The image I'd like you all to see is copyrighted, so I can't simply post it here. Still, head for journalist Michael Clancy's homepage. Here's the story, as it appears on his website.
quote:As a veteran photojournalist in Nashville, Tennessee, I was hired by USA Today newspaper to photograph a spina bifida corrective surgical procedure. It was to be performed on a twenty-one week old fetus in utero at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. At that time, in 1999, twenty-one weeks in utero was the earliest that the surgical team would consider for surgery. The worst possible outcome would be that the surgery would cause premature delivery, and no child born earlier than twenty-three weeks had survived.
The tension could be felt in the operating room as the surgery began. A typical C-section incision was made to access the uterus, which was then lifted out and laid at the junction of the mother's thighs. The entire procedure would take place within the uterus, and no part of the child was to breach the surgical opening. During the procedure, the position of the fetus was adjusted by gently manipulating the outside of the uterus. The entire surgical procedure on the child was completed in 1 hour and thirteen minutes. When it was over, the surgical team breathed a sigh of relief, as did I.
As a doctor asked me what speed of film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow! It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, "What happened?" "The child reached out," I said. "Oh. They do that all the time," she responded.
The surgical opening to the uterus was closed and the uterus was then put back into the mother and the C-section opening was closed.
It was ten days before I knew if the picture was even in focus. To ensure no digital manipulation of images before they see them, USA Today requires that film be submitted unprocessed. When the photo editor finally phoned me he said, "It's the most incredible picture I've ever seen."
Shouldn't this effectively reopen the abortion debate?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yes, that and many other reasons.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
When was it closed?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Maybe I should have phrased it like this: "Shouldn't this effectively close the abortion debate?"
I'm an atheist that supports gay marriage, and thinks Bush's administration is a joke.
But abortion? I'm right with the fundies on that one. The pro-choice position is absurdly indefensible.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I agree that this should end the debate about late term abortions, but what about early ones? This happened at 21 weeks. Someone who is pro-choice can argue that it doesn't apply to 5 weeks or 10 weeks, etc.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:The pro-choice position is absurdly indefensible.
Hmm... the fact the issue still isn't closed despite years of intense debate leads me to believe that it is, in fact, quite defendable, as is the other side. Hense the problem.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Zg, anyone who can look at the little speck that is their child at 5-6 weeks on an ultrasound monitor and not realize that you are seeing a human life should probably be sterilized.
I mean, it shouldn't bother them at all to be sterilized. They aren't really preventing themselves from reproducing, they are just taking a preventative to keep them from producing a parasitic organism in their bodies.
Truthfully, the fallacy of the Pro-Choice movement is this adherence to a quasi-mythical demarcation line that before a certain point, this entity is just a meaningless biological happening. That once that line is crossed, this biological happening becomes a human being, as if they had been washed up on Ellis Island and given their citizenship papers.
They decry those against them as fundamentalists, hide-bound to a Biblical decree, but ignore the science that shows time and time again, that shows earlier and earlier in the development how human these biological happenings are.
We, as a society, put away the idea of biological spontaneous generation so many, many years ago, yet we protect by law this last bastion of medical irrationality that a human life isn't really a human life until one parent decides whether it is or isn't.
Look at partial birth abortions, a medical practitioner will induce partial labor, and for a few pieces of silver, kill your child, in your presence. And while the mother hides the act from her eyes by a throw-away paper drape, the physician hides behind that mythical line pushed to its limit -- that the child has not fully and completely entered this world.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Sopwith, your preaching to the choir. I'm very much pro-life.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Sorry ZG, didn't mean to hit you specifically with my broad and energetically wielded paintbrush. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks for the link, Foust. I'm still waffling on my beginning of life stance, whether it is conception or 5 weeks. But I'm glad to know they do spina bifida correction.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
So, what about before 5 weeks? Should those people gets their johnsons hacked off? How about a woman who uses any contraceptives? Should she be stitched shut?
Edit: Pardon the lewd language, but your extreme stance rubbed me the wrong way and made me testy. (Ok, poor pun placement)
[ July 14, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think his point was that they should be sterilized for their own benefit. I mean, after all, if you're trying to get rid of the "monster" inside, why would you want it to be possible for another one to end up there?
(Not that it was completely unoffensive.)
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Wow! What an exhilarating experience it must be for a doctor to be correcting a fatal disease like spina bifida and have the patient "thank" you like that! How exciting!
On the other hand, I can't help but think about what a horrifyinig experience destroying a life like that must be. How could you get used to doing that?!?
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I hoped they used anesthesia for the baby.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Foust,
Thanks for posting the link. It's awesome.
Can I make an advocacy suggestion? I generally like to use information like this as background. There's nothing here that's going to change someone's opinion in and of itself, although it might be the "last straw" for someone already considering changing to an anti-abortion position.
What it does do is add one more piece of information to the public psyche. And, it might actually convince someone to not have an abortion, even if it doesn't make them want to ban the procedure.
Finally, there's no way this picture won't surface in someone's mind when the partial birth abortion issue comes up. These are the kind of images that shape a political discourse (think of the Kent State student crying over her friend).
Introducing the picture with a combative title and then using it to declare victory is not going to put a viewer into the most receptive frame of mind for this picture. The way it was posted moved it from an exciting, rarely seen glimpse of the miracle of life into a propaganda picture, easily dismissed by those who want to, and treated just a little more skeptically by those who are more flexible in their viewpoint.
There's a time and place to throw down and do combat. But there's also a time to say, "here, look at this." Even if you don't say it aloud, you'll still be showing what it is we stand for, not what we're against.
Dagonee
[ July 14, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Can I make an advocacy suggestion? Remove the references to the baby doing anything.
"[J]ust as surgeon Dr. Joseph Bruner was closing the incision in Julie Armas' uterus, Samuel's thumbnail-sized hand flopped out. Bruner lifted it gently and tucked it back in."
Also from the doctor:
"It has become an urban legend," says Bruner, the Vanderbilt University surgeon who fixed the spina bifida lesion on Samuel. Many people he hears from wonder whether it's a fake.
"One person said the photo had been reviewed by a team of medical experts and they had determined that it was a hoax," Bruner says with a laugh.
More commonly, people want to know how the photo came to be.
Some opponents of abortion have claimed that the baby reached through the womb and grabbed the doctor's hand.
Not true, Bruner says.
Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move.
"The baby did not reach out," Bruner says. "The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on."
According to the page at snopes.com, the picture and situation is accurate, the interpretation of the events is the reporter's.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even more reason to let the picture speak for itself, with an accurate description of what happened. It's powerful enough without enhancements that leave it open to charges of lying and subsequent dismissal.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread. I'm so tired of pro-choice people being painted as monsters who have no regard for life. That said, I guess I'll go get sterilized, as was suggested.
space opera
edit: Oh, and perhaps someone should start a campaign to take my two children away as well
[ July 14, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Foust, it coulda been a picture of a sturgeon making waves: what you "see" is what you believed you'd see beforehand. And other people would still have their own way of viewing things. I've known some women, both religious and non-religious, who have had a miscarriage and believe&act as if they had lost a child. And others, both religious and non-religious, believe&act as if they had lost an opportunity to have a child. It would have been WRONG for me to have said, "Get a hold of yourself, you only lost a fetus. There'll be other pregnancies." to a woman grieving over a lost child. And equally WRONG for me to have said, "What's the matter with you? You've lost a child and are acting as if you can just replace it as if a it were a stereo or something." to a woman disappointed with losing an opportunity.
It'd be easier, Sopwith, to make a case for sterilizing folk who want to harm those fully-human-by-any-standard to enforce their own beliefs. Of course, one would have to ignore the inherent internal contradiction in advocating either of the two positions.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Zg, anyone who can look at the little speck that is their child at 5-6 weeks on an ultrasound monitor and not realize that you are seeing a human life should probably be sterilized.
My, you are quite confident in your opinions. Always nice to see this kind of automatic presumption. You know, if anyone disagrees with you, of course they should be sterilized!
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
You know what I think? I don't think human life begins at conception. I believe it's some time after that. People chose conception because it's the only convenient demarcation line they can come up with. But things in real life don't necessarily HAVE convenient demarcation lines. Nobody looking at a single celled zygote, though, considers it a human being. Not without an awful lot of imagination.
But regardless of that, a fetus may have some rights, but at whatever age, no human being should have the right to parasitize another human being without their consent. If the state has an interest in the fetus' life, and if the state wants to take the fetus out of the mother's body and support it, then that might be okay. Forcing the mother to host it in her body, against her will, is an act of subjugation and domination that is incredibly invasive, patriarchal, and violating. The state has no business in my uterus, thank you.
[ July 14, 2004, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And if the human being made the choice to start the parasitization process, that might be a fair solution. But it didn't. It's in its natural state, in its natural place.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
This is what I don't get, and I don't mean this in a snarky kind of way. Why do many pro-life people support abortion in the case of rape, then? If a fertilized egg is a human life, then why is it ok to kill a human life that came about through rape?
space opera
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
aka,
I'm stunned. That is one of the most completely selfish, irresponsible arguments for abortion I've ever seen, though this isn't the first time I've seen it. I sincerely hope you are being ironic.
Who put the 'parasitic' human being there in the first place? Except in the case of rape, it was the woman. She chose to have sex. She knew of the risks. She is responsible for her choices. The natural consequences of having sex is often conception. It was her own action, not the action of the human embryo, to have it exist in her uterus.
It doesn't take much imagination for me to realize that the zygote is human life. It is life: It processes nutrients and emits waste. It grows. The cells reproduce, joining a cohesive community of cells that will become the human being. It is human: It has the complete genetic code of a human being.
Every argument that does not take those things into account is rationalizing an abhorrent act.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Monkeys and raccoons will also grasp people's hands. Dogs and cats take pleasure in the companionship of others. Many animals form bonds with humans and their own kind.
Using the criteria of higher cognitive functions to seperate humans from animals, when 'human' life begins is completely, 100% subjective.
It seems to me that using pain as a basis for judgement for when life, in general, begins, is much more clear.
I think the position that assigns certain rights to all life, on the basis of limiting pain and suffering in the here and now, is much more logical and defensible than that which tries to make a case that proto-human life is more special strictly because of potential--wihch again goes back to the question of what is 'human' and ignores those humans who have little, if any, higher cognitive functions.
So, I'm curious. Is there anyone on this board who takes the position that all life is endowed with certain rights by their creator?
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Space Opera,
That mostly comes down to the fact that the woman was not responsible for the embryo being there in the first place. This is where I believe is the true cause for the woman to decide what is and isn't happening in her uterus.
For my own self, I would carry the child to term because I consider the child to be innocent. I would probably give it up for adoption, then, because I don't trust myself not to discriminate against the child in our family.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I forgot who posted it, but last time we had this discussion someone had a link to a site with the idea of using the medical qualification for death to determine that for life. Personally, I think that's a very good idea.
Hobbes Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Yes. All life is endowed to certain rights, and those rights are contingent on actual and potential characteristics.
And I find it odd that some people strive to save not only species going extinct, but individuals of other non-sentient species, and in the same breath support abortion.
I don't believe we have the right to kill anything without sufficient cause. On the other hand, we find ourselves, having changed our habitat, now responsible for ecosystems. This is why I reluctantly support deer season. Because we've removed several predators, we must now fulfill that role.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the Chinese make the same argument for their forced abortions in some areas. That is, because the population is so high,edit: it makes it difficult, if not impossible to support the population, so they must keep births low through abortion.
[ July 14, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is what I don't get, and I don't mean this in a snarky kind of way. Why do many pro-life people support abortion in the case of rape, then? If a fertilized egg is a human life, then why is it ok to kill a human life that came about through rape?
space opera
I don't. But I'm on record as supporting a bill that allows it if other elective abortions are prohibited as a matter of political expediency.
