Abortion, the big question....

[Hunter]

Hi everybody, it's me again.

I've been pondering the topic of abortion for some time now, but I'm stuck. I simply am not sure of what the right answer is (assuming there is one).

Hence, I come to you fellow forum dwellers seeking your opinions on the topic of abortion and more importantly, why you hold those opinions.

My thanks to you all in advance.

-Hunter:cool:
P.S Forgive my temporary absence...My Dad is in the Hospital right now. I hope to get back to posting (and especially reading) these forums at top speed soon.

[Fade]

Mmm... here are the abortion questions that I can answer objectively:


Will criminalizing abortion keep abortions from happening? No.
Will criminalizing abortions cause a lot of people to be seriously, even fatally, hurt? Yes.
Will criminalizing present anything more then a travel obstacle? Yes. (canada and mexico just a short bus ride away)
Is abortion sometimes a necessary medical procedure to save the life of a woman? Yes.

Here are the questions that though are not objective in any real sense (no such thing as real objectivity), but I feel confident in answering:

Is abortion a moral thing to do? No. I think it's an awful thing to do.
Do I think less of women who get abortions as birth control? Yes.
Do I think less of women who get abortions because they understand that should that child be brought into the world, it will know a life of hardship, pain, abandonment, and disease? No.


Here are the questions that are really hard to answer:

When does life begin? I don't think a given thing is alive until it can be wholly removed from it's mother/egg/whatever, and still live.
When should abortions be allowed? I think the up to 3 months is a 3 months is a good stopping point, and most laws say something along the lines of this.


Here is a question I have no issues answering?

Do I like abortion? No.
Do I support the right of women to do with their bodies what they like? Yes. I would defend, bodily, any persons right to do whatever they want to do with their own flesh and blood.

[compjan]

Fade's got a good start on the various issues. All I can add now is that anyone who is comfortable and confident in their abortion postion is missing something. Its too ugly and bloody a situation for anyone to be able to get involved and stay clean, regardless of the decision. The only good solution I can see is to remove the need for abortions. Until then the moral struggle continues.

Good luck. Hope your Dad gets better.

CompJan

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by compjan
The only good solution I can see is to remove the need for abortions. Until then the moral struggle continues.
And how would one imagine that happen?

[Fade]

And how would one imagine that happen?

The only way I see something like that as possible is if we were somehow guaranteed care throughout our lives.

It's all happy fuzzy and warm to believe that some day everyone can grow up in peace, comfort, and prosperity.. but being a pragmatist, I don't see that as ever happening.

I do however believe that education and healthcare should be free, absolutely, all the time, regardless, period. If we get those two things out of the way, I would like to think that abortion would start to look even less appealing then it is now.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Bjorn
And how would one imagine that happen?

It's a social issue. When we, as a society, are more comfortable with sex education which presents sex in a positive but cautious light at an early age, the rate of unwanted pregnancies will go down. People will have sex; it's a biological imperative -- and making it safer and less likely to result in pregnancy is a matter of embracing education and social acceptibility. But, like all social issues, it's not something that's going to change overnight, and abortions are never going to disappear completely. Accidents happen, even when you're being careful.

Personally, the only good criterion I can come up for when abortion should be considered unethical is brain activity -- after all, it's our brains that separate humans from the animals that we have no problem killing. I would argue that a fetus which does not exhibit human-like brain activity does not possess human-like consciousness and should not be considered a human being. In most cases, that sets an upper limit of ten to twelve weeks -- far earlier than the legal limits that exist today. I would consider third-trimester abortions to be murder; no different from infanticide, especially since there's a chance that some of the aborted fetuses could survive outside the womb.

Jeremy

[SortingItAllOut]

Hi Hunter!

First, I hope your Dad is doing better.

Sagan and Druyan wrote about this topic in "Billions and Billions" and as smart as those two are, they had some difficulty trying to come to a resolution. I suspect that we all have difficulty with this subject because it requires us to make a call as to whether a woman's life is more valuable than the life growing within her. We line up on one side or the other, or shuffle about in the middle somewhere, unable to pick a side, knowing the implications of either exteme.

