women who have had abortions for convenience, I'd bet you know ten times that number of women who have had abortions for other reasons. You might not know that you know them because they aren't gabbing about it, but I'd bet you know them.

[dawn]

135. That is their issue, not yours.

Unless you are prepared to take care of their unwanted children, that is their karma. Why judge them?

Does it make you feel better, and more righteous, to judge others? I think that is why we do that...looking in the mirror is very difficult, and it is easier to villify other people when we could be reaching out to them to help them, or working on our own issues.

[Crucible]

90. Lack of executive thinking

judging by your post, you seem to have a corrupt thought process.
I wonder how many of us here can say for sure that our birth was planned before the fact.

[regnaD kciN]

95. Not exactly "never"...

...but otherwise only in cases of rather bizarre individuals. (I'm thinking of Yoko Ono, back in the pre-John 60s, who admitted to having had a series of abortions. According to what she said at the time, in more than one relationship, she delierately got pregnant because she wanted to feel what it was like carrying her lover's child, then aborted it because she really didn't want a baby, just to feel what it was like being pregnant with that person's child. :crazy: )

But, needless to say, I don't think that Yoko, during that period in her life, should be used as the basis for determining national laws concerning reproductive rights...

[outinforce]

111. And Why Not?

Why not use Yoko as the poster child for determining national laws on female reproductive rights?

I don't know, exactly, what your own views on female reproductive rights are, but my own experience is that many pro-choice folks will say something like this:

"It is the absolute right of any woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion. NO ONE else, however well-intentioned, should ever purport to make such a deeply personal decision for a woman.

If that is indeed the case, then where does anyone get off calling Yok Ono "bizarre"? That is judgmental, and if you happen to be a male, it is most likely a word that reflects some sort of antipathy towards women.

Yoko was merely exercising her own deeply personal views towards the nature of life itself. And isn't that what "choice is really all about"? That, and celebrating the power of women to destroy the most vulnerable form of human life?

Who is in any position to judge Yoko Ono? She truly represents, it seems to me, the fullest expression of the "pro-choice" point of view -- fetuses are simply a part of a woman's body that have no intrinsic value and are themsselves worthy of no dignity at all. And the decision to exercise power to destroy a fetus is deeply personal and something that no one but the woman involved can ever make.

[qwerty]

127. convenience..

slinkerwink wrote:

"Abortion is NEVER for convenience!...
...Abortion is for UNWANTED pregnancies. Say if I was on birth control, and my boyfriend was using a condom, and I ended up being pregnant. There is NO way that I'd want to put my life or my career on hold for NINE months to give birth to a fetus!"


errr...isn't that convenience?

[Alpha Wolf]

150. Really?

"There is NO way that I'd want to put my life or my career on hold for NINE months to give birth to a fetus!"

It's good to know that abortion is never for convenience.

Admission: I am a pro-life Democrat. We are rare, but we do exist.

[freetobegay]

2. It's quite simple

either you are for womans rights or you are not.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Well now that you put it /that/ way...

:eyes:

[freetobegay]

34. How else would you put it?

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

50. See #49 below.

But I think you knew the nature of what I was going to say.

[freetobegay]

58. Whats the rhetoric in a womans right?

I think it's pretty self explanatory.

[LoZoccolo]

64. zzzz

:boring:

[freetobegay]

102. Sorry my concern over womans rights is putting you to sleep

eom

[LoZoccolo]

112. zzzz

:boring:

[freetobegay]

180. well

:eyes:

[outinforce]

155. HOLD ON THERE!!!

"It's quite simple...either you are for womans rights or you are not."

Wait just a minute.

You statement seems to me to be pretty "black and white" -- no chance for any areas of gray.

I thought that the only people who saw things in "black and white" when it comes to abortion were those evil "pro-life" folks.

It appears that I have been mis-informed.

[Robbien]

3. That is what is wrong with the terminology

It is not pro-abortion, it is pro-choice.

Are you willing to inflict your beliefs on another woman's body? Are you willing to tell her what she should do?

I am able to follow my belief, you may follow yours.

We have that choice.

[LandOLincoln]

4. What makes men think they should have any say in

the matter of abortion anyway?

[slinkerwink]

5. I simply think it's a product of womb envy that men have

I do think that men are jealous that women have the ability to give birth, and they seek control over that ability by controlling the women. It's sexism, simple as that.

[LoZoccolo]

66. Hahahaha oh come on.

This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever heard anyone say about this whole issue. I have never heard this one before ever. Isn't it kind of sexist, to try and put thoughts and motives in my and other mens' heads? Like I say below, why don't you just admit, you fall on one side, and other people fall on the other, and it isn't likely to get resolved any time soon.

Like I said below, this thread is about close to useless.

[neverborn]

69. Hrm...

You don't agree with slinkerwink, so you liken her opinion to mockery and ridicule without addressing the point?

[LoZoccolo]

73. Well, yeah.

She's got a lot to prove when she says something like that, and she's made no attempt to prove it. It's funny to me because I've like, never ever thought of what it would be like to bear children, much less to the point where I want to control women. Then it's used as the foundation of an explanation for why people oppose abortion? Come on! It's just weird. No, you can't just put thoughts in other peoples' heads. I mean, isn't that kind of what this thread's about - saying that women have abortions for convenience when you really don't know why any particular woman does?

[LeahMira]

131. Some men think that way.

Isn't it kind of sexist, to try and put thoughts and motives in my and other mens' heads?

Reacting to the women's march this past Sunday and the remarks made by a few of the speakers, some of the FReeper men are claiming that women used to be "demure and gentle." There's something to be said for being demure and gentle in some situations, but it's certainly not appropriate in all situations. These FReeper men would like it to be so they wouldn't get any argument or disagreement from the women in their lives. I wonder why they are so insecure that they need a "demure" woman admiring every word that drops out of their mouths. It's a control thing, don't you know?

Believe me, a whole lot of those "demure and gentle" women are just waiting for their FReeper idiot to make a public fool of himself. Too bad that's the only meager satisfaction they get in life. What a warped way to live for both people!

[LoZoccolo]

143. Hahahaha I thought this was over!

My whole point is that it is not OK to think you have the right (in an intellectual-honesty sense) to make up some weird theory about what men think and use it as the basis of such a strong accusation. This is so bad that it's funny.

Just like you don't have the right to say that because I have a problem with this deeply amatuer (did I also mention it was weird) psychoanalysis because I want "demure and gentle" women. I want sane and reasonable and fair and intellectualy honest men and women. I would not say that the only way that women can argue stuff is to be unreasonable and make shrill way-out fabricated claims - I for one think that they can be reasonable, and that's why I expect slinkerwink to be so, and you too.

[outinforce]

119. OMG!!! NOT THIS AGAIN!

Several months ago, on a thread much like this one, another poster accused me of "severe uterus envy".

After I picked myself up off the floor and stopped laughing, I began to wonder and marvel at the ability some folks have to engage in the act of psychoanalysis via the internet.

A person could just as easily say that forcing men to priovide child support is the result of women being jealious that men have the ability not to give birth and that women seek to control that ability by controlling me. And to suggest that that is a form of sexism.

Of course, such an argument would be considered by most to be ridiculous.