Of course, I'd rather have a bill that didn't allow it. But I'm somewhat of a realist.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, I'm curious. Is there anyone on this board who takes the position that all life is endowed with certain rights by their creator?
All humans are. If someone can show me that the species changes during gestation, I'd be happy to consider that.
Dagonee
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Thanks for the suggestions, Dag. You're entirely right.
And another thanks to Chris. I should have made an effort to more thoroughly check these facts.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
After you demonstrate that all of the cells you kill by brushing your teeth change are of a non-human species
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Amka, I'm not making such on argument on my behalf, of course! I would carry to term regardless. If I couldn't keep the child I would give it up for adoption, and that's what I would advise anyone else to do who asked my advice or help. I think it's a terrible evil to kill a baby in the womb.
I just think giving the state the legal right to rule on the contents of women's wombs is an even worse evil. That's why I'm in favor of abortion rights. I think the correct way to go about reducing the number of abortions is the way the church family services do it, by making good medical care and a place to live available to pregnant teens, and by connecting loving adoptive families with pregnant girls who might otherwise feel they had to abort.
The state just has no business in the whole deal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:After you demonstrate that all of the cells you kill by brushing your teeth change are of a non-human species
Because there's no difference between a cell that's part of an organism and the entire organism, right?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote: If someone can show me that the species changes during gestation, I'd be happy to consider that.
Not to belabor a cirular argument, but there is negligible to no difference in cellular and physical makeup of a zygote between a chicken, a dog, or a human within the first three weeks, unless you go to the chromosome level.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
So, if I clone the human genome into a yeast cell that can still proliferate (not currently possible to cram the entire genome in there, but science marches on! So work with me) it meets the criteria of processing nutrients, emiting waste and having human DNA. What it does *not* have is the potential to become human.
The question then becomes, is the potential for humanity all that is necessary to be a human being?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Right, the potential is the real issue. However, I was just pointing out that there are blurry parts to both sides on this mark.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Which, as I said in my initial post, means you have to define 'humanity', and that line is fuzzier than the pleasure/pain line. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
No! We're not allowed to agree guys. This is an *abortion* thread. Everyone fights and nobody wins. It's like, written in the users agreement or something.
You're failing Hatrack 101. Failing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
ACK! I've been recopying report cards all day. Don't say that word! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What you need is a token European liberal to disagree with you. Permit me, comrades.
Why start at conception? Why not the production of the sperm or egg cell? After all, these cells carry human genetic code and have the potential to become a fully functioning human. It should be immoral, then, to
a) Have a period. All women must be constantly pregnant.
b) Masturbate (for men). You're killing about 100 million humans.
c) Have sex. You're killing 100 million, minus one, humans.
Conception is just as arbitrary as any other cutoff point.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: Why start at conception? Why not the production of the sperm or egg cell? After all, these cells carry human genetic code and have the potential to become a fully functioning human. It should be immoral, then, to
No, they only carry part of the genetic code, they don't carry the entire thing. If you left a sperm or egg cell alone they would not develop into a human, if you left a fertalized egg alone in the womb it would develop into a human
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I disagree that there are any inherent rights to anyone. There are privilages, yes. But no Divine Right.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Maybe not divine right, but there's got to be human rights.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No, they only carry part of the genetic code, they don't carry the entire thing. If you left a sperm or egg cell alone they would not develop into a human, if you left a fertalized egg alone in the womb it would develop into a human
That's why I said 'human genetic information,' not 'the human genetic code.' But in fact, an egg cell does carry enough information to make a woman, you just have to double every chromosome. Granted, there would probably be a deadly recessive somewhere in there, but that occasionally happens to ordinary babies too.
As for your second point, the key words are 'in the womb.' As long as the fetus requires the mother's resources to support itself, it's only a potential human.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
" if you left a fertalized egg alone in the womb it would develop into a human "
just make it clear you realize that at least 70% of these fertilized eggs don't develop into a human.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
They develop into aliens. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*proudly shows off her three little aliens*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Homo Superior will rule you all.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Or the Superior Homo.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have no idea what that was in reply to, but I've decided to announce that I now support the life from conception camp.
I have previously said it is too great a burden on the woman to have life begin before she can know she's pregnant, but that apparently kinder path leads to the punishing gradient of euthanasia (selective abortion of the handicapped) and cannibalism (embryonic tissue donation).
I don't know, is it less or more cannibalism if the tissue had to come from a close relative? I never know what people are going to think. In another thread it was argued that the fetus' sole dependence on the mother gave her discretion over its fate. To me it gives her a greater burden of responsibility. So these things mean the exact opposite to different people.
Then there's the miscarriage straw man. "Don't like half of all first term pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion?" Whales beach themselves in nature. But I hope we'd all condemn someone in a motorboat driving whales onto the beach deliberately, even in the name of science.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
pooka, I wasn't aware that people ATE human embryoes. Um.. could you please explain that cannibalism part?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You sacrifice an embryo and turn it into somthing that is ingested by an adult. Sure it's not for pleasure, but I think a lot of cannibals assign ritualistic import to their feasts that goes beyond sustenance.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, basically, it comes down to 'human-or-not' again, doesn't it? If you do not believe a lump of tissue is human - and I don't, any more than I believe my sperm cells are human - then it's not cannibalism and not murder.
As for selective abortion, why would you force anyone to raise a handicapped child?
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
quote: I just think giving the state the legal right to rule on the contents of women's wombs is an even worse evil.
People talk about the state as if it were a seperate entity from us. It isn't. The state is the representation of our society. We are part of our society. What our society does and stands for affects individuals. To accept certain things as a society, is going to make many individuals consider those things acceptable. There are many people who don't contemplate their actions, but choose them according to societal standards. So if we, as a group, say abortion is okay, (which is what we are saying when we make it legal) then the number of abortions will, and did rise. By supporting the legality of abortion, we are in part responsible for those abortions that would not have occured had they not been legal.
Am I being arrogant? Am I saying people can't make decisions on their own? They CAN. That just so often don't.
You called it patriarchal for the state to decide what was going on in someones uterus. We once took a girl into our home. She had just converted to the LDS church, but before that she had gotten pregnant. Both her parents and her boyfriend were pushing her to abort. She literally had to flee her family to escape the pressure. How many abortions occur because the boyfriend doesn't want the child and the girl doesn't want to lose the boy? How many occur because a young girl, scared and unsure, walked into an abortion clinic masquerading as 'family planning'? In how many states is disclosure of the procedure required? I remember the fight we had in Oregon to require just that. Why don't abortionists (many pro-choice do want this) want such a thing? Because such education would empower the girls to make better decisions, and take away power from those who want to profit. Abortion rarely benefits the woman having it. That is far more patriarchal.
I've seen the regret of a woman and the extreme feeling of guilt and helplessness, the shame that she could not admit to her husband because one time, years and years ago, she went to get some counselling for her accidental pregnancy. She was young, scared, and alone. In that situation she was told that abortion was the best option for her. She yearns to know that out there is a child being raised in a good family, but all she has are the memories of the day she killed her baby.
We, as a society, allow that to happen.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*blink*
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Well, I am glad that the second page has turned into more of a discussion. I don't think that reading any of this is going to turn me into a pro-lifer, but I definately like to know the other side of the issue.
I guess I support choice because right now our society doesn't do a lot to help women with unplanned pregnancies. Often, you find women raising their child alone without the benefit of child support because our laws are so lax on that issue (and our courts so overcrowded due to the huge numbers of deadbeat dads). Then these women have to turn to welfare, and are ridiculed for doing so. Again, this is just my personal take.
So, what is the solution? Is it abstinence? Is it more information about birth control? Is it a different and better laws so that women can afford to support a child alone? I'm just looking for thoughts here, so please don't pick apart my outlook statement by statement. The hate I read on the first page earlier today still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd love a world where abortion didn't have to exist.
space opera
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Space Opera, you rule. I think you made the best course of action in the abortion debate that is so rarely hit upon. Instead of there being two sides to this issue, both camps can probably find some common ground and work from there. I doubt you will find many reasonable pro-choice people that are pro-abortion (meaning, they think that abortions are a cool and viable method of birth control...if you believe that, you have obviously had an appointment with one too many spin doctors).
Instead of just trying to legislate one group's morality, both groups should be actively working together to make it so abortions aren't necessary. Space Opera ain't kidding when she points out that having a child as a single parent is no picnic and what's more, we as a nation make it that way. As a social worker, I have a mom being forced into the sub-poverty work force. What do they do if they have a child too young to take care of themselves? They sometimes get vouchers (if those programs aren't out of money) to pay for child care...usually paying the child care folks as much as what mom makes working at Wendy's. But many child care agencies don't respond to need that well and don't have care second shift, when many sub-poverty level jobs are operating...or when a parent has to work a second job to keep food on the table.
Yeah, yeah, I know life isn't fair but to say that a person (or child) MUST have a baby because the government tells them so...well, I have issues with that. And it is the folks in poverty we are talking about, too. This is a poverty issue and a class issue where the choices are tough enough to make without intrusion from the government.
I think the focus should be on education for both sexuality and how to make good decisions for oneself. I think the focus should be on making adoption easier. I think the focus should be on making it easier to be a single mother while efforts are made to make deadbeat dads more accountable. Simply saying "no!" isn't going to stop abortions any more than just saying no will make drugs magically disappear.
fil
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The single-mom-poverty card cannot be played, fil-- because the state shoulders a large part of the cost of having a child, and there is a shortage of infants up for adoption.
While I recognize that a large number of women who have abortions cite financial instability (AGI puts it at 21%), programs exist that will pay almost entirely for the whole pregnancy.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
King of Men:
quote: As for selective abortion, why would you force anyone to raise a handicapped child?
Would you care to elaborate?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, King of Men, please elaborate.
My fingers are getting all itchy to respond, but I'd like to offer you the opportunity to provide some substantive reasoning or qualifications to your rather radical statement.
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
While there are a shortage of infants up for adoption, is there a shortage of children up for adoption?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sun: There are lots of older children in the system-- my point was that a unwanted newborn is likely to be wanted by adoptive parents, relieving both the state and the biological mother of much of the financial obligation to take care of it.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
I don't get the comparison, CT. Are you saying that we don't care enough for the fetuses that end up being miscarried?
Are you asking for a cure to miscarriages? Is that possible? What are the main causes?
[edit: incidentally, I don't see exactly what it has to do with abortion, anyway, besides the similar result of a dead fetus.]
[ July 15, 2004, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Mean Old Frisco ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Are there millions of people who want these infants every year? Say every single person who wants an infant this year, gets one. Will there be millions of people next year?
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
I think the ideal net result of criminalizing abortion, Suneun, would be having fewer people taking the risk of bringing children into the world before they're ready to.
Hopefully, that would mean fewer children needing to be put up for adoption.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:As long as the fetus requires the mother's resources to support itself, it's only a potential human.
I've always thought this was a poor argument. My 10-month old is still completely dependant on someone, whether it's his mother, myself or someone else. He is, in a sense, a parasite. At what age should he be considered human? Should babies that are born very premature and are dependant on an incubator be considered potential humans?
Space Opera, I agree with what you're saying. However, those are all things that need to be corrected and worked on, not reasons why abortion is acceptable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know, Sun.
The figures are pretty staggering-- an estimated 1.3 million abortions per year. Are there 1.3 million people out there willing to adopt this year? And next year? And the year after?
It does not matter, in the end.