I've heard the assertion that we should base this on when life can exist outside the woman. But clearly this is a case-by-case basis and somewhat subject to the technology of the day. And what of the newly-born child? Clearly it cannot survive without help, protection, shelter, nourishment. But this is viewed as being different since guardians can provide these things.

Things I know personally:

An abortion happened as a result of a relationship I was involved in back in my twenties. It wasn't a pleasant situation. It wasn't simple and I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone. I look at my children now and wonder what might have bcome of that child if the abortion hadn't taken place, how the lives of those involved would be different. I don't dwell on it, but it does exist as a memory. People close to both of us lined up on either side of the issue and some said some harsh, hurtful things to us. At the time, we decided that it would be a terrible thing to bring a child into the environment in which we lived. Adoption wasn't even discussed. I'm not sure why.

There are cases of incest and rape and these aren't any easier for many people to reconcile. My sister is a staunch "pro life" advocate. My spouse holds a slightly less extreme opinion on the subject, allowing exceptions for rape and incest. A good friend seems to always side with the woman except for the 'partial birth abortion", which sound extremely similar to murder in my mind. I don't know that many of these abortions are or have been performed, but it sure seems wrong to me.

Quite the can of worms, Hunter.

Have a nice day!

[Peter Soderqvist]

The cellular lives of the zygote have no internal rights at all, because it has no concepts of right, or wrong, etc, hence it is not a human, and thus, to do an abortion, is analogous to remove a tumor. But the zygote can have external rights through sentimental values, for instance, when the woman in question is in love!

We go to sleep when we are tired, and we eat when we are hungry, and we scratch ourselves, when it itches somewhere, and we have sex when we are horny! ;)

The voice of reason!

[mindless]

How can people be for abortions but against euthanasia, abortion is forced upon the life to be aborted without its consent, euthanasia is a decision made by the person wishing to be terminated and yet that is illegal. I am for euthenasia & abortion.

I don't feel a child should be brought into this world if it isn't going to be loved or treated normaly. I also think that babys that will be born severly disabled should be aborted.

If your having trouble deciding just what side of the line you stand on maybe seeing some photos of the process and aftermath of an abortion procedure, with the remnants of the dead baby may help make up your mind, saying its not a life is wrong, it is plain to see that the aborted foetus (sp?) is clearly a small human, its just easier for people to deal with and cope when they de-humanify the child as nothing more than a thing, it removes the guilt of the act from the mother and the people performing the procedure. Once more we see the power of ignorance and dilusion.

PM me if you want the link (trust me, you probably don't) I won't post it publicly here as It may seriously offend people.

[Galadriel]

First off, let's get off the whole "partial-birth abortion" bit. That was something dreamed up by the forced-birthers. What they describe as "partial birth" is something that is done when the fetus is already dead. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Secondly, 85% of all abortions are done in the first trimester, with 80% of those being done in the first six weeks.

Thirdly, as a former escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic, if I had a dollar for every man who waved a sign and yelled at women going into the clinic that they were baby killers and going to hell, only to show up with his wife, girlfriend or daughter at a later date wanting an abortion for them, I'd have quite a few dollars.

I agree that education and access to birth control is key. But remember that we live in a country that took over ten years to approve the Today sponge and Norplant--but only four months to approve Viagra. :rolleyes:

[Victor Danilchenko]

As far as I am concerned, the real issue here is, at which point does the baby acquire human rights? I obviusly speak of the "baby", because an embryo just as obviously doesn't have them.

I thought about it, and I think it's reasonable to say that a baby has human rights when two conditions are met: it has human-like brain complexity It can survive outside the womb Right now, the first (about 5 months, as i recall) is smaller than the second (around 6 months, with problems), but science keeps pushing #2 back all the time. By the definition I propose, then, the ethical and humanitarian considerations will never apply to a fetus less than 5 months old, no matter how far medicine advances.