[7th_Sephiroth]

12. Lincon-

cause the law states if a guy gets the girl preg, he has to take care of it, an un-due burden on anyone, and by take care of it i mean pay the mother money, manny people have been scammed that way

[No2W2004]

54. What I think Lincoln means

(and the way I feel )is that, men can't be faced with that ultimate responsiblilty....men aren't going to be the ones who have to be on that table and go through the proceedure, and men don't have to live with the thought of having their bodies fought over in a purely political battleground. As men, we can only offer support, take responsibliity for our actions, and give our love...

But it's not our place to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. Make no mistake, choice is what the battle is about, and if women are denied their rights now, then who is next?

[LandOLincoln]

70. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and you are absolutely

right. That's exactly what I meant.

Thank you!

[Bill McBlueState]

147. what are the rights of the father?

Does the man who is jointly responsible for creating the baby have any say in its fate?

What's the fair solution if the mother wants an abortion, and the father does not? Even if she'll play no role in the child's life after birth, the mother should be under no obligation to carry a fetus for nine months. But it denies the parental rights of the father if the fetus is aborted even though he wants to raise the child he jointly created.

What's the fair solution if the mother wants to raise the child, but the father wants no part of it? Should the father be legally compelled to pay child support?

Fairness demands one or the other:

If women have the absolute right to an abortion, then prospective fathers should similarly have an absolute right to opt out of child support.

If the father has the right to demand the baby be carried to full term, the mother has the right to refuse to support it.

[Lindacooks]

7. How do you feel about privacy?

Because that is really what this issue is all about. Privacy to make medical decisions with your doctor without the government interfering. Privacy to do as you see fit with your body. Your opinion on whether abortion is 'convenient' or not doesn't matter except for yourself and your decisions. One person's 'convenience' is another's life-or-death struggle.

We can't teach responsibility by forcing women to carry to term. Teaching responsibility comes way, way before that. I think you may be slipping down the slope of Repuke opinion, where many seem to think that women go skipping happpily off to clinics for abortions. No woman I know likes to go to the doctor for a routine checkup, let alone an invasive medical procedure.

Many pro-lifers also assume that women can't be trusted to make these decisions on their own. It's a terrible paternalistic, misogynist viewpoint that treats women as uneducated children.

Abortion, like any other medical procedure, is nobody else's business other than the woman's and her doctor's.

[markses]

24. Well put: Especially on the Life Crisis as a "teaching moment"

The sole justification provided by the initial poster was that the "convenience" side does not teach responsibility. The mislabelling of a life crisis as "convenience" leads to the absurd notion that an unwanted pregnancy provides an appropriate occasion for society to "teach" the individual something about ethics. This is a disturbing pretention, first, because the "lesson" necessarily effects many others apart from the one supposedly "deficient" (why would you want to teach somebody about responsibility unless you thought that person irresponsible), and second because the lesson thus imparted is seemingly arbitrary when compared with the effects. Why not say that the event of a minor cancer in a parent would be a good time to "teach" a person about dealing with loss, or about the social cost of medicine. The whole notion is silly.

[question everything]

60. Indeed. I once heard a physician described

how in the "old" days, in a home for unwed young pregnant women, no pain medication was given during delivery, to "teach her a lesson."

[Snoggera]

8. No one wakes up in the morning

discovers they are pregnant, yawns, and decides to go to the clinic for a few hours.

I don't know of one, single woman that made this decision based upon convenience. Of course, I don't associate with many republican wives, so may not have a representative sample in my experience.

Pro-life should mean assisting those born with reaching their potential. Period.

No flame intended, just an opinion not based upon religious teachings or media manipulation over the past 25 years.

[yankeedem]

9. Not pro-life, anti-choice

If you are for allowing women to make their own decisions concerning their bodies, you are pro-choice.

If you are for not letting women make choices concerning their own bodies, you are anti-choice. Not pro-life, because pro-lifers don't give a damn about the life of the mom, but anti-choice.

If you don't like abortion, join the club. I don't either. Therefore I don't have an abortion. Simple. Not my right to tell a woman what to do.

[LeahMira]

146. Agreed... they are anti-choice.

If you are for not letting women make choices concerning their own bodies, you are anti-choice. Not pro-life,
because pro-lifers don't give a damn about the life of the mom, but anti-choice.

Absolutely! It's too bad that the pro-choice side has let the anti-choice group redefine themselves with a label that is a bit more positive. Most of them are not pro-life. They would prefer a woman to die in order to save a fetus. That's not pro-life... it's pro-trading one life for another.

Somehow, they rationalize the trade by claiming that "the baby is innocent." Well, isn't the woman also innocent? What has she done wrong? Or could it be that innocence simply means sexually innocent?

Generally, they also support capital punishment and wars, which are two quite anti-life things.

[outinforce]

158. You Don't LIKE Abortion???

You say in your post that you don't "like" abortion.

What's not to like?

Isn't abortion, after all, just a medical procedure? How can you not like a medical procedure?

I don't understand this at all -- I would never suggest that I don't like appendectomies or tonsilectomies or any other "-etcomy" that just removes a portion of a person's body.

Am I missing something here?

[Kadie]

10. Pro Choice doesn't mean Pro Abortion

I doubt many people support the use of abortion for convenience. And, I doubt that very many women would use the services that way, although I know some women might. While a woman should have the choice to do with her body as she sees fit, we are always in need of education programs, affordable birth control, and resources for women who need assistance. I think the subject goes very deep.

What we have to be careful of is the way the government is continually inching itself into a woman's body. It should be her choice, with the guidance of her doctor, to do what is best for her.

[proud patriot]

11. My mother in law said it best

She thinks anyone who has an abortion is going to hell
but votes Democratic "because that's between god and people
not the government and people and it's none of my business"

I love her she's from Iowa and differs with me
on many things , but I like how she thinks .

She loathes bush .

[bloom]

57. "because that's between god and people "

I'm glad she sees it that way.

Many people don't believe in hell - so her reasoning wouldn't make sense them.

[Lex]

13. Don't want an abortion?

Don't have one. That is your choice. And draw your line about what is acceptable for yourself where ever you please.

But please don't presume to tell other women what they should choose for themselves. Let them decide.

To quote a sign I saw at the march yesterday:

Trust me with child?
Then trust me with a choice.

[Red_Viking]

15. You can still believe in the right to choose

What you're talking about are your own personal views. You're not talking about imposing any of those views on someone else.

You sound pro-choice to me! I believe you're saying you respect the right for everyone to choose; however, those are your personal choices.

Sounds fine to me. :)

By the way, let's call the other side what they are: ANTI-CHOICE. They are NOT pro-life. As Randi Rhodes says, they love the fetus and hate the child. If they were "pro-life (sic)," they wouldn't be supporting the senseless lie of an occupation we're tangled in, nor would they support the death penalty. I'm surprised their heads don't explode from the hypocrisy.

Rock on!

:dem:

RV

[Chovexani]

22. A DU woman had a GREAT thread title that summed it up

I think it was MonicaL? Something like "Honor the fetus, hate the child, subjugate the woman". That is a powerful line that pretty much defines what the anti-choice people's real agenda is.