Money is never an excuse to destroy a life. It's not right in the Sudan, it's not right in Iraq, it's not right in America's abortion clinics.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
CT, I think I misread your former post and thought you were discussing fertilized eggs that didn't implant when I skimmed through it. Are you saying no research is being done as to how to prevent miscarriage? My wife and I were spent the first few months of pregnancy worried about miscarriage because we were aware of how frequent they were.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT,
I don't have time to address this fully. I'll give brief summary points and can fill it out later if you wish:
1.) In the pharmacist thread, the difference between conception and implantation was critical to the discussion. Abortion happens after implantation. Period.
2.) According to figures in the other thread, 40-60% of zygotes don't get implanted, which accounts for the vast majority of the post-conception/pre-birth deaths. Abortion accounts for the next largest chunk of those. I don't have the figures on miscarriage, but those are traumatic to many people, and science has studied ways to reduce them.
3.) Part of the reason for lack of effort to save the zygotes which fail to implant is probably based on a sense of despair - how do you even know it's happening to try to fix it? How do you test a possible treatment?
4.) Part of the disconnect is probably caused by the fact that your a doctor. You've dedicated enormous personal resources to saving lives. Many people have an acceptance that you can't have that some things are not meant to be cured. But that doesn't mean we don't also hold the philosophy underlying "First, do no harm."
5.) Just because we don't think we can cure or prevent these deaths doesn't mean we should accept the man-made ones. This is where pooka ended up; hopefully I've gotten here from a slightly different route to help you understand why we can believe what we do about life beginning at conception and not call for massive research to stop implantation failure.
Aside (not based on CT's post): I keep seeing "lump of tissue" used to disparage the unborn child to make abortion acceptable. At the time most abortions take place, it is not a "lump of tissue." There are differentiated body parts already. Does it look like a human? Maybe not. But it's not a "lump of tissue."
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
So, again I ask...what can the solutions be? I really am interested in hearing ideas on this. It seems like so much of the pro-life movement that I've been exposed to consists of simply calling pro-choice people "baby killers" and showing pictures of aborted fetuses. If shock value worked, the abortion debate would be a moot point by now. I wish that all people would work together more. By the by, I don't think the reasons I previously listed makes abortion "acceptable." Abortion is a terrible thing. I guess I just try and understand the reasons why some women choose abortion and sympathize.
space opera
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I think that is the ever-important questions with abortion, CT. When does human life begin?
I honestly can't say and I don't think anyone else can either. Until someone comes up with something truly conclusive, I prefer to err on the side of being conservative.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:I'm saying that if one does believe the zygote to be just as important of care and ongoing intervention as a born baby,
I think what anti-abortionist are arguing for is less intervention with the development of the fetus.
I get what you're saying, I just care about the zygote for different (read: non-religious) reasons. I believe it to be an invited guest (in 99% of cases, of course), and I think it deserves the exact same odds of being born as any other zygote. Does that make sense? (note: I wish to convey the non-snarkiness of that last question, but can't find a fitting emoticon. )
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:It seems like so much of the pro-life movement that I've been exposed to consists of simply calling pro-choice people "baby killers" and showing pictures of aborted fetuses.
Before Hatrack, my idea of pro-choice was people who believed in abortion at any point during a pregnancy and thought nothing of it. Hatrack has taught me that's not the case.
To CT and Dag, if an egg does not implant, it that considered a miscarriage? I thought the egg had to implant first.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My understanding is that a pregnancy has not occurred until implantation, so a miscarriage can't occur without implantation.
But based on the top line of this link from CDC, and assuming 60% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, then 60% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, 24.65% are born live, 9.15% are aborted, and 6.20% are not born live for some other reason (assume miscarriage for all).
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nope, it doesn't. Why are pro-life activists not concerned about doing both at the same time?
I tried to explain. It's not illogical, and it is consistent. Think of it as fate, nature's way, God's will, or whatever, the point is that harm caused by deliberate action of humans is the perfect subject for laws prohibiting conduct. The proposed solution to a man-made problem is man-made actions. The proposed solution to a fact of nature is scientific study.
Studying miscarriages is possible. Studying failed implantation is much, much, much, much more difficult. As was pointed out to me repeatedly in the pharmacist thread.
People die. We try to stop it where we can. One of the ways we can is with laws that prohibit the taking of human life. Just because we can't stop all the natural ways humans die doesn't mean we can't stop the voluntary ways.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:At what age should he be considered human?
Thirty, maybe?
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:if you feel you must treat the 2-cell zygote as you treat a newborn baby, then why not be consistent about it?
While the personhood/rights of a zygote isn't central to my anti-abortion stance, I see your point. If we're going to bring it up in an abortion debate, though, I would have to say that keeping zygotes from dying on their own is much less important than keeping people from speeding up the process.
quote:But then far far far more alleged (*ouch) persons
If it hurts so much, you could just refer to them as "potential persons". At least that's one thing that nobody can really disagree with. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I agree it's important. I fail to understand why you are being logically inconsistent -- if you feel you must treat the 2-cell zygote as you treat a newborn baby, then why not be consistent about it?
I hate being logically inconsistent, but I'm an engineer that does government work. Logic is not something I'm used to seeing.
CT, I think you raise a very good point to think about. My first inclination is the same as Dag's. Abortion is a man-made occurence and can be taken care of by man-made decisions. Miscarriages happen due to nature. Money should be spent on research though and I'm surprised it's not. Maybe people don't realize how prevalent it is. I didn't until recent years when we started trying to get pregnant. Money should be spent on it.
However, if we treat the zygote as a human regarding abortion, what about women who don't take care of themselves and cause miscarriages and physical defect because of it. I raise this question before, but I know I don't have a good answer. A woman who smokes and drinks excessively while she is knowingly pregnant is a lot different than one who doesn't take her pre-natal vitamins.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, there is something off about those figures (defintion of terms?). I'll look into it. That isn't a well-designed table for the information you'd want. I'd suggest searching the National Center for Health Statistics for something more straightforward.
Best I could find. The difference may be in the fact that it's "known" pregnancies.
quote:Again, huge population, huge number of incidents, ripe for study. Not being pushed as an issue, not being spearheaded as advocacy, not happening.
If we're talking miscarriages, I agree it needs more study, and I'm sure most people who have experienced one would agree.
If we're talking failed implantations, the study population isn't huge because there's like a 2-day window, and no way to detect fertilization pre-implantation without an intrusive test. Unless I'm totally missing something, the study is almost impossible.
Dagonee
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I just can't cotton to the idea of abortion on demand. That a person can have an abortion simply because they feel like having one.
Let's take out the extreme cases of rape and incest. Special circumstances sometimes warrant special actions.
But to simply allow someone to have an abortion because a birth would be inconvenient, or that they don't want to have a child from the person they chose to have sex with, that's a horse of a very dark and evil color.
This isn't about legislating morality, but about legislating responsibility.
Of course, I also believe that as we remove this scourge, we HAVE to develop a guaranteed support system for ALL mothers. And yes, this may mean building in more money for orphanages, nationalized pediatric care and stronger laws enforcing paternity requirements. Easy access to contraceptives should be continued.
Let's face it, we have made access to contraceptives as easy as possible in this society. Not only are condoms available in any drug or convenience store, with no stigma attatched, but literally ANY person can walk into a local Health Department and walk away with a bag full of condoms. And, correct me if I am wrong, but Medicaid does fully cover the cost of birth control pills.
Contraceptives, of course, aren't 100% effective all the time. But at least with their use, someone is making the effort at responsibility.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:Why, if it is preventing the death (and not the engaging in punishment) that is the point of it?
See, my thing is not so much preventing death itself as it is wishing people would take responsibility for their actions without having to inflict death on a potential person. But I realize that it's not me you're referring to as contradictory.
(look at me--the only way I could be more PC is if I replaced "death" with "life-deficiency". )
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Okay, I have a question I'd like to raise. It has nothing to do with the 'to abort or not to abort' question...I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.
My question is simple: If we make abortions illegal, then what? Does anyone seriously think that just because it's against the law that people will stop having sex, or at least unprotected sex? That people will stop wanting to have abortions?
People travel for hours, across state lines, to reach a doctor who will perform one...what you'll get is more unlicensed, badly trained back-alley doctors. Or worse, a resurgence of the popularity of the knitting needle. And even if all abortions did magically stop, are we ready to handle the new need for adoptions and care for the moms? What about all the thousands of unwanted children?
So while everyone's off discussing how wrong it is to have an abortion...will someone tell me what we're going to do when the government inevitably bans them?
[ July 15, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Human ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:While there are a shortage of infants up for adoption, is there a shortage of children up for adoption?
Of course not, because while certain groups would have you worrying about the welfare of little unborn babies, imagined in full newborn infant cuteness, once the babies become toddlers they fall off the radar of public consideration. After that, they are "the government's" problem.
Yeah, I know--broad brush and all. The incredible failure of we as a society to treat these children as just as important as a newborn is, in my opinion, a huge miscarriage of human rights.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, the people I know who are most active in the pro-life movement are also the ones who adopt older children, participate in foster care, and help other charities involved with taking care of kids.
Dagonee
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
Human, my hope would be a combination of:
A: Development of better, more reliable birth control.
B: People taking sex more seriously. Or, if they're unable to do that, at least look into getting themselves fixed.
C: More people, instead of looking to abortion and adoption, raising their children.
Mind you, this is the long-term goal. And I don't think it should be a sudden change, either.
I think encouraging accountability will reap benefits in all aspects of life, not merely concerning sex.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Some people on this board probably remember when abortion was illigal. It wasn't that long ago. So in the short term, yes, we'd probably be back to the "Back Alley" abortion and all the associated risks and trauma. Hopefully, with time, we'd progress to the state Frisco outlined.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Actually, the people I know who are most active in the pro-life movement are also the ones who adopt older children, participate in foster care, and help other charities involved with taking care of kids.
That is an anecdote. Do you have any data to support that? I ask because the majority of people I see worrying about "unborn babies" are also the ones I see encouraging couples looking to adopt to get the cute little babies. I know two active pro-choicers personally who foster and help take care of older children. So, where's the statistical truth between us?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know a lot of pro-lifers. This is not just a trend - it's near universal among the hundreds of deidcated activists I've met.
You're the one who started painting with a broad brush from anecdotes, here.
And we can both be right - "worrying about unborn children" isn't the same as being a dedicated activist, and my statement said nothing about the activities of pro-choice activists.
Dagonee
[ July 15, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Not anecdotes. Once a child reaches above the age of three, their statistical chances of being adopted nearly drops like a cliff.
I asked about you giving proof because I pointed out that it is a failure of us as a society, both pro life and choice, that this is so. You responded by saying the equivalent of, "well, this side is more right because look the the morally superior things they do." You didn't actually put it that way, but bringing up fostering and charity care as being something one side does more without showing any proof of it is highly suspicious. I could almost call it intentionally misleading. I know a lot of pro-choicers, but I didn't say they did more good for unadopted children than pro-lifers.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:So in the short term, yes, we'd probably be back to the "Back Alley" abortion and all the associated risks and trauma. Hopefully, with time, we'd progress to the state Frisco outlined.
I think there's as good a chance now as ever, seeing as we're past the era of the automatic out-of-wedlock stigma and well out of the pre-AIDS "make love not war" decades.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Let's look at the societal changes since the times of the Back Alley Abortions.
How more prevalent and accepted are single moms today? How more developed is the medical support available to them? How about things like WIC and food stamps compared to them? Not to mention equal access to vaccinations and health insurance for children is much more guaranteed.
Add to that the rising availability of some kind of pre-school environment and day cares to allow parents to work (this isn't the perfect answer yet, but it is much, much better than it was before). Child support laws are also much stronger now and paternity testing is commonplace, with the results admissable in court.
The children themselves, only having one parent or unmarried parents, are no longer stigmatized by their peers. Heck, in some areas they aren't even in the minority. They are also not institutionally marginalized by school systems.