What about after 6 months? Well, the mother's right of control of her body should be inviolate as well, so here's where #2 comes in handy: if the fetus is old enough to satisfy both conditions but the mother wants to be rid of it, what should be done is not abortion but medical birth + prolonged postnatal care + adoption. This way, mother gets her control over her body, and we get to say with clear conscience that we preserved a person's (baby's) human rights, while at the same time not being obligated to preserve every fertilized egg that gets miscarried, and every fetus that is aborted in the first trimester.

What d'you think?

[Michael Redman]

Well, of course the point at which we now give rights to a baby is when it's born alive. That is the status quo, so I would suggest that anyone who wants to change it must provide a rational explanation why this standard is not adequate. It works just fine for me.

[Galadriel]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
What about after 6 months? Well, the mother's right of control of her body should be inviolate as well, so here's where #2 comes in handy: if the fetus is old enough to satisfy both conditions but the mother wants to be rid of it, what should be done is not abortion but medical birth + prolonged postnatal care + adoption. This way, mother gets her control over her body, and we get to say with clear conscience that we preserved a person's (baby's) human rights, while at the same time not being obligated to preserve every fertilized egg that gets miscarried, and every fetus that is aborted in the first trimester.

What d'you think?

Quite frankly, if it takes six months for a woman to figure out that she doesn't want to have the kid, she isn't a really good parenthood candidate to begin with. :rolleyes:

However, I don't think that an induced birth at six months is the answer. Neonatology is probably one of the most advanced areas of modern medicine--kids that would have been considered miscarriages twenty years ago can be kept alive--but it's far from perfect. Often these kids have loads of medical problems, and there's moral issues in that as well. Should a life be saved just because it is a life, or should the quality of life that kid's going to have be considered as well?

BTW, I appreciate the non-knee-jerk discussions here. I enjoy civilized debate!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Galadriel
Should a life be saved just because it is a life, or should the quality of life that kid's going to have be considered as well?

Interesting question. Quality of life is and should be a concern. But should it be a point to determine if someone lives or dies?

I find nothing sacred about sperm or egg. Neither do I find anything special about conception and initial mitosis. There is a point somewhere along a gradient in which there is something that I do believe is life. The taking of that life I would find quite disturbing. The fact that the fetus is in the womb has no bearing to me as to whether or not the fetus is alive or whether it is entitled to live. Fortunately this point is crossed sometime in the second trimester after most abortions are performed.

However there is a valid conflict between a woman's right to control her own body and the rights of a fetus. I think the incendiary and divisive nature of abortion is centered on this conflict. Abortion strikes at the very roots of human consciousness. Life and the destruction of life and the right to choose what happens to our own bodies (yes ours, men and women if laws can be passed to control women's choices then the can be passed to control men's).

The abortion question is a complicated social problem. Simple solutions to complex problems are usually wrong. What are the solutions? I don't know but I doubt that we will begin to solve them until we remove the rancor from "both" sides of the issue. Abortion is a powerful political tool however. As long as it remains such I doubt that we will see a reduction in the rhetoric and vitriol.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Fade


The only way I see something like that as possible is if we were somehow guaranteed care throughout our lives.

It's all happy fuzzy and warm to believe that some day everyone can grow up in peace, comfort, and prosperity.. but being a pragmatist, I don't see that as ever happening.

Wouldn't pregnancies after rape or incest always be a problem, or the pregnacies where the mother's life is in real danger if she's not having an abortion?

I don't think there will ever be any easy way out ("no need for abortions") - we still have to struggle with the rights of the parties and how to measure them against each other.

My 'problem' is that in real life I cannot see anyone we should rather give this responsibility to than the mother.

I am not comfy with my own view, but haven't seen any better.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I think it's reasonable to say that a baby has human rights when two conditions are met: it has human-like brain complexity

What d'you think?