George Carlin also had some great things to say about the topic. To conservatives if you're preborn, fine, if you're preschool you're fucked. They don't give a shit about kids until they reach military age. It's not pro-life it's anti-woman.

[Red_Viking]

25. I like it!

I saw a great bumper sticker once--

Feminism: The radical idea that WOMEN are PEOPLE.

Spread the word.

RV

[truhavoc]

31. The logical inconsitencies of republicans is not my concern here

I don't think the policy differences or hypocracy shapes the issue in the least bit. There is an inherent truth in the issue which is what we should all reach to obtain.

[Chovexani]

74. I guess I'm not understanding what your difficulty with it is.

An inherent truth in the issue? I don't really believe there's inherent truth in much of anything, much less a woman's reproductive decisions, so am I really the last person you should be talking to about it.

For me, it's really very simple: I'm pro-choice because the question of when life does or does not begin is one best left for an individual and her conscience, Gods, or moral compass and not the government. Because I, as a woman, resent the very condescending and patriarchal (OMG! I said the "P" word!) notion that I can not be trusted to deal with the practical as well as the philosophical questions surrounding what I do with my body. I have never gotten pregnant, largely because many of my past partners have been women, but my current partner is male and neither one of us wants kids, at least in this stage of our lives. I treasure the right to make that choice for myself rather than have religiously insane people (tm Mike Malloy) make it for me.

"Pro-Choice" is about having enough love and respect for women and their lives to let them make this decision for themselves. It's about legislating common sense instead of somebody's fuzzy philosophical and religious ideals. We can sit here and argue all day about if every zygote has a soul and deserves health insurance (with apologies to Tommy Thompson) but meanwhile, women--live, breathing women--are working two, sometimes three jobs just to put food on the table for the kids they have, getting beaten by abusive husbands and boyfriends and the gods only know what else. "Pro-Choice" is about honest and humility--I do not presume to know what is going through another woman's mind and heart, because to do so would be the height of arrogance. The only thing I as a frail human being can do is offer to support her in whatever way I can.

"Pro-Life" is about shoving your beliefs down other people's throats through law. I will not come to a pro-life woman's door with a gun and make her have an abortion. I value and respect her as a fellow woman--as a fellow human being--and I leave the decision to her. I only ask for the same respect in return.

"Pro-Choice" is about just that, choice. It has little if anything to do with abortion. It's about letting women have the right to determine their own lives. Yes, even the freedom to make choices we disagree with. I don't see anything in your original post that would preclude that. It's okay to be pro-choice and personally against abortion--many people are, including here on DU. You sound like you might be such a person. That doesn't make you pro-life--it makes you humble. I respect that.

If you're talking about your personal feelings on abortion that's a whole other can of worms.

--C

[truhavoc]

98. Well stated, here is where I differ

I am too about choice, but I am not going to confuse choice with responsibility and respect of life in general. I am not one of these fundimentalist preachers who would ask you to value life in all stages at all costs, and then advocate the death penalty. There is something special about creating a life, I'll leave it to you to decide what it might be through your own belief system, my view baffles some on the right who think atheists have no respect for life. On the contrary, I feel atheists have on some levels more respect for life, I just think of how extraordinary it is that of all the molecules in the universe things worked out just right to create me.

I just have a hard time equating the ability to have a "convienence" abortion in the face of long standing law. I see a similar arguement being, I know my financial situation better than everyone else so if I decide to rob a bank that is a decision that nobody else should be concerned with and you should trust me to make that decision. It is not that I do not trust women with a decision as important as to have a child, in my opinion birth control of all sorts is fair game. But once the biological path of life is put in place I feel you have to argue fairly substantially about why you have the right to abort the child, when you had the responsibility to take ALL necessary precautions before conception. This is why I will always leave the path open to those who have been raped, or if the fetus endangers the life of the mother, ect for there was no CHOICE involved on the behalf of the mother. Read my post above, #28 for more of these simular ideals.

[strategery blunder]

43. What about those who love the fetus AND the child?

Such people are not that common, but they do exist...
:crazy:

[Chovexani]

76. I can respect them.

That's consistency and I applaud that. Too bad they seem to be few and far between (or at least aren't insane).

I was a clinic escort for a couple of years and it admittedly made me rather bitter and cynical about the Pro-Life movement.

[demnan]

18. You can be against abortion for your personal decision

but if you don't want to be a "pro-lifer" you refrain from making that decision for another woman.

And that is all it is. It is her body, her choice, your body, your choice.

[Catfight]

19. I agree but disagree with you.

A womans right to her own decisions about her body are foremost, and there has to be a law to protect that right, anything less is going back wards.

Personally, I always liked, "if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one."

[alcuno]

21. I'm tired of the labels and consider it to be life.

However, I'm not comfortable with the legislation of my beliefs. I understand that others see it differently and I do not support preventing women from having an abortion.

To have people say that it's never done for convenience simply isn't true. Maybe convenient isn't the correct term. We as a society should make it possible for women who might carry the fetus to term to do so. It's often a financial issue.

[doni_georgia]

23. Way I look at it

I have 3 kids. I have been pregnant 5 times. I had two miscarriages. Having kids made me even more adamantly pro-choice for a couple of reasons. Having been through pregnancy and difficult births, I cannot imagine going through with that if it wasn't your decision to do so. Also, flip the positions. What if these people were trying to force abortion instead of forcing birth. How would you feel then? How dare they tell me I can't have this child! Right? I don't see a difference. It's the same mentality. Taking something which is probably the most personal decision a person can make, and taking the decision away from them.

So, these people believe it's a sin. FINE don't have an abortion. Last time I checked the Bible, God never did ANYTHING to force someone not to sin. The Bible demonstrates a God that lets people make decisions for themselves. Why is it that these right wingers can't accept something that God seems to accept? I don't get it. They want to stop people from doing things that they deem is wrong, but the God they serve saw fit to give people free will. It is something that I just don't get.

[jpgray]

26. It's basically about whether or not a woman can choose to be pregnant

If she can't choose, then she loses an enormous amount of control over her own life--it's shut down for nine months at a fluke. If we men were forced to not drink or smoke for nine months and possibly lose our jobs in the bargain every time we caused an unwanted pregnancy, I think the debate would be a little less myopic. :)

If the child would have been prevented through contraceptives if they had worked properly, how can one argue that an abortion is somehow improper? Both are methods of stopping pregnancies that would otherwise naturally occur.

[Pithlet]

30. Does your stance include making abortion illegal?

It is those that share your view of #1 that also want to make that decision for everyone else by way of making abortion illegal that I have the problem with.

I don't understand how the word "convenience" enters into it. As someone who has had 2 babies, I can tell you that getting pregnant and having a baby is huge and life altering when you want it to happen. An unintended pregnancy is so far out of the scope of whether it is convenient or not. This is about having control over one's body and one's life.

[cally]

32. Outlawing abortion will not stop abortions

Women will continue to have abortions. They will have illegal, unsafe abortions that will sometimes kill them. I don't understand how anyone who says they want to take away women's choice about their life is pro-life. Instead they are sentencing many women to death.

I don't know if you watched any of the march in DC or the news broadcasts. I listened to an 80 year old woman who describes her mother dieing after an illegal abortion. She left behind 5 young kids. She sought the abortion because they could not afford the 6th child. Someone who sometimes posts on DU describes going with her 13 year old friend who was raped for an illegal abortion. She died.