Adoptions are also more prevalent now than they were then and there does seem to be an adopting public out there. Perhaps the group preference is for infants, but the need still exists.
Add to that growth in the foster care programs (it is still only a fraction of what is needed) and you'll see that we've made huge strides into making the overall support system better.
In short, we are much more prepared to care for the rush of children that outlawing abortion might cause than we have ever been before.
And folks, don't kid yourself that just because it is legal that back alley abortions don't happen anymore. Or that some women don't take the act of abortion into their own hands. It does still happen and with the same tragic results.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I love a) Hatrack b) my Hatrack friends, including Dag, Frisco, ScottR, pooka, zgator, [Sopwith, of course!] and the whole lot of you who go out of your way to dice down through the nitty-gritty without resorting to name-calling and silly soundbites. I love the whole lot of you.
Driving in to work (yes, I am at work now, and still thinking about Hatrack stuff, of course ) I realized what one of the things making me so uncomfortable was that I haven't stated a positive position, having only taken potshots from the outskirts. What a miserly way to debate a topic.
I'll work on some sort of summary of what I believe, then post it up for fair critique. As foreshadowing, the parts that make me most uneasy about errors in logic and/or understanding are what I'm learning from sndrake about errors of diagnosis for persons with brain changes of the persistant vegetative state / "twilight" sort. I now have even more reason to be skeptical about claims in this area than before, and that's an issue that may impact many other areas of my thinking, including on volitional abortion.
[ July 15, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not anecdotes. Once a child reaches above the age of three, their statistical chances of being adopted nearly drops like a cliff.
I asked about you giving proof because I pointed out that it is a failure of us as a society, both pro life and choice, that this is so. You responded by saying the equivalent of, "well, this side is more right because look the the morally superior things they do." You didn't actually put it that way, but bringing up fostering and charity care as being something one side does more without showing any proof of it is highly suspicious. I could almost call it intentionally misleading. I know a lot of pro-choicers, but I didn't say they did more good for unadopted children than pro-lifers.
I haven't made any universal claims. I made a statement about people I know. It is a true statement. It was meant to respond to your clear implication of hypocrisy by saying that in my experience, those who care most about the abortion issue, as evinced by how much time they dedicate to the cause, are also the people I know who generally help out caring for neglected children in many ways.
I'll bring up anecdotes whenever I want to. I never claimed they challenged those statistics. Edit: And you're perfectly free to say those anecdotes don't say something I never said they did all you want.
Dagonee
[ July 15, 2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You have every right to bring up anecdotes whenever you want to. I'm saying that, in cases like this, bringing up such anecdotes is an easy way to divert attention away from the larger long-term implications behind the issue. This is often done in political debates, court cases, and plenty of modern "documentaries." If talking about abortion, keep attention on the little, bitty babies instead of the exponentially larger number of unadopted older children. If talking about animal rights, focus on the cute bunnies and kitties and puppies. If talking about economic issues, focus on either oil-soaked duckies or acres of uninhabited desert. If talking about pet licensing, focus on how cute puppies are instead of the responsibilities to an adult dog. If discussing the economy, focus on this country's far lower unemployment rate and higher standard of living overall instead of the hundreds of thousands who have now switched to "self-employed," a euphemism for "no longer or not eligible for unemployment."
That's the rub. Anyone can call on anecdotes to focus attention somewhere, just as I can call foul and focus attention on something that already exists as a result of certain parts of an issue. More children exist right now without homes than there are abortions, from the last time I checked, which is admittedly last year. If that has changed in the past year, feel free to correct me. Until then, I would like to spend my energy pointing out the imbalance of focus on the right to life and quality of life of these children in reply to the arguments about some potential for life that has odds I wouldn't wager on in a game. I'm not really avidly for either side, and each has its points, but I like to look at what is instead of what might be. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If that's how you want to spend your energy, then don't waste it attacking me for something I didn't say.
Sheesh.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You started the attacking. I was responding to Suneun.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:However, if we treat the zygote as a human regarding abortion, what about women who don't take care of themselves and cause miscarriages and physical defect because of it. I raise this question before, but I know I don't have a good answer.
I don't, either. And I'm pretty sure that consistency requires more accountability be placed on the woman than the traditional liberal stance is willing to extend.
quote:Best I could find. The difference may be in the fact that it's "known" pregnancies.
You are probably right about that. Thanks for digging this up -- I'll try to play around later and see what I can come up with.
quote:And yes, this may mean building in more money for orphanages, nationalized pediatric care and stronger laws enforcing paternity requirements.
Luckily, Title XXI of the Social Security Act does provide access to healthcare for all children who are US citizens, via state programs (SCHIP: State Children's Health Insurance Program. Children of the working poor still may fall through the cracks, but it's a start. I'm very excited about this! ) It's also incidentally a way to see what universal coverage might look like, and might cost, specifically in this country.
quote:And, correct me if I am wrong, but Medicaid does fully cover the cost of birth control pills.
I don't think that the coverage of oral contraceptives is consistent from state-to-state, although Medicaid usually does cover many forms of IUD and the insertion of Norplant (but not the removal). I believe that most Medicaid programs also cover (at least partially, if not all) some contraceptive injections.
I'm still trying to piece out the players in the US healthcare system. It wasn't until recently that I realized how many national initiatives were implemented by individual (and varying) state programs.
quote:But I realize that it's not me you're referring to as contradictory.
No, it isn't. Actually, I'm trying to target a pattern of thought, rather than specific persons, anyway.
quote:I think encouraging accountability will reap benefits in all aspects of life, not merely concerning sex.
Yup, have to agree with you there.
[ July 15, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
never mind
[ July 15, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:my Hatrack friends, including Dag, Frisco, ScottR, pooka, zgator, [Sopwith, of course!] and the whole lot of you who go out of your way to dice down through the nitty-gritty without resorting to name-calling and silly soundbites. I love the whole lot of you.
Oh, an we love you, too. Until you understand someone, you can't hope to change their minds on something so important. But if you seek to understand them only to change their minds, you will fail to understand them at all. SO understanding must be sought for its own sake.
Understand?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually I need to get back to work, so no thanks to the distraction, but cheering is always nice.
If you're worried about the never mind, I was pointing out something confusing in your post that you ended up editing while I was posting.
When I went to school 2 hours away instead of local to Eve's job, I promised I'd only look in the DC area for a job after law school as long as she wanted to stay at her current job. So unless you have a campus in need of technology transfer expertise for biomedical research, relocating's probably not on the table.
Dagonee
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I have honestly become too conflicted about this issue to take any stance on it.
I imagine the problem of abortion will never be solved by any human society. We'll just have to wait for peace until flawless birth control is invented.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Permit my mind to wander.
So, thinking about this whole abortion thing – does life begin at conception? When does life begin anyway? And I'm wondering, if you can take any cell from a zygote and have it integrate into any tissue in any human, can it be said to be unique? It could be said that it has the potential for humanity, but *any* humanity, given the right conditions. This is unique in that there is no other stage of human life where you can pick any cell from the organism and put it into any tissue from any member of the species and have it integrate.
Note: I realize that I'm extrapolating from the knowledge we have about mice stem cells and superimposing it on humans. To date there's nothing that indicates human stem cells are different from mice in this regard, but we haven't been working with them for long enough to know. For the sake of argument, pretend that human stem cells = mice stem cells in terms of versatility.
What about adult stem cells? Does the fact that you can do something similar with them discredit the argument? They are different in that they're one specialized line of the organism and they don't seem to be pluripotent. Even if the theory of stem cell plasticity that has been forward is accepted they're a far cry from pluripotency. But even if they *were* pluripotent, would that make a difference? How important is the difference between select cells and every cell?
For the record, the stage where this is true for every cell is very brief. Even by the time the blastocyte forms (about 7 days) the cells are split between trophoblasts and the inner cell mass. While all the cells of the inner cell mass are pluripotent those of the trophoblast are not. So, really, even should everyone say "Ok, abortions before blastocytes are a-Ok" that really only impacts birth control and morning after pills as well as stem cell research.
/mind wandering
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I think there is no such thing as "the poverty card" with the abortion issue. They go hand in hand. The population of people most effected by criminalizing abortion will be women in poverty. How do you separate those issues so cavalierly? And yes, while infant adoptions are too difficult to make happen, infants grow up and become toddlers and then older and as noted repeatedly on here, they don't get adopted. A young woman has a baby and tries to take care of that baby as best she can. She finds herself unable to do so and begins to make mistakes or bad choices. Those choices could lead to neglect, abuse, or both and then those kids are taken from that unprepared mother and where do they go? Foster home to foster home if they are older than 5 or so and then where? The assumption is that pregnant mothers with no choice for abortion are automatically going to choose adoption at birth. Many won't initially and when they realize they are truly in over their head, it is usually too late for them or their child and thus we have thousands upon thousands of children without people to call parents or a place to call home.
I think THAT is where the energy should be placed...either supporting young parents if they choose to keep their child (assuming the government programs in place will do it is asking for trouble) or doing more to help them when they stumble.
But to say that this is just "a poverty card" is missing the issue, I think. We aren't talking about teens from well-off families wanting access to free abortions. Sure, there are folks in that boat but I don't see that being the population most effected by this.
fil
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
But what about unborn babies?!?!
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Pregnant women who are suffering a miscarriage are told by their doctors that there is nothing they can do about it. That it is just 'one of those things'. The authority of the doctor, and the faith of people in that doctor and in science, goes a long way to discourage further inquiry as to why the pregnancy failed.
I don't think it would take very much to form a group that would support research into miscarriages and why they happen. The research is not overwhelming, but it is not exactly sparse. This is in great part due to the increasing number of women trying to concieve in later years. They invest a lot into getting and staying pregnant.
From my own, admittedly anectodal experience, the spread of miscarriages is not even through all women. Many women never experience a miscarriage through several pregnancies, while other women seem to experience them repeatedly.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The population of people most effected by criminalizing abortion will be women in poverty.
Begin mindless rant:
This just made me wonder. If were talking about a much higher population of poor women getting abortions over wealthier women, then who pays for the abortion? I'm sure it's better for the government to pay a few hundred (or thousand) dollars to perform the abortion than it is for them to continue to support the woman and her child as they spend the rest of their lives in poverty. I mean, every cent that goes into the mouth of the hungry child is one less cent in a politician's pocket.
But it makes me so angry that I am paying the taxes that go to kill that child, and they won't even give me a vote. Talk about taxation without representation. It's not like I can expect my congressmen to accurately represent me, if the idiocy that goes on in Congress is a fair clue. Don't even get me started on McCain, our "conservative" Senator.
And what about checks and balances? Why aren't the judges of America being checked when they take on so much responsibility and exercise so much power? Why are so many important decisions being made in the courts rather than by the people?
If you consider the fact that the executive members of the government are chosen by the white-boy lawyer club, and then they in turn choose the judges, it stands to reason that you and I have absolutely no say in what's going on in the government. I mean, YAY for us that we get to chose between Kerry and Bush. The differences in their stances are almost indistiguishable. We should be asking, "Who picked Kerry? Who picked Bush?" And beyond that, "Who picked the Democratic nominees this year?" They give us these pointless nominees, and then pretend that we have a say in how the government is run, by letting us choose which pointless nominee we want to sit in office and pick his nose for four years.
Bread and circuses, my friends.
And who wants to wager a bet on Arnold running for President in four years, or eight? Who WOULDN'T be surprised that the lowest common denominator would jump all over the chance to have the last action hero in the Oval Office?
Well, to hell with all of it, because that's where it's going. If they think I'm going to participate in this game one more year, they're kidding themselves.