Me thinks that bigfig would never be human!! :D :D

[Pahansiri]

I too would like to see and hope for a day when abortion ends. But not by a government or any group banning or forcing it's will on other beings. It will end when the causes and conditions that bring it about end.

To end it by law will only send it back underground. Underground in dirty back room butcher shops. Woman will suffer and many times die; many males will just walk away and keep up the same practice. This is of course not just males who bring about this problem in anyway.

The causes and conditions must change and change in the home. Sex explained for what it is, not a dirty little secret. Loving kindness respect and compassion for all beings is what we must teach to our children and live such a life ourselves. If fear is part of the Childs home life then how can they come to a parent and workout such a problem? That must change.

Rape will not just go away, and ending abortion will not make it. Abuse at home will not end by making abortion illegal etc. The causes and conditions must change and by the nature of reality when something is no longer needed it fades away.

We see some of our Christian friends yelling and even becoming violent ( the great oxymoron) over this. Yet many have no idea what the bible says about it.

Abortion is condoned for a woman who had an affair on her husband. Numbers 5:11-31 says just that and presents a game plan if you will of how to do it, it is called The Test for an Unfaithful Wife.



Numbers 5:11-31

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure-or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [1] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.
16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord . 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord , he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the Lord cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [2] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [3] "
" 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."
23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [4] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.' "

Here we see little concern for the fetus, it is simply forced to be miscarried on the floor. The woman is punished by killing the unborn child. A child that has no part in what the mother may or may not have done. Drinking dirty water and saying some words:confused:

[Paradox]

The 'quality of life' issue is a hard one to find consistency with, as everyone individually formulates this for themselves. An adopted child should, IMO, grow up perferctly healthy in a nurturing and caring environment, regardless of whether (s)he is from the gene pool of the guardians caring for him/her.

However, there is a social value placed on biological parenthood issues...a value the child is likely to encounter in life. If the kid ends up placing too much importance in the issue, it could indeed turn out to be something that affects the 'quality of life'. Although, if the family environment has been loving, I can't see how this would be fundamentally much different than a quality of life 'suffering' because the family in question isn't rich.

Assuming there are always caring parents in search of adoptions, I think preservation of the fetus would be the better choice.

[Hunter]

Thankyou all for your replies.

Perhaps the greatest problem for me is determining when that fetus should be granted rights. And even if we are dealing with something that isnt human shouldn't we still take into account the fact that 'it' will soon house another human/consciousness? By aborting that fetus are you not denying life to someone who would otherwise be just about guaranteed a life?

One way of looking at it I guess is that if someone were attached to you (something like a siamese twin) and depended for the most part on your bodiliy functions to survive, you would tecnically have the right to have him disconnected but in doing so you would ensure his death.

Of course the above is a gross over-simplification. What if that person could live without relying on your body if given some time ( to grow some organs for example) or in the case of the fetus is without a mind but will posess one in a short while....

Forgive me if I have just come of as majorly pro-life, I'm really (as I said in my original post) quite unsure of what to think about this.

Once again, thankyou for your replies
-Hunter

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Hunter
Thankyou all for your replies.

Perhaps the greatest problem for me is determining when that fetus should be granted rights. And even if we are dealing with something that isnt human shouldn't we still take into account the fact that 'it' will soon house another human/consciousness? By aborting that fetus are you not denying life to someone who would otherwise be just about guaranteed a life?
I thought about this quite a bit when pondering abortion. You realize, though, that the line of 'potential' can basically be traced back ad infinitum. Each sperm on it's way to a healthy egg is a 'potential life'. Marstubation, by this logic, kills millions (well, male masturbation, that is...women don't have to suffer with the guilt...although every menstruation period they go through without pregnancy is also the loss of a 'potential life').

One way of looking at it I guess is that if someone were attached to you (something like a siamese twin) and depended for the most part on your bodiliy functions to survive, you would tecnically have the right to have him disconnected but in doing so you would ensure his death.
Actually there is a thread dealing with this...somewhere (if not here, then in banter or maybe current events).