I've never understand the take responsibility argument. Somehow they should be punished for failed birthcontrol? Forced to raise an unwanted child? If I accepted your argument that they were irresponsible to get pregnant, then why on earth would you want an irresponsible parent raising children?

[JHBowden]

39. Does this work?

A prolife proponent would have this response: Even though banning murder does not stop murder, this isn't a reason not to ban murder.

[cally]

44. No

The abortions will still occur but women will die also.

[Virginian]

72. This isn't quite as drastic as the results you listed, but

In the 1950s, well before Roe v. Wade, my aunt was pregnant and visiting the doctor weekly in her last month. She had sat in the waiting room with many of the same women during much of her pregnancy.
There was one woman who started coming in weekly also, even though her baby wasn't due for several more months. Her baby had died, but her pregnancy had continued. The doctor was afraid to induce for fear of being arrested because she wasn't near term. She had to risk a septic pregnancy because of her doctor's fear of the law.

All matters of health should be between a patient and a doctor, not determined by an insurance company or by a political body.

[eileen from OH]

33. Okayyyyyy. ..

As someone who has lots of trouble on the abortion issue and has come to different conclusions, please answer me this. . .

If you are against abortion because you feel it takes a life, why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? If a baby is an innocent life when the result of consenting sex, is it still not an innocent life when conceived through other circumstances? How do the circumstances of the conception cause one baby to be an inviolate life and the other to be not. A baby is a baby and is innocent of whatever violence was enacted on its mother.

My conclusion is that if you are truly, truly pro-life, you must accept that the baby is ALWAYS an innocent victim, regardless how it got started. But IF you start weighing in the cost to the mother, in emotional terms, then you must start making qualitative judgments of motives, background, financial circumstances, etc. Which is impossible and leads one (well, me) to accept that abortion must be available to all and each woman must make up her own mind and NOT be subject to the judgments of others.

Further, I am pro-life in that what I want is for there to be as few abortions as possible. Making it illegal is NOT the best way to accomplish that. In fact it makes it harder by distracting from the practical. If the goal is shifted from making abortion illegal to making it UNNECESSARY, tons of resources and energy become available for things that could actually prevent the need for them. Free contraception, pregnancy health care, education, etc. Imagine if the pro-life forces shifted their considerable resources to THAT. The goal is fewer abortions and trying to discover the best way to accomplish THAT.

And one more thing - suppose as you suggest, women are given abortions under only certain circumstances. What do we do to the doctors and the women who have then-illegal abortions? Are they arrested, tried, and jailed? Do the ones who do it because of genuine need or desparate circumstances get lighter sentences than those who do it for less-than-compelling reasons?

eileen from OH (comfortable pro-choice)

[truhavoc]

38. I see a difference

I guess my idea is simular to being able to protect yourself if someone endangers your life. Possibly its a logical falicy, but I am still trying to work it out. Thanks for your interesting post, look for a more in depth reply tomorrow.

[eileen from OH]

59. Now I wasn't talking about abortion

to save a life of the mother - that's pretty much of a given. To clarify - what I was trying to ask is how a baby conceived in consensual sex is any different than a baby conceived in violence? They are BOTH babies. If you allow rape and incest to be exceptions, you are ALREADY using the MOTHER'S feelings/circumstances to define whether or not it's "really" a baby.

eileen from OH

[Djinn]

86. that's the second post of yours today eileen

where I've said "phew finally" all the points I would have made but you've probably said it more succinctly.

You should run for office

:yourock:

[truhavoc]

35. Thanks for your thoughts all...Goodnight n/t

[BlueStateGirl]

37. Abortion would never be my choice, but I would never

infringe on the choice of another woman.

[Crowdance]

40. Define "convenience."

One person's convenience is another's requirement for living. That's the problem with legislating this type of thing--the definitions. I, personally, feel strongly that we should eat the animals with whom we share the earth. But I simply could not support legislation imposing penalties for those who disagree with me. I'm not "all that."

[lastknowngood]

45. It's none of your damn business! What goes on inside another

human being is their business only! If they were talking about castrating men you would easily see it as an invasion not only of privacy but and invasion of the body. If our own body is not off limits for government and other assholes who want to impose their ideas then women are nothing but breeders you may as well house them in the barn and sell them on the market. I say this as a man with attitude about my on body and have no intention of telling anyone what to do with theirs. Ok I'm done.

[rocktivity]

47. If you don't believe in abortion for convenience, don't engage in it.

What other women choose to do about unwanted pregnancies is none of your business, and in this country one cannot force their religious views upon others. It's really that simple.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bigbillhaywood]

89. I really hate those bumper stickers. Hate the pro-life ones too. So

simplistic, so silly. Not going to convince anyone. Not like a pro-lifer's gonna look at one and say "Hey, they're right, if I'm against abortion I shouldn't have one", anymore than a pro-choicer will say "Ya know, that bumper sticker makes a good point, it's a child not a choice". I got a new Constitutional Amendment, instead of banning gay marraige or abortion, ban those stupid abortion bumper stickers. "I'm pro-choice and I vote". Yeah, the person stuck behind you in a traffic jam really gives a shit.

[question everything]

48. Pregnancy is not exactly a walk in the park

Women die during child birth. Rare in this country, but happens.

I don't know if you would like to include other countries, where unwed pregnant women are murdered for the "honor" of the family.

The emphasis, again, is on choice. If you find yourself with unplanned pregnancy, it is your choice to carry the child to term. But it is others' choice not to. I once heard that women over 40 are the largest, or second largest group that have their pregnancies terminated. Again, pregnancy for a woman over 40 can be a health risk.

I don't have problem with my opposition to the death penalty. Abortion in 99.9% of the cases removes a cluster of cells. Execution is of a live person, a person who may be innocent.

We sometimes forget that it is not that easy to get pregnant. That many pregnancies end in the first few weeks and that the woman often would not know that her period is actually a miscarriage.

And, of course, it is not as if we see the RWers standing in line to adopt children who are already here, who may be handicapped or suffer from other problems.

We hear comments that now a fetus can survive outside the womb at an earlier and earlier stages. I would offer that such premies will go through life with continuing health problems - unless someone can prove me wrong.

Ideally each pregnancy should be planned. Ideally each child should grow in a home of loving parents. Ideally each family would never suffer the loss of a loved one, of a divorce, of destitution. But we cannot even get support to the morning after pill, or even to regular birth control pills.

So, I appreciate your doubts, but you have to realize that giving in one inch - your (1) point - would end up eventually losing your point number 2.

[LoZoccolo]

49. This thread is about close to useless.

I think abortion will always be a controversial issue because it has it's root in an ambiguous and mysterious situation and that's where life begins. Bring this up and you'll hear accusations and shrill yells about choice and rights and bigotry and patriarchy and whatever, but everyone knows (really) that it really comes down to some people think it's ending a life and some people don't. I don't know why people don't just admit that - you think one way and I think another. The rhetoric keeps getting moved off of where the controversy actually is - and I think the forcefulness of the rhetoric is a testament to it's ambiguity. I think I've only seen one person my entire life make a serious scientific kind of argument about how at a certain stage of pregnancy you wouldn't consider this a baby. Most people argue this in a scream-the-shit-out-of-it kind of way and we all know this.