/rant
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Many women never experience a miscarriage through several pregnancies, while other women seem to experience them repeatedly.
Yeah, my mom had nine or ten. But it wasn't genetic in her case.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
/sidebar Arnold can't run for President 'cause he wasn't born in the US. Though they could repeal that constitutional ammendment.
AJ /end sidebar
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I know, AJ. That's what makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Maybe the Supreme Court can decide that Arnold can run. They can even say it's unconstitutional (even though it's in the Constitution) to keep foreigners from running...after all, most of the people in America came as a foreigner or a descendent of one.
I realize how ridiculous it sounds. But that's the painful part. It's ridiculous, and yet TOTALLY possible. Possible, because we have no way of stopping them from doing whatever they want to do. What are you going to do? Call your local Congressman?
[ July 15, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, I think that the foreign-born-as-president issue is not as likely to change as you think. Contrary to popular belief, by and large courts are NOT taking knives to laws to effect social change.
<Bok Rant> Like the whole "activist judges canard" with MA legalizing same-sex marriage: The issue had been percolating here for YEARS, with lobbies on both sides working to try to create legislation one way or another. Neither side can feign surprise on this issue in this state. No one had the guts to do anything about it, which is why it came to the MA SJC to begin with. They (the representatives, and by extension, the people) didn't want to deal with it at all; quite a few people, on both sides, probably WANTED the courts to deal with it, not legislatures. Now, the court could have decided the case before them many ways, and you can critique their particular judicial opinions. But the fact no one likes to bring up is that the MA Constitution had in it words that could definitely, and I would say reasonably, be construed to mean that marriage LAWS, in MA, ought to be applied to same-sex relationships. The MA SJC is not concerned with it's repurcussions for the greater USA. That's never been a concern of any state legislature/governor/court. They deal with their sphere of influence. The people had nothing "taken away" from them. There was ample time for interested parties on both sides to come up with compromise legislation, or whatever. They couldn't do it, and so to come late to the party and ask why the heck the 2 guys who came on time ate all the veggie dip is inane.
</Bok rant>
Sorry for the counter rant.
-Bok
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No problem! I'll admit that the Mass. thing has been in my brain, but it's not just them. There seems to be very little being decided by voters nowadays, other than whether or not to build a trolley system (who cares?). Half the time, I feel like they give us things to vote on just to keep us feeling like we're involved. But the issues are so unimportant it doesn't matter which way it goes.
[ July 15, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:King of Men: ------------------------------------------ As for selective abortion, why would you force anyone to raise a handicapped child? ------------------------------------------ Would you care to elaborate?
Certainly, comrade. Briefly, raising a child is a lot of dashed work, but has its rewards in seeing the child grow up, become an adult, raise grandchildren. A strongly handicapped child gives you twice the work and fewer rewards. Now, some people do take that on, and some of them don't even regret it. But this must be an individual choice. How can you argue that it's moral to force someone to raise a child they did not want?
As for adoption, I suspect it is a touch difficult to find a foster home for a handicapped child, no?
[ July 15, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If abortion isn't the taking of a human person's life and is left up to individual discretion, then we can't question someone's right to have an abortion for a particular reason (child's sex, disability, whatever). So the handicap argument would be irrelevant to the morality of abortion.
If abortion is prohibited on the basis that it's the taking of a human person's life, or potential life, then you are advocating weighing the moral fitness of a decision to abort based on the perceived worth of the child. Doing so relies on two assumptions:
1.) That a child's purpose is for the benefit to be provided to the parent. 2.) That a person with a disability is somehow worth less to the average parent than a "normal" child.
I find both morally reprehensible; together they're atrocious.
Dagonee
[ July 15, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Your first point is well taken, and indeed describes my stance precisely : A fetus is not yet human.
Your second point is not well taken, but I can see where my post laid the groundwork for it. I don't think a child has a purpose; but I do think an adult has the right to decide for herself whether or not she wants to take on the monumental task of bringing a child into the world. And she has the right to make that decision with all relevant information, including disabilities and what satisfaction she's going to get out of it. You may disagree with an individual's choice, that is your right. But you cannot take it away. That is the 'right' of a dictator to choose for all people.
And finally, you may find it as repugnant as you like. But I do think that the parent of handicapped children are less happy, more stressed, and more likely to regret their decision than the parents of normal children.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If that is your stance, than the burden of handicapped children on their parents neither supports nor detracts from it, since no justification for the decision to abort is needed. The fact that you brought it up is troubling, and doesn't bode well for a world where humans are equally valued.
Dagonee
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:but I do think an adult has the right to decide for herself whether or not she wants to take on the monumental task of bringing a child into the world.
She made that decision when she decided to have sex. Children are a by-product of this decision.
KOM, do you have any thoughts on limitations to abortion? The time at which most handicaps can be determined I believe is past the halfway point in a pregnancy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: How can you argue that it's moral to force someone to raise a child they did not want?
In the United States, can anybody legally abandon their children to an orphanege? If you give birth to a child, are you legally obligated to raise that child unless you can find somebody else to adopt it?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
[ sidenote ]
quote: I don't think that the coverage of oral contraceptives is consistent from state-to-state, although Medicaid usually does cover many forms of IUD and the insertion of Norplant (but not the removal). I believe that most Medicaid programs also cover (at least partially, if not all) some contraceptive injections
They only pay for contraceptives for females, not males. Not vasectomies (even if requested), etc. [ /sidenote ]
I also had the same question that PSI raised above (that I don't see answered yet) regarding how poverty-level women pay for abortions. How much does an abortion cost? If these people are only the poor, how do they afford the procedure? (I really don't know -- I'm not being sarcastic).
FG
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: She made that decision when she decided to have sex. Children are a by-product of this decision.
KOM, do you have any thoughts on limitations to abortion? The time at which most handicaps can be determined I believe is past the halfway point in a pregnancy.
How many teenagers really think about what's going to happen nine months from now? How many adults, for that matter? And contraception does fail occasionally. Are you seriously advocating abstention as birth control? That is not going to happen, and didn't even in Victorian times.
Limitations on abortion : The ones in place today (not that I'm an expert on what they are) seem fairly reasonable - not perfect, but an acceptable compromise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If that is your stance, than the burden of handicapped children on their parents neither supports nor detracts from it, since no justification for the decision to abort is needed. The fact that you brought it up is troubling, and doesn't bode well for a world where humans are equally valued.
A flaw of mine, arguing from the premises of my opponent, rather than my own. My basic thought here is that we're never going to agree on axioms, but it might be possible to reason from your axioms to my conclusions, which is what I'm trying to do. That is, no argument of mine can convince you that a two-week fetus is not human, but I might be able to bring you around to accepting abortion as necessary in some cases.
As for all humans being equally valued, all I can say is, they ain't. Suppose you had the choice of killing Saddam Hussein and comrade Bush. Which gets the bullet?
Incidentally, how do you feel about the death penalty?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
We're arguing from two very different viewpoints. I see it as a life.
The fact that a teenager or an adult didn't examine the possible consequences 9 months down the road shouldn't matter in my opinion. That's no excuse to end a life for convenience sake.
Obviously abstinence would be the most effective choice, but I do realize that it's not going to happen. Done correctly, birth control is very effective. Are you seriously advocating abortion as a means of birth control?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a last-ditch option, used when all else fails and the pregnant woman cannot face the thought of having this baby - yes.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: How many teenagers really think about what's going to happen nine months from now? How many adults, for that matter?
This is what worries me; that the POV of pro-choice allows people to continue in ignorance.
I didn't know condoms weren't 100% effective! I didn't think that I might get pregnant! I didn't care at the time!
The solution to this isn't to give them a back door to slip out of. It's to hold them responsible so that they can stand as a statement to the world, and pass on their experience to other people their age, and to future generations. That's how social growth works. By repeatedly giving people a way out of their problems, you discourage growth, and that brings the country down to the level of animals.
How many of your friends would have to get pregnant before you'd start using birth control effectively? At that age, what happens to your peers is more of a statement to you than what happened to your parents, because that's ancient history. And if a teen girl gets an abortion, what's to keep her from getting another, and another? Surely she didn't learn the first time. All she learned is "I can have sex all I want! I don't need contraception!" Meanwhile she gets HIV, and passes that on to her other partners that "don't know any better".
The most important lesson for SOCIETY to learn is SEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY. That includes abstinence (when appropriate) and effective use of birth control or protection from STD's (when appropriate). It does NOT include all the "Get out of Jail Free" passes you could want, paid for by your helpful fellow citizens. What keeps you out of jail when you have all the passes? Why avoid it in the first place?
Let me go on the record of saying that my stance on abortion has less to do with the responsibility issue, although I will argue it if it comes up.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
PSI, you said that much better than I could.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So essentially, you're punishing thoughtless teenagers pour encourage les autres? In order to set an example, you are going to inflict an unwanted child on them, not to mention embittered parents on the child?
Further, I think you have a horribly paternal attitude to how non-religious people think. It doesn't occur to you that an abortion is not a pleasant jaunt to the seaside? That many people feel terrible about an abortion, they just don't see any other option? There may be idiots in the world who think of abortion as an alternative to condoms. But I have yet to meet any.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
KOM- Then you don't know many people. Off-hand I can name 8 or 10 women close to me who made quick decisions to have abortions rather than raise a child they didn't want, and many of them have had two or three. It's possible that, because I'm a woman, I'm privy to the more intimate choices that close friends or family members made. But that's just my personal experience.
I'm not making these numbers up, people. This is the shocking truth around here. It's scary.
I should also point out that the mental stability of some of them is not so good since having it done. I'm very sad to say this, but my mother is one of them.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
There is nothing crude about the word ignorance. Or do you mean something else?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
CT, our experiences aren't that dissimilar. None of the women was happy or carefree about the situation. But, offhand, my mother, next-door neighbor, and best friend have all have at least three abortions, and all three of them have severe social problems that didn't exist beforehand.
I know that it's anecdotal. But in the courtroom, witness testimony counts as evidence, too.
And as far as ignorance goes, it depends on the person. Obviously some people will strive to never have the experience of an abortion again. But for society, it's a lesson that isn't learned unless they SEE the results. And more important than simply saving a child's life is to create a stable community for him to be raised in. A stable community is one that takes responsibility for their actions, rather than hiding from them.
edit: I hereby take repsosiblity for my poor spelling.
[ July 15, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: KOM- Then you don't know many people. Off-hand I can name 8 or 10 women close to me who made quick decisions to have abortions rather than raise a child they didn't want, and many of them have had two or three. It's possible that, because I'm a woman, I'm privy to the more intimate choices that close friends or family members made. But that's just my personal experience.
Well then, I'm sorry to hear you are surrounded by idiots. Which is it, by the way, eight or ten? Nine? Perhaps it's five? Make up your mind, comrade.
How do you know the decisions were quick? Are these such good friends of yours that you would expect to be privy to every last minute of soul searching, every doubt and fear, every night thought? All eight of them? (Or ten, or whatever.) If you are indeed a good friend of these people, then I would assume that the peer pressure, at least, was in the opposite direction.
Also, suppose one of these women had brought her child to term. Would she have been the happier for it? Would your other friends have followed her example? Or might they have seen how terrible a dysfunctional family dynamic can be, and been even swifter in their own choices? Would you really bring a child into the world merely as an example for others? Isn't that assigning a purpose to children beyond their simple existence, which was called 'morally atrocious' when I did it?
I'm sorry to hear about your mother. But post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't valid reasoning.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
One of them did bring a child into the world, and she's here right now to tell you what kind of hell it was like being raised by a woman who was mentally DEFORMED by her decisions to abort children.
Toss it aside all you want..