Of course the above is a gross over-simplification. What if that person could live without relying on your body if given some time ( to grow some organs for example) or in the case of the fetus is without a mind but will posess one in a short while....
Defining 'short while' is the key here. The line will, inevitably, have to be drawn somewhere. Some of the suggestions provided above seem very sensible to this purpose.

Forgive me if I have just come of as majorly pro-life, I'm really (as I said in my original post) quite unsure of what to think about this.
No need to apologize. Now if you start claiming that pro-choice people are really 'pro-abortion/anti-life' (as some fanatics like to say), then we'll talk. ;)

[Pahansiri]

I believe we so often look for a solid black and white in all things. I guess it is the nature of humans. We need to look more deeply at all things, look into them without adding our personal emotions or needs. How many times have we reacted to something to only find there was much more to the story.

The quote I use at the end of my post I think is a great example of that.
"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow

As to, for me the fetus when it is it life vs when is it human etc needs be irrelevant. I, again for me must seek to give all life from a human to an ant great respect. Would I first defend a human over an ant, of course, But I believe all life all energy is interconnected and interdependent.
For us as Buddhist we are told that no matter how many world systems we could go or how many realms we could almost never find a being that was not at one time our mother or father, sister or brother, lover or friend.
In the 37 practices of a Bodhisattva it says From beginning-less time our mothers have cherished us, if they no suffer what good is our own happiness.

How is it when we see a baby or child we would pick up and love that child, seeking to give it love and comfort. Yet when that child grows and if it differs from us in any way we can hate it, the very same baby yet due to a projected irrelevant difference we can hate it. Then if we could somehow not age and that child became an old cute man, we would again say, oh how cute, I just love him.


Just what I believe

[compjan]

Originally posted by Bjorn

And how would one imagine that happen?

To put it tritely, "make every child a wanted child", or to be a cynical bastard, when only responsible adults are allowed to have sex or bear children.

Okay, to be more constructive:

1) Close to 100% effective birth control, serious sex education including practical birth control education, and a culture that values it use.

2) Pregnancy only desired by women or couples who are actually ready to raise a child and want the child for its own sake, not to fill in some emotional gap in their life.

Unfortunately, I've given up on U.S. culture meeting the above criteria. Anyone know of another free culture in the world that's doesn't have a need for abortion?

CompJan

[Galadriel]

Originally posted by compjan


To put it tritely, "make every child a wanted child", or to be a cynical bastard, when only responsible adults are allowed to have sex or bear children.

Okay, to be more constructive:

1) Close to 100% effective birth control, serious sex education including practical birth control education, and a culture that values it use.

2) Pregnancy only desired by women or couples who are actually ready to raise a child and want the child for its own sake, not to fill in some emotional gap in their life.

Unfortunately, I've given up on U.S. culture meeting the above criteria. Anyone know of another free culture in the world that's doesn't have a need for abortion?

Amen, Jan. Add to that that America practically deifies children and mothers. No matter how successful a woman has been in other areas of her life, if she doesn't have children then she is less than a woman. And it has to be her OWN child, so millions of dollars get poured into fertility specialists' pockets every year as millions of brain-washed women clamor to get pregnant.

:rolleyes:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by compjan


To put it tritely, "make every child a wanted child", or to be a cynical bastard, when only responsible adults are allowed to have sex or bear children.

Okay, to be more constructive:

1) Close to 100% effective birth control, serious sex education including practical birth control education, and a culture that values it use.

2) Pregnancy only desired by women or couples who are actually ready to raise a child and want the child for its own sake, not to fill in some emotional gap in their life.

Unfortunately, I've given up on U.S. culture meeting the above criteria. Anyone know of another free culture in the world that's doesn't have a need for abortion?

CompJan
To repeat my question from my former post:

Would any of the above solve the problems connected to pregnancies following rape, incest or other sexual crimes?

In my opinion, if one allows for abortion at all, it boils down to who is going to have the power to decide.