Before anyone replies to this, keep in mind I haven't given a position on purpose. It's about the rhetoric and not the issue.

[mdguss]

52. You're pro-life:

So am I. It's a good position to have, morally right in my view. But to be truly pro-life, you have to support things like AFDC, better housing, funding the public schools, low tuition at colleges, free (and quality) prenatal care, etc. Most of the Republicans are posers who say they're pro-life, but cut badly needed programs in the end. Abortion actually went down under Clinton, it went up under Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

55. I didn't mean to imply a position at all...

...and I'm still not going to state one here, but I do agree with you on this Republican hypocrisy.

[mdguss]

80. I think I clicked relpy on the bottom of the page instead of the top:

To be clear, the original thread starter is pro-life. Sorry for the confusion.

[bigbillhaywood]

88. This sums up my "position" on this issue as well, except I would add

That this is a wedge issue that is designed intentionally to polarize ordinary working people and distract them from bigger issues regarding political, social, and economic democracy and justice.

[Liberal Gramma]

51. Lots of Pro-Choice Supporters

would choose not to have an abortion themselves. The issue is that the pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. The reason for having an abortion should not have to pass some sort of test for it to be granted. That moves the issue out of the legal right category into the realm of a subservient pleading for a favor which can be refused, and it places women squarely back in the days of being chattels instead of citizens.

[uncertainty1999]

53. "abortion in demand"

...which is what item #1 (convenience) reminds me of. "Abortion on demand" is a disrepectful term. It totally belittles the seriousness of the situation. It equates getting an abortion with going through a drive-through "Yes . (static). hi ... (static)... I would like a quarter-pounder, hold the mayo, large fries, and an abortion - to go." It's so ridiculous.

Re: item #2, there are a lot of women, primarily girls under 18 whom I thinking of, who CANNOT give consent to have sex, yet they're having it. Regardless of age, rape is a seriously underreported and proscecuted crime. Victims (particularly adolescents in date situations) may not think they're being coerced, assaulted, but oftentimes they are. What is the standard of law going to be to prove rape? If abortion were only legal in rape cases, could a woman simply say, 'I was raped, and I want an abortion?' or would the govt require the case to go to trial and be proven to be a rape, which takes years (so forget about a woman having a first trimester abortion in this case!). You tell me what GW et al. would choose! He'd probably throw in father's rights for the rapist as well as a consideration (sick!).

Re: saving life of mother: what about saving the life of a woman who is suicidal because she is pregnant and does not want to be. Under a 'to save the life of the mother' law, would a right-wing sponsored law take seriously the mental health condition of this woman to end her pregnancy? Doubtful.

I just saw Ellen Goodman's article today, in which she said 10,000 women died of botched abortions prior to roe v wade. Banning a procedure that people will use anyway, resulting in needless deaths, may not be consistent with a pro-"life" position.

[bruce21040]

61. This country was built on differing opinions

It is ok to be pro life, as long as you accept the fact that it is legal, and these women do have the right to do this.

I don't agree with abortion either, and We would not consider it in our family.
at the same time, I refuse to march in front of an abortion clinic, or condone the cowardly act of blowing up a clinic or killing the doctor.

I also would not criticize any women that had or will be having an abortion.

so, I am pro life, but, thats my choice.

[OpSomBlood]

62. I have a similar view...

And contrary to some opinions here, there are definitely abortions of convenience, where women use abortion as their primary form of birth control. I have personally met people like this, and in my opinion it is lazy and irresponsible.

But I also have to take a realistic view of the situation. It is morally reprehensible to force a woman to carry a rape or incest fetus to term, so I absolutely support abortion in these cases, along with cases where the woman's life is in danger.

However, it is impossible to regulate the reason a woman chooses to have an abortion. If you ban abortion (except in cases of rape), you'll suddenly see false rape reports skyrocket. Or worse, women will start having illegal back-alley abortions again.

So while I have a problem with some people who have abortions, I realize that they must be kept safe and legal in all cases.

[bruce21040]

65. What needs to be done is simple.

Birth control should be free to all women that are of the age to have children.
Teens should be able to receive the birth control not only free, but without parental notification.

and as with most issues, my favorite line is EDUCATION. Educate children in time as to the real cost of becoming pregnant.

I'm with the original poster here.
rape abort
incest abort
health abort

as a form of birth control, its just plain wrong

[Generator]

67. I think it's wrong to have six kids

yes I believe population control is really important,but I'm not going to legislate YOUR womb. Stay outta mine, please.

[bruce21040]

68. Fair enough

Heres my deal.
I wont march against abortions, I wont march for them.

I wont preach to you if you have one.
I will try to comfort you if you do, then feel guilt or pain.

You and only you can decide what is right for you.
I can not condem you for any decision you make. and I wont.

[Djinn]

87. why does it stop being "killing" if it's a rapist kid?

If abortion is "killing a baby" or morally wrong how in any logical examination can one then say "but in cases of rape/incest" it's OK?

If you beleive a fetus is human then are you saying it's OK to kill the childern of rapists?

[libertad]

106. You are right, it makes no sense at all. nt

[Nobody]

101. In the event that I refuse to share my medical records

And let's assume that I do, since my medical records are no one's business but my own, how would it be determined why I would be seeing the doctor at my favorite clinic?

I do agree with you about education about birth control. Let's do that. Let's make it required in every school to every teen. My own HS experience included the best info we had in the mid 80s and I went to a Catholic HS. We got the straight dope on the methods, how to use them, how to combine, and failure rates. Unfortunately there was nothing that was that perfect 100%.

But supposing I were to go in for an abortion. I certainly wouldn't share that information with the general public. My medical records are sealed and will stay that way.

I have no interest in justifying to society why I'd be aborting. You'll just have to take my word for it that I was raped, whether by a date, a stranger, or a family member. Or that I'm unwilling to risk death.

This is what is meant by the right to privacy. Medical records are sealed. Even if it was outlawed except in the case of rape, incest, or life of mother, unless we look at the medical records, it's still not public knowledge.

If my medical records will become public, I advocate that everyone's medical records be likewise public information.

[seabeyond]

78. hypocrisy of the worst

>"I am for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or in order to save the life of the mother."<

it is either murder and you cant support it, or it isnt. you dont get to say except.

my father says rape or incest, but if a woman is going to die, tehn oh well.,

if it is seen as murder, than it doesnt matter if rape or incest, the girl has to suck it up. what about the girl that will kill herself rather than tell parents, it is an oh well to her. it is an oh well to rape and incest too

hypocrisy conditioning the murdering of. you dont get to pick and chose

[Canadian_moderate]

83. While I'm pro-choice, it should be the last option

I prefer the more pro-active option of educating young adults and people in general.

Very late term abortion should only be allowed for medical reasons. Three or four months should be enough to decide. At some point, people must accept responsibility for their actions.

[Canadian_moderate]

84. further to this, check the stats for the Netherlands

They have had legal abortions for many years, yet they have among the lowest rates of abortion among all western countries. It think that pretty much explains their reasoning for progressive laws in other for other issues as well.