[ July 15, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Locally, abortions cost between $400-$600 or so. Most patients pay cash, some use insurance. None are paid by the government directly, afaik. A few are paid through funds by private donors.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Glad we don't share friends, PSI."
Same here.
------
"she's here right now to tell you what kind of hell it was like being raised by a woman who was mentally DEFORMED by her decisions to abort children."
Can you demonstrate causation, here? Or, for that matter, demonstrate that it was worse than being raised by someone who was mentally deformed by being required to bear and raise fourteen children?
[ July 15, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:One of them did bring a child into the world, and she's here right now to tell you what kind of hell it was like being raised by a woman who was mental DEFORMED by her decisions to abort children.
Well, there you go, then. Clearly, you'd have been better off not existing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow, you argue against yourself pretty well.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
BTW I'm a strong supporter of continued sex-education and thorough sex education. I'd like to point out that it is not the pro-choice camp that is pushing Abstinence-Only education.
Education is the most important method of helping people out. Please don't accuse all pro-choice people of ignoring this.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
We forgive you CT Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Wow, you argue against yourself pretty well.
Well, since you apparently don't intend to respond to my arguments, one of us has to keep the debate alive. Would you care to elaborate on that remark, by the way?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
KoM, you just told her that it would clearly be a better world without her being alive, do you really think she's going to be all that interested in responding? If it was a joke I suggest apologizing for it, if it wasn't then I really don't think this debate will go much of anywhere.
Hobbes Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: A part of me wonders if a person who (obviously) is making a series of bad choices wouldn't also be likely to make other bad decisions. That is, maybe something in their way of responding to the world or in their environment predisposed them to make a whole bunch of bad choices, among which would be getting pregnant unintentionally three or more times.
I promise, it's not like I didn't think of that. In some of my experiences, that's possible.
Oh, and I saw your post before you edited out the comment at the end, CT. I was cracking up.
(Thanks, Hobbes.)
[ July 15, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am glad that despite a rocky beginning, this discussion has become pretty civil and reasonable. I know that it's late, but I'd like to share an idea of mine that I haven't ever seen. Maybe it's because it's severely flawed. If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. But maybe I have something worthwhile to share.
So many of the abortion arguments follow along the lines "Abortion bad for baby!" vs. "Abortion good for mommy!" [use Phil Hartman's Frankenstein voice for those arguments] These arguments hinge on where and when human-hood is achieved, and when the fetus should have any rights.
I personally don't know when I think a fetus becomes a person, and it doesn't matter for this argument. I do think that almost everybody can agree that a fetus is "somewhat" a person, and generally becomes "more" of a person as time goes on. This means that at some stage before birth, a fetus becomes more of a human being than the cells I lose brushing my teeth, combing my hair, or taking a shower. I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with this.
Soooooo, suppose that there were a company out there that got people to experience "virtual" murder. My idea is very similar the movie "The Game", if you've ever seen that. Let's say that you want your friend to experience the thrill of murduring somebody. So this company goes out and arranges a situation where your friend would have motive and opportunity to kill sombody, and he goes through with it. But things were arranged so that it was a fake death. For example, they put blanks instead of bullets in the gun he used.
In this situation, no human life was lost, nobody was physically harmed, but something horrible still happened. The "murderer" tried to take someone's life. He was brought or he brought himself to the point where he was able to value some else's life as less valuable than his own desires. This is an evil thing, and something that we don't want happening.
Similarly, if someone aborts a person or a "somewhat" person, then to some degree, they have brough themselves to the point where that life ("somewhat" life?) has less value than their own needs and wants. It seems to me that this would be evil for the same reason virtual murder would be evil. So instead of "Abortion bad for baby!", this argument is "Abortion bad for mommy!"
Most of the anti-abortion arguments are based on the idea "Thou shalt not kill." This argument of mine more comes from the idea "Thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it."
Thanks for listening.
edit: the comments about this conversation being so civil were composed before mud started to fly, even though they were posted after.
[ July 15, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Well, since you apparently don't intend to respond to my arguments, one of us has to keep the debate alive. Would you care to elaborate on that remark, by the way?
On second thought, yes I would.
You start throwing crap like that around, and you lose every argument you make.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, you just told her that it would clearly be a better world without her being alive, do you really think she's going to be all that interested in responding? If it was a joke I suggest apologizing for it, if it wasn't then I really don't think this debate will go much of anywhere.
No, those were comrade PsiTeleport's words. I merely restated them in a slightly more direct form. And neither of us said anything about the world, we were both talking about her own life.
On the other hand, I did not mean my words to hurt, and if they did, I apologise for that.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
There's a difference between having a tough childhood and prefering not to live through it, if it was the latter she wouldn't be here right now.
And even if we aren't talking about the world, you can rest assured that the world is significantly better with PSI in it.
Hobbes Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
KOM: See, you seem to think that a bad life is worse than no life, and I don't agree. Also, you forget that a bad life still has good moments, and can lead to a happy life. Yes, even for people forced to raise the child they conceived. Even for children born to rape victims.
Well, Hobbes beat me to it. KOM, I think you need to hand over your screen name to the man that deserves it.
[ July 15, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: A strongly handicapped child gives you twice the work and fewer rewards.
I don't know that you can say that. My brother and his wife choose the keep their daughter with Down's Syndrome. Her being alive has been consistently regarded by the medical community as a failure in care. "Didn't you have an ultrasound? Weren't you encouraged to abort?" My brother says 90% of feti with Down's Syndrome are aborted.
But she is a happy, affectionate child. She may never cheat to get a better grade or deliberately shoplift or do the other things normal kids do. She did have a thyroid problem that had to be operated on, but I know a couple of college graduates that had the same problem. I know of a child with DS who has had to have one painful surgery after another. That can happen as well. But again, it can happen in the able.
I remember now why my older sister mentioned abortion to my 7 year old. She was discussing an autism genetics study their child hadn't been accepted for, and it was just as well since if they find the gene they will probably used it to pre-diagnose and abort. (At which point my child asks "what's abort?" and we got a bit sidetracked.) I still don't know if she understands it. We left it at "The baby doesn't get born" which may leave her with the impression that it's just stored in the woman's body. I don't know how to tell her that doctors essentially cut it out even though it can't survive.
CT- the reason I used the analogy of whales beaching themselves is because it is part of nature, but it's also a tragedy. I'm not sure what the stats are on baby sea turtles, but when they hatch most of them are eaten by seagulls and crabs. It is part of nature, and the fact that it's a huge waste is hard to take. I can understand why you feel confused about why we would want to believe that. (Note, I'm not saying a zygote is like a baby sea turtle, I'm just comparing the degree of waste that occurs in that life event.)
Having said that, I don't know where they get those statistics. It used to be 30, then 50, and Suneun said 70% on the front page. I know infertility is getting more prevalent but I don't see how they get these numbers. Does anyone know, or are they educated guesses?
Just because a woman is not outwardly distraught doesn't mean a thing about her mental state. I learned a long time ago that mentioning the death of my first child usually ends in me consoling the person I told. So I avoid it if I don't expect to deal with that person much in the future. With medical people I'm just very matter of fact about it. They may have some follow up questions, but it's not it will help me to have a melt down. So like I said, you can't tell one way or another.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not think that, I was trying to point out to you that you are in fact alive, and that your whining was not particularly relevant to the topic at hand.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*steps into crap*
(sheepish grin)
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
It concerns me that so many people seem to view abortion as an individual problem rather than a societal one. It is so easy to look at a young woman and judge her for having an abortion. It's so simple to say that she must have no regard for life. However, I think that we live in a society that doesn't teach much regard for life. Our children are assaulted with violent images in movies and television, as well as video games. Heck, we all are.
I don't think solutions are going to come from showing pictures and arguing about whether cells are a human life. I think we as a society must all start taking responsibility instead of blaming individuals. I'm not saying that individuals aren't responsible for their actions, but I am saying that I think more time needs to be spent attempting to understand why human life, whether it's a 30 year old or a 30 minute old human life, doesn't seem to matter.
space opera
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It's so simple to say that she must have no regard for life. However, I think that we live in a society that doesn't teach much regard for life.
One of the ways that society fails to teach regard for life is by allowing abourtion to be legal.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
mph, thank you for that pat response.
space opera
edit: I give up. I've tried throughout this thread to participate in a discussion and seek solutions. I feel as though too many are interested in scoring points for their cause rather than taking a look at larger issues.
[ July 15, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
*Deep breath*
OK, step back. Let me ask again, comrade PSI, are you going to respond to my argument, which I repost for your convenience :
quote: So essentially, you're punishing thoughtless teenagers pour encourage les autres? In order to set an example, you are going to inflict an unwanted child on them, not to mention embittered parents on the child?
And again :
quote:Isn't that assigning a purpose to children beyond their simple existence, which was called 'morally atrocious' when I did it?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Can you demonstrate causation, here? Or, for that matter, demonstrate that it was worse than being raised by someone who was mentally deformed by being required to bear and raise fourteen children?
Sorry, Tom, I didn't ignore you. I didn't see this post when we went to the fourth page.
Honestly, I cannot prove causation. All I can do is go on the testimony of my mother's family, about her behavior before and after. And, while I can't prove that the abortions directly caused her condition, I CAN say that when someone or something changes traumatically, there's probably a traumatic reason why. (Barring some weird regression from something extreme that happened when she was three or something, because that seems less likely.)
When you look for a vase that has been suddenly broken, you look for the person that hit it or shoved it over. When all you can find is a little kid with a baseball bat, you start to make conclusions. It may be circumstantial evidence, but it's still evidence, and it's still admissible in court, and must be treated as actual evidence.
As far as the "mother with fourteen kids" goes, I can't say that I have any experience with any ladies who have gone nuts after having fourteen kids.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
King of Men, you are, it would seem, a fairly new member of our community, which probably explains why you've adopted a tone in your posts that isn't particularly effective here. Hatrack is a fairly unusual place on the internet. On most forums I've visited, the tone you've taken here is pretty standard, or even on the mild side of things. Here, it stands out as being rude enough that, regardless of the validity of your overall points, people will tend to be dismissive of your arguments. You're certainly not the only person to ever come to Hatrack and behave in ways that come off as insulting, condescending, and so forth, but people who make that tone a halmark of their "voice" here usually do one of three things:
A)Disappear after stirring things up for a week or two. B)Flame out, developing a posting style offensive enough that the moderators choose to delete their account. C)Allow their posting style to evolve into something that is more suitable for the board.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled debate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, thank you for that pat response.
SpaceOpera -- I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to score points. This is the main point of my earlier post -- one of the problems I have with abortions is to me they decrease the regard for life.
It wasn't intended to be a quippy response -- it was inteded to show that what what you are talking about is related to what I was talking about.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I can't say that I have any experience with any ladies who have gone nuts after having fourteen kids.
Of course, I would never dream of accusing anyone of using biased data. But I would like to ask whether you have any experience at all with mothers of fourteen children? Or even six?
Comrade Noemon, I shall strive to follow your Third Way. I fear the abortion debate brings out the worst in me.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Glad to hear it KoM! Welcome to Hatrack, by the way.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But I would like to ask whether you have any experience at all with mothers of fourteen children? Or even six?
I don't think PSI does, but there are probably a lot of people on this board with experience with families of six, considering the odd demographics of this board.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Kom: No, I'm allowing the teenagers to have consequences to their actions. That is not "punishment". Punishment entails some action on my part to bring some discipline or change into their life. I choose to allow the normal course of their life's events to unfold, without giving them a "way out", except in life-threatening situations, where a way out is more important than a "lesson learned". (This is not necessarily referring only to abortion here...I'm getting all parental.)
It's an extremely effective parenting technique. Your kid spends all his money, he can't buy the toy he wants. You don't help him learn the value of money by slipping him a five.