I think the mother should.

As mentioned before I am not happy with this, but I cannot see any better solution - and most of those I can think about have been tried in one or more countries.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Galadriel
First off, let's get off the whole "partial-birth abortion" bit. That was something dreamed up by the forced-birthers. What they describe as "partial birth" is something that is done when the fetus is already dead. If you don't believe me, look it up.


Hi Galadriel!

Would you be able to provide a website where these assertions can be backed up? Particularly the notion that the fetus is already dead. I wasn't able to find anything on this and the web is chock full of anti-abortion/pro-life sites that I suspect might not present the whole story.

Originally posted by Galadriel
Secondly, 85% of all abortions are done in the first trimester, with 80% of those being done in the first six weeks.


Again, is there a site that quotes these statistics?

Originally posted by Galadriel
Thirdly, as a former escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic, if I had a dollar for every man who waved a sign and yelled at women going into the clinic that they were baby killers and going to hell, only to show up with his wife, girlfriend or daughter at a later date wanting an abortion for them, I'd have quite a few dollars.


I certainly won't argue with you about folks that lined up outside clinics and badgered individuals going inside. I've seen this kind of thing before and have wondered if the folks yelling at the women going inside really thought they'd be able to persuade anyone by yelling at them. I'll have to take your word about men showing back up later as there probably isn't any scientific data to back this up.

Any links you might be able to pass along would be most helpful.

Have a nice day!

[compjan]

Originally posted by Galadriel


Amen, Jan. Add to that that America practically deifies children and mothers. No matter how successful a woman has been in other areas of her life, if she doesn't have children then she is less than a woman. And it has to be her OWN child, so millions of dollars get poured into fertility specialists' pockets every year as millions of brain-washed women clamor to get pregnant.

:rolleyes:

Fortunately the deification has been dropping over the years, but I'd agree that its still harder for a childless woman to be widely respected than a mother. And of course the anti-feminist culture still considers career women to be a symbol of the evil 60's counter-culture.

I always cringe when I hear of people spending all that money to conceive, when there are so many ready for adoption. Evidence of the power of emotion over reason I guess. However, women don't need brainwashing for it - the instinct to carry a child can be very powerful.

CompJan

[compjan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
To repeat my question from my former post:

Would any of the above solve the problems connected to pregnancies following rape, incest or other sexual crimes?

In my opinion, if one allows for abortion at all, it boils down to who is going to have the power to decide.

As mentioned before I am not happy with this, but I cannot see any better solution - and most of those I can think about have been tried in one or more countries.

Ack - you had to bring up the tough ones!

No, I can't see any solution to rape or other forced pregnacy problems, no way to eliminate the moral dilemma. My points were aimed at the issue of choice and avoiding the problem by not getting into the situation in the first place. Obviously a forced pregnancy can't be solved that way.

I wish I had more realistic answers, but humans just don't seem amenable to acting rationally. Birth control education sounds great, except that many people oppose it. Hell, I even know a middle-aged man who refuses to use condoms because he didn't grow up using them (before AIDS). He has a mistress. Guess he's confident she won't sleep around or go off the pill.


I think the mother should.


I emphatically agree. I might try to persuade a woman not to abort, but I will never intrude on her right to control her body.

Good night all
CompJan

[Ove]

How can people be for abortions but against euthanasia, abortion is forced upon the life to be aborted without its consent, euthanasia is a decision made by the person wishing to be terminated and yet that is illegal. I am for euthenasia & abortion.

I am for Abortion and against "Mercy killing". Why? Abortion is (mostly) performed on something that IMO is not a human being but could develop into one. "Mercy killing" is the deliberate terminaton of a life. You may try to paint it white by calling it euthanasia, than perhaps people can forget what it is but try asking people if they are for executing hoplessly ill people.