[REP]

91. Those Nasty-Ass Sluts Should Keep Their Fucking Knees Together

How dare women think that usig birth control makes it okay to fiendishly murder a precious, precious preborn poppet when one, guided by God, attaches to her endometrium? How dare she think that she gets a say in what her body does. Bed, made, lie. If she didn't want to get pregnant, she should've kept her knees together. If she does the crime, she needs to do the time. Yeah, sure, pregnancy is dangerous and painful, but God made it that way to punish women for their wicked ways.

A lot of people are under the delusion that a surgical procedure isn't convenient, but people like you and me know better - most women have a hard time deciding between getting their hair done or having an abortion. Abortions are fun and easy - don't believe anyone who says different. Did you know that Planned Barrenhood has those frequent customer cards, and when it's full, the evil babykiller gets a free frappacino? It's true! It's also true that most women are just too lazy and crazed with bloodlust to use contraception and instead have abortion after abortion after abortion because they like having abortions!

What I don't understand is why you would allow abortion in cases of rape. I mean, a precious preborn poppet is a precious preborn poppet, no matter if it's in the body of a nasty, lustful woman or a woman who was raped (and who can tell if it was really rape - did two men witness it? was she a virgin before?). It's the holy fetus that's important, not the hateful, lustful, vile, nasty container, I mean woman, right?

And as for permitting it for the life of the mother - how can that be? Aren't two deaths better than one murder?

Really, things would be a lot better if women just shut the fuck up, stayed in the kitchen and had endless babies to keep her out of trouble. It was a gigantic mistake to give them the vote. Stupid goddamn women!

[slinkerwink]

93. AMAZING post!

[sadiesworld]

99. The hair on the back of my neck...

[outinforce]

103. A TRULY Amazing Post

Of course, it is a grotesque distortion of the thoughts and feelings m any many people -- including many life-long Democrats -- have concerning the issue of "choice" -- or, perhaps more appropriately, the power of the stronger to destroy the weak, vulnerable, and powerless.

[Vladimir]

109. Its funny because its true... n/t

[outinforce]

114. True?

I think not.

But then, if someone has only limited contact with people who are troubled by the current laws on abortion in the USA, it might represent that person's very distorted views of people who disagree with them.

[Vladimir]

121. My views surely are distorted

but not as distorted as the idea that men have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Because if I get to tell a woman what to do with her body, then she should get an input into what happens with mine (after all, if it takes two to tango, its only fair that both live with the consequences, right?)- say... she has to keep the baby and I have to be neutered. I'm not sure that's a tradeoff I want to make...

[ieoeja]

156. That is a GREAT idea!

Next time a Republican proposes outlawing abortion in some circumstance, Democrats should try to amend the resolution requiring vasectomy for the father under those same circumstances.

[outinforce]

160. No Distortion Here!

"after all, if it takes two to tango, its only fair that both live with the consequences, right?)- say... she has to keep the baby and I have to be neutered. I'm not sure that's a tradeoff I want to make..."

And I would not want to make such a trade-off, either -- even though I am quite sure I will never be the father of any child.

But you are missing an important point here.

The law already does compelt that man to live with the conesquences of his action.

His reproductive rights totally and absolutely end once he has left his sperm inside a woman.

He has no futher choice. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

He has sex -- he pays the consequences for his actions.

And "pays" truly is the correct word here.

You want to suggest that "it's only fair that both live with the consequences", but then suggest that somehow men do not?

Have you never heard of something called "child support"?

[Vladimir]

175. I have indeed heard of child

support. But I don't think a financial penalty is comprable to having to carry a baby for 9 months that you didn't want, then having to raise it and so on. Frankly, I think having to pay child support is a ridiculously small consequence compared to what the woman has to go through.

[outinforce]

185. You're Entitled

To your opinions.

Have you ever spoken to a man who had to provide financial support for a child he never wanted to have -- an unwanted and unplanned for child? Have you ever heard a man speak of the total and complete disruption to his life caused by an unplanned pregnancy?

Earlier in this thread, someone took grave exception to the notion that abortions were ever performed for mere "convenience". The person who posted said something like dsiruption to a person's life plans and aspirations is much more than convenience. If this is so for women, then why is it not also the case for a man who is compelled to pay child support nmot just for nine months -- but for eightenn years?

YOU may think child support is a "ridiculously small conasequence" compared to what the woman has to go through, but I owuld venture to guess that you have never spoken to a m an who has had to put his life plans completely on hold for eighteen years.

[Vladimir]

187. And you'd be wrong

putting his life on hold for 18 years? You must be having a laugh. A man has the option to walk away, the woman gets stuck with the baby and the choice of raising it or adoption etc. And if she decides to raise it, then she can pretty much kiss her professional ambitions goodbye. The thing is, it may be hard on the man, but its a fuck of a lot harder on the woman - and I know who my sympathies are with in 95% of the cases...

PS FYI, I didn't have to look far for an example - my father got himself in exactly this situation when he was 18 or so. 10 years later he was collecting his PhD - not much put on hold there.

[outinforce]

189. So You Were Unplanned?

Perhaps I misunderstand your post, but it would appear that you are saying that you were unplanned.

I guess it is a good thing that despite the sacrifices obviously necessitated by a man who apparently refused to provide child support, your mother decided to give birth to you and to raise you.

You do know, don't you, that there are some who would have counseled your mother to destroy you before you were even born.

I also am unclear from your post -- did your father pay child support or did he not?

My earlier post was about men who are compelled to make child support payments for 18 years -- not those who don't.

[Vladimir]

190. He did pay and it wasn't in fact me n/t

[dawn]

140. Awesome post!!

[OpSomBlood]

148. As George Carlin once noted...

"Have you ever noticed that most of the people against abortion are people you wouldn't want to f*ck in the first place?"

[Nobody]

100. Abortion is a backup plan

Birth control is not 100% guaranteed effective. Even if you combine methods, which you should do, it still isn't 100%.

There are also way too many people trying to keep people from knowing the facts about birth control: how to get it, how to use it properly, how to make it work the best it possibly can.

Even if your preferred method is abstinence, you're still relying on everyone else to respect that. That means you're still at risk for being raped. And yes, you do have an out for women who have been raped. But who gets to determine if she has been raped?

Life of mother exceptions: Again, who gets to decide whether the risk of death or permanent injury is too much? If someone thinks a 5% risk is too much and you'd gamble your life up to 20%, would you consider the woman unwilling to take a 5% fatality risk to be borting without cause?

We as a society trust men to make the right choices most of the time, but we have a very hard time assuming that women are responsible people who are capable of and should be allowed to make the tough choices that life sometimes demands.

Even the anti-abortion people who would criminalize abortion treat women like children no competant to make their own decisions. The criminalizers would go after doctors rather than lock up the women. Interesting, that.

As a human being, I strongly resent the idea that my choices and my decisions regarding my own anatomy can be overridden by someone else. Someone who doesn't know me or my life.

[libertad]

105. Do you feel everyone should have to abide by what YOU think is right?

That is the real question you need to ask in order to determine whether you are "Pro-Choice" or not. "Pro-Lifers" feel that because they are against abortion, NO ONE has the right to have one.