I realize that it seems arrogant of me to assume this parental role. But I'm not thinking of ME being a parent, but rather society. Society is partially responsible for bringing up responsible children (and adults).
As for the second part of it, I am still thinking.
(Also still thinking about what CT said, regarding seeing a child as a lesson learned.)
Oh, and:
quote: Of course, I would never dream of accusing anyone of using biased data. But I would like to ask whether you have any experience at all with mothers of fourteen children? Or even six?
I didn't mean to say that, because I don't know any women who went nuts, that none of them did. I'm just trying to say that I have no experience in that area.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Space Opera, his was no more pat than yours, just shorter.
Of course *we* have to do something about it. anything that results in so much destruction to both fetus and mother throughout our society is a societal problem, unquestionably. Unfortunately, we can't do *anything* until we *agree* what we should do.
It's funny, ironic even, that Pro-choice and pro-firearm people react nearly the same way to any attempt at restriction: "it's the first step in taking it all away."
The differences from here:
1) there are already reasonable restrictions in place on firearm ownership, there really aren't any restrictions on abortion.
2) pro-lifers really do want to see all abortion (except in life or death situations, such as tubal preganacy) done away with. Gun control advocates generally aren't looking to eradicate firearms.
3)Pro-choicers base their "right" on a supreme court ruling. Pro-gun people base theirs on a constitutional amendment.
Just observing...
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Of course, I would never dream of accusing anyone of using biased data. But I would like to ask whether you have any experience at all with mothers of fourteen children? Or even six?
My father's mother had 10 kids.
She was a loon.
edit to add the smilie. She was a loon, but we all loved her.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: zgator ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I have an aunt who had thirteen children and she is one of the kindest, most generous people I know. She is solid as a rock.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Jim-Me, I've seen quite a few pro-choice Hatrackers that would be OK with placing restrictions on abortion. I think it's likely that a lot of pro-choice people would agree, but they aren't the ones you generally hear about. The same as you generally only hear about the pro-lifers driving around in a truck with a picture of an aborted fetus on the side.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
4) Pro-Lifers base their stance off of blind devotion to a "God" whose very existence is impossible to prove.
Oh, I'm sorry, was that off base?
Of course it was. And offensive if I might add. If you see what I'm trying to say, Jim-me
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Actually, I do know a woman who had six kids. My husband's mother was one of six. That woman is like a rock, but I think she was like that before she had the kids.
And, CT, you are not offending me or stepping on my toes. I'm fully aware that bringing up experiences may mean your experiences will be scrutinized. As long as you keep doing it in an unoffensive way, it doesn't bother me. As far as an answer to your question, still thinking.
KoM: Can you redirect me to the first place that you posted the second question? I can't find the context that it's in.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I give up. I've tried throughout this thread to participate in a discussion and seek solutions. I feel as though too many are interested in scoring points for their cause rather than taking a look at larger issues.
OK, here's what I understand of your argument (this is not my assesment of it, not yet It's my attempt to understand so I hope you'll help me when I don't ). The numerous abortions in this country are a symptom of societies dimishing regard for human life, for a variety of reasons. The problem of this societal breakdown needs to be xamined and fixed, abortion is (as I said earlier) merely a symptom.
Is this right?
If so, here's my reponse: I agree. Abortion is a symptom of a societal collapse, or partial collapse (if you want to be really gentle, a societal and cultural slope downwards) and the other problems it creates, like fostering a view of immorality and violence on an entire generation. This problem does need to be dealt with and it does need to be examined.
But this discussion is on abortion, and though a good way to fight abortion could be (probably is) to fight this societal break-down, in the meantime this symptom of a lack of social morals is resulting in the deaths of literally millions of lives (human lives up for argument) in America alone. So though we should face the more deep-rooted cause of this, something needs to be done now (in the pro-life view), every year delayed is 3 million and some lives lost.
It's kind of like putting out the fires an arsonist starts, we really need to go get that arsonist, if we don't the same type of thing will crop up over and over and have a negative effect everytime; but in the mean-time, we put out the fires.
Hobbes Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would suggest that an abortion is a highly non-trivial consequence, particularly a late abortion. It hurts, no? Both physically and emotionally.
The problem with forcing someone to take a child to term is that it's irrevocable. I realise that you can't undo an abortion either, but it doesn't have the total, utter life-changing effect that a baby does. Twenty years from now, this 'consequence of their actions' that falls so trippingly from your keyboard is still going to be around! That's a fairly drastic way to teach someone a lesson. Wouldn't a good spanking be sufficient?
Becoming a parent is something that utterly changes your life. It should not be something that society forces upon you because you were a little careless.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Mph, I know you weren't trying to score points. Much of this is my own frustration. I don't think that pro-choice/pro-life groups are ever going to agree on abortion. Maybe I'm just naive (geez, is that how you spell that word), but I think that looking for solutions is the most viable option in this situation. I wish both communities would work together more instead of just trying to change one another's mind. Let's all agree that our society sucks in regard to valuing human life. Now let's take steps on both ends to change this. I'm not talking about making abortion illegal/legal; I'm talking about figuring out together how we can change the perceived need for abortion. Let's open a true dialogue between groups that allows us to both eventually get some of what we want. I know that pro-life groups want abortions to become illegal except in special cases. As a pro-choice person that's fine with me as long as together we can help our young women and men learn to make responsible choices about sexuality. Gah..forget it; if I don't stop now I'll start singing "Give Peace a Chance."
space opera
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM: Can you redirect me to the first place that you posted the second question? I can't find the context that it's in.
I don't think it really gains anything from the context, which is the post that started us off a that rather non-productive byway, but here it is :
quote:Well then, I'm sorry to hear you are surrounded by idiots. Which is it, by the way, eight or ten? Nine? Perhaps it's five? Make up your mind, comrade.
How do you know the decisions were quick? Are these such good friends of yours that you would expect to be privy to every last minute of soul searching, every doubt and fear, every night thought? All eight of them? (Or ten, or whatever.) If you are indeed a good friend of these people, then I would assume that the peer pressure, at least, was in the opposite direction.
Also, suppose one of these women had brought her child to term. Would she have been the happier for it? Would your other friends have followed her example? Or might they have seen how terrible a dysfunctional family dynamic can be, and been even swifter in their own choices? Would you really bring a child into the world merely as an example for others? Isn't that assigning a purpose to children beyond their simple existence, which was called 'morally atrocious' when I did it?
Re-reading that post, I do see how I come off as rather rude. My apologies again.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Warning: quippy.
quote: I realise that you can't undo an abortion either, but it doesn't have the total, utter life-changing effect that a baby does.
It does to the baby.
----
I found the other question, and I have an answer.
In answer to both KoM and CT:
I don't like to think of "using" a baby to be a lesson learned or assigning another role to the baby, etc. 99% of my argument against abortion is based on the "regard for human life" aspect of it, and I tend to steer away from the "lesson learned" part of it most of the time. This time I got stuck on it, but I truly put the importance of "teaching responsibility to people" way below the "saving the kid's life," personally.
That doesn't make much sense. What I mean is, I care more about the baby than the mom. If the baby ends up being a "lesson learned" for the mom, then so be it. People have lived with worse labels.
KoM, I know you haven't seen any of the past abortion debates, but I have hashed and rehashed my stance on "regard for human life" over there. I was just responding to the statement about teenagers and adults not looking 9 months into the future and I got hot about it. I don't usually even go to that side of the debate.
CT: You can't stand yourself? You've yet to bother me. In fact, you try harder to be gentle around sensitive areas than almost anyone on this board. I guess that comes from being a doctor.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't follow you BtL...
how was my post offensive?
Are you suggestng that there is a constitutional amendment allowing abortion? or that there isn't one regarding the individual right to bear arms?
or do you feel that it is unfair in someway to point out that whenever new gun or abortion legislation is proposed, that's the cue for the NRA or the NOW to start shouting about how "they" are trying to take away our rights?
I can't imagine my second statement offending either the pro-choice or gun control crowds, as I was observing that pro-lifers tend to be more, shall we say "dedicated"? how about "intent on their cause"?, than gun control advocates.
edit: Zgator, if the above doesn't make things clear, I was referring to the character of the national debate, not the one here on hatrack
[ July 15, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I'm talking about figuring out together how we can change the perceived need for abortion.
Amen sister Opera. I'm against abortion, but I don't believe that it should be outlawed with no other changes made. Better sex education is needed to better understand the consequences and to know how to prevent them. Single mothers needed to be provided for. And many other things I'm sure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It does to the baby.
Yes, well. It comes back to our fundamental disagreement again : I don't think a fetus is a human. I don't think either of us is going to be changing our stance on that one.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
KOM, do you have a time when you think it does become a human considering that babies can be born as early as 23 weeks I believe and survive? Is that right, CT?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't think anyone on this board wants to ONLY get rid of abortion and leave the kids and their families in a lurch. I already said that it would be far better (for me) to put 100 times the money into a better world for kids than to put a relatively insignificant amount into an abortion. But I think we can do both. Raise society up, and protect the innocents while doing so. They go hand-in-hand, in my opinion.
BTW: I'll be back later. I can only play Tekken when the kids are asleep!
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Hobbes, I like your analogy of the arsonist. It's helped me to understand a bit more of the pro-life side of things.
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh, and:
quote: Yes, well. It comes back to our fundamental disagreement again : I don't think a fetus is a human. I don't think either of us is going to be changing our stance on that one.
The difference is, if you're wrong, you've killed a person. If I'm wrong, I've allowed a person to live.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KOM, do you have a time when you think it does become a human, considering that babies can be born as early as 23 weeks (I believe) and survive?
Strictly speaking, three years or so, when the child begins to empathise with other humans. Obviously that's not a very practical limit, though. So for purposes of limiting abortion, the current cutoffs seem acceptable to me.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Have you ever had children, KoM?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Please add a smilie to that KOM or I might think you're serious.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
SO: For once on of my posts accomplished it's goals.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
KoM, I hope you're not under 27 (years of age) because that is when the latest research is showing that the brain is fully formed. If we want to perpetuate this shifting baseline, that is where it stops.
z- are you saying that along with KoM you are suggesting that up to 3 years of age a child should be able to be disposed of on demand by its parents? That may work in a world where we cut off a testicle of an aborting father each time he requires one.
Jim-Me, BtL is Canadian and may not appreciate the nuances of your points. I hate both the NRA and NOW/Planned Parenthood. As institutions.
[ July 15, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
NOT AGAIN! Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Ah, yes... I forgot he wasn't a "local"
Sorry Bob, for my geocentrism. I think I see how I lost and offended you, but I was really only addressing US law, not fundamental rights. Hope that makes my post a little less condescending?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think 'capable of empathy and speech' is an excellent definition of a human, and by that definition, children under three (approximately) do not qualify. But I want to emphasize that I am not prepared to take the consequences of such a definition. When I say 'strictly speaking,' I intend to imply that that is what an alien with none of our cultural baggage might choose. Particularly if the alien were a Vulcan, all logic and no heart.
The point I'm making is that any cutoff point (conception, third birthday, twenty-seventh birthday) is totally arbitrary, so we might as well define it to our own convenience.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: so we might as well define it to our own convenience.
Well, that is where we disagree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
KoM makes a good point. As I have watched my kids grow and develop, I keep asking myself "Is my kid as smart as dog yet? A monkee? A tree stump?" My youngest child isn't really a person yet. But I love her anyway.
[ July 15, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
pooka, you didn't really just ask me that, did you?
And my son is smarter than a tree stump already. I'm very proud of him. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
z:
quote: Please add a smilie to that KOM or I might think you're serious.
Led me to believe that you agreed with KoM's line of reasoning, that brain function determines humanity.