Abortion is allways debateable and in an ideal situation should not be nescessary, unfortunately this situation doesn't exist. One of the main problems IMHO is that we have one of the major religions in the world (the Roman Catolic Church) telling people that if they use contraception they will go to hell. This is very stupid behaviour and more so since the church is most widespread in countries where overpopulation is one of the major problems.

It is helping though, i just recently heard(sorry no link) that the abortion rates in the old USSR were dropping very fast. Apparently many women over there used abortion as contraception but this practice is being fast changed now.

On the other hand the problem may well solve itself. I just recently saw a "60 minutes" which dealt with the fact that women are waiting longer to have children and a lot of them are waiting just to long. Apparently a common misunderstanding amongst those women are that you can have children way up in the 40's and one (intelligent well educated businesswoman) even meant she could easily wait untill she was in her 50's before she had children.

The fact is that it is downhill from 30 and when the woman are 40 it is allmost over. Not surprisingly, the doctor who made a campaign trying to inform women about this fact was attacked by feminist groups.

If this continues i suppose there will be a big market for adoption in the next 10 years or so. ;)

[susheel]

A little over two years ago, my wife and I had to face a rather tough decision. She was expecting and we were not living under very good circumstances. Existence was literally hand to mouth. We seriously considered abortion as an option. But after almost a week of talking to each other, and sometimes going to hysterics, we finally decided not to. Haven’t regretted it one bit.

Having said this, I would like to say that I have no problems with a woman opting for abortion:

If she feels that her child will not receive proper care.
To terminate an unwanted pregnancy resulting from forced coitus such as rape.
If it is conducted at the most three months into the pregnancy.

Though I do not care much for women who frequently undergo abortions as an alternative to contraception, I believe that what she does with her body is her business.

By the way Ove, I thought euthanasia expressly required that the person suffering the illness should provide consent for the termination of life. I don’t have any problems with euthanasia as long it is specifically requested by the person suffering from illness and is backed by a panel of experts in the field of medicine and psychology (just to make sure that the person is not merely using it to commit suicide).

[Ove]

By the way Ove, I thought euthanasia expressly required that the person suffering the illness should provide consent for the termination of life. I don’t have any problems with euthanasia as long it is specifically requested by the person suffering from illness and is backed by a panel of experts in the field of medicine and psychology (just to make sure that the person is not merely using it to commit suicide).

It is, and i am doubtful about this one. What triggers me is that fact that there have been a couple of nasty cases from Holland, the first country to legalize euthanasia. Cases of the type "old-terminally-ill-person-don't-want-to-take-up-space-from-younger-persons-needing-a-hospital-bed". But it is sticky. I am all for extensive pain reducing treatment even to the extent that it (the treatment) is shortening the patients life but i am basically against saying "Well Dr. nn i would like to die on tuesday, will you please put me down".

I realise that the difference is very small but it is significant to me. I feel that some people don't want to go through the process of dying slowly whereas i would stick to life as long as possible, PROVIDED that i was kept painfree. I know from experience that the last couple of months can be very valuable to all in getting your life "sorted out" and people wanting to be "put down" before they get seriously ill are IMHO taking the easy way out. It is a bit like suicide which i also believe is the coward's way of coping with things.

Another aspect of this is that i have heard from many doctors that they would definitely not want to assist. They are trained to save life, not ending it.

[mindless]

You would put your pet down if it was going to spend the rest of its life in pain, I dont see how its any different, except that once again your not asking the pet. Euthanasia is at least an opinion of the person wishing to die, shouldn't their opinion be of worth and consideration.

I can see a resemblance with abortion and pet destruction, so long as the thing being destroyed isn't classed on the same level as yourself most people are o.k. with it.

Is it if you don't have the ability to pronounce death on someone then they shouldn't have the ability to ask for death for themselves?

[Galadriel]

Originally posted by SortingItAllOut


Hi Galadriel!

Would you be able to provide a website where these assertions can be backed up?

Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org)

[Ove]

You would put your pet down if it was going to spend the rest of its life in pain

Ahemm, i believe my point was : No pain!!