[seabeyond]

107. post 78 i talked about hypocrisy

and anyone that feels no abortion for anyone unless rape incest or health of mother. i would like the justificataion that murder is ok in the circumstances. how to validate we decide murder is wrong except.

i really need to hear reasoning on it, cause doesnt matter what the reason is, if a person believes abortion is murder, that is it,. there is no exception

so at least have the guts to say all women regardless of rape, or father screwing a 12 year old, or a mother of a 2, 5, 10 year old child must leave this world and allow kids to be without mother.

[libertad]

115. I agree (as I posted in #106). nt

[seabeyond]

118. lol i missed that thank you for point out, still

not a single person that believes that has spoken

this is the whole basis to anti abortion activist and it isnt logical, it isnt christian, it is a flip flop to what they say is truth

thanks

[Misunderestimator]

108. It's just ain't that simple

Either you allow women to make the decision based on whatever criteria they deem pertinent or you don't. Yours is a moral question, and not everyone shares the same ideals as others. Most women face this decision with a good deal of questioning about whether what they are doing is the right thing. It's their right to question themselves. It is not our right to question their questions.

Yes, teach responsibility, just as you would do with any child. But don't force the child to live the rest of her life with a child she did not want because of a mistake or a defective condom. How would that be teaching her anything?

I've never had an abortion, but I've known a few women who have. And I would not take that right away from them that allowed them to move on from a mistake without ruining their lives.

[apnu]

126. And I'd like to add...

... that this is a choice issue. The opposite side of this argument is about not having choices.

Also, as Misunderestimator noted, the "anti-choice" people are attempting to mix their morality into the legal system. As is the starter of this thread. Morality should never, ever fit into the legal system because you have to over come the very complex question of whose morality will be the frame work of our laws?

There are many different beliefs and religions in America, and morality is rooted in those beliefs and religions, so if we follow the dogma of one where does that leave everybody else who isn't into that specific dogma? Out in the cold, that's where.

Laws have to be logical, and work for everyone. The anti-choice people just don't get it -- if they are so opposed to abortion then don't have one! But, by all the holies, don't you dare tell me or anybody else that we should have the option to choose, on any subject, because you don't like the choices.

I'd also like to add, that the anti-choice people seek to shut down Planned Parenthood clinics and other offices because abortion is an option there, thereby denying women medical coverage on other sexual health issues. Shutting down the clinics is bad for all women -- no matter if abortion is taken in as a factor. In many areas, PP clinics are the only places where women can get care for their bodies because general practice medicine just isn't good enough to take care of a very complex set of organs.

[redqueen]

124. You are not a pro-lifer

The pro-life camp is insane. To be pro-life, you must believe that the *instant* that egg is fertilized, that it is sacrosanct and that anything that you do that causes that egg to be discharged is abortion (in their terms - murder). In other words - no oral birth control pills. There are many other examples of the insane rigidity of the pro-life camp's views, but that one usually suffices to cause anyone with any qualms about abortion to NOT use the term 'pro-life' to describe themselves.

I'd say you're pro-choice (because you are, regardless of reservations). Maybe more pro-life than pro-choice, but since advocating *any* amount of choice puts you in the pro-choice camp, well there you are. :)

[amazona]

128. I'm against forced motherhood

If "abortion for convenience" means what I think it means -- that women who don't want children don't have them -- then I am all for it. I don't want to teach anyone "responsbility" (whatever that means) on the back of a child. I was an unwanted child, I was subject to the physical and emotional abuse that happens to such children, and I would never want to see another child subjected to that. Period. End of sentence.

The possible side effects of pregnancy are so great that any woman can be reasonably justified in demanding abortion on the grounds that she does not want to risk high blood pressure, diabetes, post-partum depression or psychosis, or any of the other many conditions, some permanent that are a potential side effect of pregnancy. If a woman is motivated to take these risks out of love and desire for a child, that's fantastic. But the side effects of pregnancy are real and no woman should be forced to take such health risks unless the child is planned and wanted.

It might be an unpopular opinion but I've had it a long time and it ain't gonna change.

[dawn]

133. What I don't understand.,..

Is the judgemental attitude. It is so easy to judge the actions of others.

So a woman has an abortion, and you think it is wrong. That's fine. But until you are in her shoes, maybe you should withold judging her character, and let her deal with her own karma?

That's what I dislike about anti-abortionists. It seems like they care less about helping unwanted children and more about vilifying the morals of the women who've had them.

Look in the mirror. Are you pure? If so, more power to you. If not, I just wish you'd stop judging other people.

There's plenty of unwanted children out there, right now, in foster homes or living in poverty. Hell, are millions of (need to find a better word) wanted children living in poverty, and most pro-lifers are against any kind of welfare or aid to their families.

edited for spelling.

[outinforce]

149. It Goes BOTH Ways

If you are going to suggest that folks who are pro-life are completely indifferent to the needs of unwanted children living in poverty, then you might want to consider this. I often see, in discussion I have with people about abortion, people who label themselves as pro-choice saying that we simply must have abortion as an option, because women who are poor and who become pregnant simply cannot afford to support more children. The argument seems to be that it would be cruel to expect a woman who is already struggling to feed, clothe, and house herself and any children she maight already have to give birth to yet another child.

In other words, lets not focus on the "root causes of abortion -- the poverty, the lack of adequate medical care, the lack of good day care, and just let poor women abort their unwanted kids.

The focus of the march here in Washington last Sunday was about women's health and abortion -- and that's one part of the issue, of course.

But I noticed precious little discussion about improving the conditions so that even when a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, she could count of not being financially burdened if she decided to girth birth to the child instead of aborting him or her.

No, the whole focus -- or at least most of the focus -- was on assruing that women continue to have the right to exercise the ultimate power -- the power of life and death -- over the vulnerable and the completely powerless.

Perhaps once folks who are pro-choice start advocating more forcefully for a change in conditions that sometimes make women feel as though they have no other financial option but to abort will some of us feel that the issue you raise is something other than a smoke screen to prevent honest discussion.

[Iris]

141. I have a problem with the idea of using forced preganancy and parenthood

as a way to teach responsibility. In particular, I don't think a child should be seen as a "punishment" for "irresponsible" behavior.

[Claire Beth]

145. I have always had a problem with people who...

are against abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape or incest. If the sanctity of the child makes abortion wrong, then is the child worthless because it was conceived during rape or incest? Come on, that isn't logical.

I do not think abortion should ever be done as a "convience" BUT there are circumstances outside rape and incest where I feel abortion should be legal. I do not think I would EVER have an abortion, BUT it shouldn't be up to *me* or the anyone else to tell some other woman what is right for her. I don't know what would be right for someone else because I have not walked in that persons shoes.

I think we're all better off to have "pro-choice" so that a woman can make decisions for herself. and I certainly do not trust the current neo-con administration with their radical right religious agenda. Next thing, they will order all women to reproduce and multiply because that's what the bible says woman are supposed to do. Geez.

[ieoeja]

151. As a man ...

... I really don't give a shit. It seems downright bizarre to me that this is even an issue.

[ieoeja]

152. If we could use firearms for abortion ...

... we'd make a sport out of it.