[change directions] I was thinking about this, since my opinion on when life begins does not necessarily call for my demanding that all abortion be made illegal tomorrow. An effective policy is one that helps people rather than hurt them.
So getting back to Space Opera's question of attitudes: I was thinking that the attitude that "sex and reproduction are inseparable" is not going to get us anywhere. One's view on this pretty well reflects, or stems from, one's view on when life begins.
What about the idea that "Sex is a way of bonding two life partners". That we don't treat pregnancy as only a woman's problem. If she is all alone, that is as big a problem as that she has an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Jimmy, I went and scanned over your post again and I'm not too sure why it irritated me. Maybe I was accusing you of broad brush strokes?
In any case, I quite happily retract my previous post.
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
pooka -- the attitude "sex and reproduction are inseparable" is not mutually exclusive with "Sex is a way of bonding two life partners".
I personally believe that they are inseperable. Well, heterosexual sex is. There is nothing that I know of that will completely insulate you from the risk of pregnancy except for abstinance.
But that doesn't mean that sex is only for reproduction. It is a very important way for spouses (spice?) to come together in many ways.
That's all I have to say about that.
mr_porteiro_head
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Are you landmark-avoiding, MPH?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I personally believe that they are inseperable. Well, heterosexual sex is. There is nothing that I know of that will completely insulate you from the risk of pregnancy except for abstinance.
Last I heard a hysterectomy was also a pretty sure thing. Other surgical forms of sterilization marginally less so.
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
Dagonee -- yes I am. But last night I 95% finished it, so I'll be switching back pretty soon.
mr_portiero_head
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't think hysterectomy is used as a birth control method. I think that is only resorted to if there is a pathology of the uterus.
Also, eggs have been known to implant in other tissue. I only know of one case that carried to term, but I was in high school when I heard about it so who knows if it is true.
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
That's a point, dkw. If yo completely remove the womb or the ovaries (or the testicles), then pregnancy will be impossible. Some conditions also prevent pregnancy. But AFAIK, people don't use any of those as birth control.
edit: Yeah, what pooka said.
[ July 16, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: miles_per_hour ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Dramatics aside, I cannot and will not require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not choose to.
The only alternative is to strap her into a gourney and keep her under lockdown until the child is born to ensure the safety and well-being. Back-street abortions notwithstanding, are we as a society going to assume responsibility for dictating how the would-be mother lives? "No crack for you. No liquor for you. No smoking for you. No red meat for you. No fast food for you."
The commonly accepted standard requires the child to have been "born" - meaning it has come out of the hatch, one way or another and is capable of basic functions on its own. To be fair, we do have custodial replacements for biological parents -> DFACS, among others. Which are strained to the breaking point already with relatively self-sustaining children.
As Dag would thoughtfully remind me, is the current criteria an arbitrary standard? Certainly. We assume if the child is wanted by the mother, we can prosecute acts that endanger it's welfare. If the child is not wanted by the mother, we do not prosecute her for opting for an abortion. For that matter, we don't even prosecute the mother for making unsafe choices - smoking, drinking, etc. unless the unsafe act is a criminal behavior in and of itself, like smoking crack or consuming other drugs.
To sum this minor rant up: making abortions illegal will not stop women who decide, for whatever reason, to have one. We have been down that road and I don't want to go back.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: My youngest child isn't really a person yet. But I love her anyway.
How old is your youngest? My daughter is about 16 months old, and she has been a distinct person since she was born. Everything she did gave us a clue about her personality. We didn't know it with our first, because we just thought "all babies do this". But after having a second to compare with, their individual personalities were easy to distinguish.
I've heard that the smartest labs are as smart as a 3-year-old. I certainly hope not, because when I look at the schemes and things my kids come up with, I realize that I really don't want that type of intelligence to have sharp, pointy teeth.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: We assume if the child is wanted by the mother, we can prosecute acts that endanger it's welfare. If the child is not wanted by the mother, we do not prosecute her for opting for an abortion.
So the mother gets to choose whether or not it's a human. That seems less reliable than any other standard I've seen, considering the mental and hormonal jumping-jacks they have to do while they're pregnant.
Side note: CT, I'm still researching what you suggested about my mom. I want to talk to Grandma before I release findings.
[ July 16, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'll take your word for the jumping jacks, but I do concede the massive change to the body can and does have the ability to alter or influence the mother's judgement.
That being said, I'm not about to declare pregnant women mentally incompetent or incapable of making decisions until after they give birth - and with the possibility of post-partum depression, a good while after that.
-Trevor
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
PSI -- our youngest daughter is 12 months old. She certainly has a distinct personality. All three of our kids have been pretty different from the start.
But dogs and cats and monkees can also have personalities. I'm just saying that if you look at her as she is now (ignoring what she will become), she isn't really any more of what we consider "people" than a monkee is.
mr_porteiro_head
[ July 16, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: miles_per_hour ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey CT, My Grandma had 7 kids. I can't imagine what she would have been like with more. What we've got is bad enough. (if you are a newbie go back and find some of my "Grandma threads")
AJ
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
quote: The commonly accepted standard requires the child to have been "born" - meaning it has come out of the hatch, one way or another and is capable of basic functions on its own.
Well, this may be the de facto standard (to be honest, I'm not positive I know what that means), but it is obviously not a universally held standard, or people wouldn't object to abortions. Which many do.
quote: To sum this minor rant up: making abortions illegal will not stop women who decide, for whatever reason, to have one. We have been down that road and I don't want to go back.
If abortion were outlawed again, would there still be some abortions? Sure. Would there be as many? I cannot see how there would be.
For example, if marijuanna were legalized today and you could buy it at the gas station, do you think that more people would smoke pot? Would they do it more often? Almost certainly.
mr_porteiro_head
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm still not sure if the Monkee's (as in "Hey, hey") were human or not.
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, I certainly don’t think hysterectomies are (or should be) used as birth control.
I was just pointing out that it is possible to completely separate the possibility of reproduction from heterosexual intercourse. Which is important, if we’re talking about the purpose/nature/meaning of sex. Is the purpose/nature/meaning different for someone who can not possibly become pregnant different than for a couple who technically could, but are using some form of birth control?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Bob,
no problem, man... I was just confused because I really was trying to be neutral and I had seemingly really insulted someone I like, so I wanted to make sure we were good.
Glad we are. consider us made up Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I would say that those who cannot conceive are keenly aware of the connection between sex and reproduction. But I'm saying that the purpose of sex in creating a relationship between two people that love each other is a value we can start from. When a woman shows up alone with an unwanted pregnancy, I think that is more in need ot treatment than the pregnancy. She has either been abandoned or has herself used sex to try to create more intimacy than actually existed in the relationship.
I'm not even saying no unmarried sex. I am saying our culture should possess ethics against one night stands and cheating. I know that wouldn't end all abortions tomorrow. I'm talking about finding common ground. (p.s. Common ground toward diminishing unwanted pregnancy, which is a problem whether you believe abortion or adoption is the solution)
[ July 16, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
quote: Is the purpose/nature/meaning different for someone who can not possibly become pregnant different than for a couple who technically could, but are using some form of birth control?
I would say yes, because if you *can* become pregnant, then intercourse always carries the risk of pregnancy. You can change the odds, but the risk is always there.
mr_porteiro_head
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hmm. I think I disagree. Positing two couples with similar worldviews/religious beliefs/attitudes about sex, one couple using birth control and the other couple unable to become pregnant because of past surgery, I image that they would engage in sex for similar reasons and attach similar meaning and purpose to it. I don't see it as qualitatively different just because one couple has a slight risk of unintented consequences and the other doesn't.
Edit: I don’t accept the idea that there’s some mystical quality associated with the merest possibility of reproduction that somehow makes the sexual relations of the completely infertile couple less <insert descriptor here> than those of the other couple.
[ July 16, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
edit: I'm not sure I agree with what I just wrote, so I'm removing it until I can think about it some more.
[ July 16, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: miles_per_hour ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Miles:
I'm unwilling to risk the life of one desperate mother plus, if I accept the "life at conception" argument, her child against just the child.
Dag:
As always, thank you for clarifying the difference between de facto and universally-held.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I'm still not sure if the Monkee's (as in "Hey, hey") were human or not.
Okay, this is the first time you've truly offended me. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Last Train to Clarksville? Pleasant Valley Sunday? Valerie?
The Monkees are definitely human.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a pedantic side note, I'd like to point out that sex is totally and absolutely separate from pregancy. For the male of the species, that is.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Ridiculous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed? When was the last time you were pregnant?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Right now, in fact. I'm due at the end of September. It will be my third child.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
There is the observation that if men had children, the abortion debate wouldn't even be an issue.
-Trevor
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
It's not an observation, merely an unnecessarily cynical argument.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Urg. What for have you got 'guy' in your nick, then? But the question works the other way, too : When was the last time you were the male in a relationship?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:I'd like to point out that sex is totally and absolutely separate from pregancy. For the male of the species, that is.
You've obviously never had to undergo fertility treatments with your wife to have a baby. At that time, that is the only reason you have sex.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
He is a guy, but he's serious. Dedicated men are pregnant along with their partners.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Yes, I am a guy. And yes, I am almost seven months pregnant with my third child. Is there anything wrong with that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You've obviously never had to undergo fertility treatments with your wife to have a baby. At that time, that is the only reason you have sex.
[Cynicism mode] No, at that time, pregnancy is the only reason you have sex with your wife. [/Cynicism mode]
"Pregnant along with their wives?" Look, I realise you Americans like this sort of sirup-sappy sentiment, but please don't inflict it on me. I am sure comrade UofLawguy loves his wife and supports her, but he is not pregnant. (He may possibly be broody, but that is another matter.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Calm down, UofU. That's just the hormones talking. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
KoM, do you have any children?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me point out KoM, that your last statement is in direct contradiction with "sex is totally and absolutely separate from pregancy. For the male of the species, that is."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, in truth I didn't intend that to be taken with total seriousness. Perhaps I should have specified 'the teenaged male.'
No, I have no children, nor indeed a wife.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
MIne wasn't intended to be taken totally seriously either. It was sure better than mowing the lawn.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
A pregnant man may experience any of these symptoms:
1. Midnight trips to the grocery store for ice cream. 2. Sympathetic weight gain, since he helps his wife eat the ice cream. 3. Nervousness. 4. Sleepless nights, from anxiety, excitement, and two tons of preggo wife rolling around all night. 5. Mood swings. 6. Black eyes, from his wife's mood swings. 7. Confusion, caused by someone's inappropriate reaction to his funny joke, and resulting in jokes that aren't really funny 8. Fetal movement, most often felt on the hand or the cheek 9. Night terrors (see 4.) 10. Wet sleeves, from comforting his wife 11. Aching back, from sleeping on the couch, or the floor 12. A swollen heart 13. Increased libido 14. Decreased sexual activity
There are many more symptoms than these.
Once a man has been pronounced pregnant, he can expect the following:
1. Frequent doctor visits 2. More exercise 3. More bills 4. More visitors 5. More unwanted advice 6. Excruciating pain, as his wife tries to rip his hand off during labor, pull his bottom lip over his head, or, should he get close enough, kick him in the groin 7. More confusion, as he watches something that used to be sexy turn into something horrible before his eyes 8. Long periods of abstinence 9. Extreme feelings of love that won't go away 10. Perfect peace
Anyone want to add more?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag:
As always, thank you for clarifying the difference between de facto and universally-held.
-Trevor
Thanks. But I don't know what post you're talking about here.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
By the by, I don't think the reasons I previously listed makes abortion "acceptable." Abortion is a terrible thing. I guess I just try and understand the reasons why some women choose abortion and sympathize.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
consider us made up ![[Confused]](confused.gif)