"I bagged this little beauty down at the Planned Parenthood. Sure, you have to use a microscope to see it. But I'm tellin' ya', for a zygote that there's the equivalent of an 8 point buck!"

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

162. WARNING! The Post ABOVE IS GRAPHIC!!!!!

n/t

[Just Me Here]

163. Not Really

It's not murder. Based on many posts here, it's the same thing as a picture of an appendix that had to be removed.

[Misunderestimator]

164. That is one LATE-TERMer there, buddy

Prove that that was a legally performed abortion... or go back to making your little anti-choice sign. Yeah, seeya.

[Just Me Here]

165. 22-Weeks

22 / 4 = 5.5 months.

That's still second trimester by my math.

[Sorwen]

171. 22 weeks?

I kind of doubt that. That looks about the size of our baby when he was born. I don't think it would look like that at 22 weeks.

[Just Me Here]

168. BTW, I'm Pro-Choice

Just anti-abortion as well.

In my opinion no woman should EVER be forced to get pregnant. Women should always have a CHOICE of whether they want to participate in sexual intercourse or not.

[seabeyond]

166. a really late termer

so to "win" your arguement you have to falsify your position. that is worthless on your part. this is not what it is. lets hear the real story behind this picture, not that we will from you because you are making your point, doesnt matter if it is honest. now lets put the picture on this board of the babies, that have come out of the womb, and have been nurtured and loved and cared for that are dead, blown up, on fire from war. and you validate war how

[Just Me Here]

167. 22-weeks

End of second trimester.


"and you validate war how"

Where the hell did I support war? If you want to assume that anybody that doesn't agree with your position on abortion somehow disagrees with you on everything, go ahead. It simply isn't the case.

[outinforce]

170. It Is Still GRAPHIC and potentially Upsetting

My own view is that if you are pro-life, you do not do your position any real favor by posting such a picture here.

And you certainly do your positiojn (if you are indedd pro-life) by posting such a picture here without a warning.

[IronLionZion]

169. There's no shame in being pro-life

the shame is in being a loud hypocrite who shoves his/her self-rightous beliefs down people's throats or uses it as an excuse to gain liberal/moderate votes for the GOP.

If you don't mind I would like to criticize your second point. WHO THE HELL IS FOR ABORTION!!! Nobody supports abortion, but many of us support choice. Not even the most left wing feminist is FOR abortion.

As for point one, yes you are pro-life but that's ok. Adopting children or giving support to some pregnant woman is better than legislating to outlaw abortion. Somebody has to take care of the unwanted children.

just my two cents,
Indy

[outinforce]

173. You're Kidding, Right?

No shame in being pro-life?

You ARE kidding, aren't you?

Look at some of the posts in this very thread.

One poster says that if you are pro-life, you are insane.

Others suggest that being pro-life means being totally and almost criminally indifferent to poor people and to women.

There is one post in this thread where the poster suggests, I think, that pro-life folks would deny women in childbirth any anasthetic -- just to teach them a lesson.

It is almost as if telling another personm that he or she is "pro-life" is about the worst insult you can possibly hurl at another human being.

I wonder how long it will be before calling another person "pro-life" will be considered a personal attack. Or how long it will be before it will not be possible even to use the term -- that is how offensive some folks view the term "pro-life".

[Th1onein]

172. I am against abortion, too. And I am VERY left wing

I am against capital punishment, as well, and I find that the anti-abortion stance is consistent with my belief that life is precious. I think that if we lived in a society that was truly healthy, then we would celebrate all births, and all life.

[outinforce]

174. Uh -- I Think We Already Do.

"I think that if we lived in a society that was truly healthy, then we would celebrate all births, and all life."

I think we do already celebrate all births. ALthough there is some professor -- I think he is from Australia anbd was a visting prof at Princeton recently -- who suggested that it would be perfectly moral to kill infants after they were born if doing so would increase the "happiness" of the parents. For him, "life" did not really begin until sometime long after birth. And so, for him, it makes perfect sense to allow the powerful parents the right to kill their newborns.

[Djinn]

182. Professor Peter Singer

but I think you may be over-simplfying his opinions there

The basic upshot is unless you make ALL abortions illegal, they may as well be leagl for whomever wants one, otherwise you just end up with a legal situation that gives succour to those who would criminalise each and every abortion (including the morning after pill) as they can always point to the technicial "illegality" of abortion.

If a nation (for example) says OK no more abortion unless you've been raped.(which is a stupid moral argument - if a fetus IS a human being then being the child of a rapist doesn't change that)...what do you think would end up happening? Every women that wanted a termination would say "i was raped"

[noiretextatique]

192. this is LAUGHABLE: "we celebrate all births"

what utter bullshit!!!! republicans still use the image of the greedy "welfare queen" how has babies just for the heck of it and to get a miserly pittance from welfare. "we" (including democrats) have USED welfare (and the real CHILDREN whose parents receive it) as a political football to fan resentment...and "we" have punished the CHILDREN who are dependent on it.'
"we" in California decided to spend more on prisons than on schools, so "we'd" rather invest in storing the criminals "we" than educating ACTUAL children.
"we" are up in arms about immigrants out here too. at one time, "we" proposed denying them, including their born and unborn children, medical benefits...that includes the hosts who are carrying the unborn, also.
"we" most certainly DO NOT "celebrate every birth" in this country.

[genius]

179. Abortion is a really bad thing. The issue is choice

I think that most people who are pro-choice hate the idea of abortion and would never consider having one in a million years. However, the issue is whether other people should be prevented from having one. The mortality rate among teenage girls having illegal abortions was staggering at the time of Roe v. Wade. So the real question is whether you support the right of these girls to do with their bodies as they choose and live.

[outinforce]

186. Abortion is a Really Bad Thing????

What ever do you mean by such a statement?

Abortion is simply a medical procedure. That's all. It is, we are told, a medical procedure that simply removes a body part from a woman.

That is all that it is.

It is no different, except for the body part removed, than an appendectomy or a tonsillectomy or the removal of an infected tooth.

For that matter, it is no different than the removal of a cancerous growth.

FOr that matter, it is no different than the medical proceudre a doctor might use to rid a woman's body of a parasitic tapeworm or other outside invade that uses the woman's body to nourish itself and grow.

Would you ever say that an appendectomy is a really bad thing?

How about a tonsillectomy" Bad or really bad?

The removal of a tooth? Would you have some reason to think that you would never want to have that proceudre done on you in a millkion years?

The removal of a cancerous tumor? Is that really bad or just bad?

How about the medical procedures necessary to remove a parasite from a woman's body? What is your call on that kind of procedure? Is it bad? Really bad?

Your position -- saying that abortion is really bad -- makes no sense to me.

Could you perhaps elaborate?

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corporatewhore]

188. For convienence ie women should be punished with a forced pregnancy

for being sexually deviant you dont want to be called a pro lifer well then take your pick: misogynist fascist uterus nazi

[enki23]

191. how does forcing someone to have an unwanted child

help increase the overall rate of responsible parenting? somewhere in your description of your #1 point, you failed to connect that. it seems, upon a fairly careful observation, that the exact reverse would be true. parenting isn't about "teaching" responsibility. parenting is something that *requires* responsibility. cart before the horse, writ very, very large.