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Ove
I feel that some people don't want to go through the process of dying slowly whereas i would stick to life as long as possible, PROVIDED that i was kept painfree. I know from experience that the last couple of months can be very valuable to all in getting your life "sorted out" and people wanting to be "put down" before they get seriously ill are IMHO taking the easy way out.And what's wrong with taking the easy way out? Why is suffering to be applauded or encouraged?

The key part of your statement is "I would." YOU would choose to stick to life as long as possible, but why does that make it the only, or even the best choice for others? It should be up to THEM to choose for themselves what is best for THEM in their own particular and unique circumstance. What if they have no loved ones and the continuance of their life only means another six months of dying slowly and alone? What if...who knows? But the choice should be up to each individual, not up to society.Originally posted by Ove
Another aspect of this is that i have heard from many doctors that they would definitely not want to assist. They are trained to save life, not ending it. On the flip side, there are many many doctors who claim that they have done this on the sly for patients who have requested help in dying. If they know the patient is dying, will only live in pain, and is making a reasonable conscious choice, they will help them in creative ways. For example, I've read of doctors who provide prescription drugs to a patient and tell them, "Don't take x amount of this drug, as that amount would kill you." Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. The patient takes x amount, dies, and the doctor is off the hook. They see this as a continuation of patient care. If there is nothing more you can do for a patient, often the only help you can provide them is this final act of relief from suffering.

Reprinted from a portion of an old editorial of mine (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpwi/message/2644) with my permission:


-------[ partial quote ]---------

I despise this issue.

I'm a computer geek. I like the exactness of the binary world.
1 or 0. Yes or no. T'is or t'aint.

The crux of the abortion question for most people is that fuzzy
nether-region; the non-descript moment when a human-becoming
can be considered a human being. It's a critical moment from
the Libertarian standpoint. After all, human-beings have the
right to life. But it's hard for most of us to recognize
a microscopic mass as a person. It's equally difficult to
deny the humanity of a baby who is 99% gestated.

At the extremes of the issue, we have folks who consider it
cut and dried. Steadfast lifers insist that IUDs are murder
weapons and that rape victims should be forced to bear their
attacker's progeny. Ardent choicers defend the gruesome
dilation and extraction procedure seconds prior to birth.

---------[end of partial quote]--------



I still despise this issue.


-jjg

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Hunter
Hence, I come to you fellow forum dwellers seeking your opinions on the topic of abortion and more importantly, why you hold those opinions.I'm pro-choice but not pro-abortion. It seems a lot of people here hold a similar opinion. The semantics have gotten clouded by the "pro-life" crowd. By using that term, they project the other side as being "anti-life." We should start calling them "anti-choice." (Words do have the power to shape opinion, as they no doubt recognized when coining that term.)

Anyway, enough of that rant. Back to your question. Most peope I know who are pro-choice feel that abortion is a horrible choice for anyone to have to make, but that the choice should be theirs and not someone else's to make. They are the ones who will have to live with the consequence of that choice either way. The people yelling and protesting outside the abortion clinic might go home all self-satisfied if they convinced someone not to have an abortion, with no thought to what life they may have just condemned that person to. Was she 14 years old and scared? Had she been raped? Were her parents going to kick her out of the house? Did she have an illness that a pregnancy might adversely affect? Does her husband beat her? Does she already have six kids and just can't take another one? Nobody knows the factors that go into another person's decision to have an abortion. They know better than anyone what they need to do in THEIR situation, for THEIR life.

Certainly the best option would be a world where abortions weren't necessary, as many have said. But the reality is that that world will never arrive. Education can help A LOT. (I find it ironic that many of the same people who are so rabidly anti-choice are the same people who resist teaching kids about contraception. If I close my eyes and pretend there is no problem, it'll go away.) But however educated people are about contraception, there will always be mistakes. There will always be people who simply don't want a child, but their birth control failed them. There will always be rapes.

I don't go so far as some to say that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time. You should probably be able to figure out if you want/need an abortion before you're six months pregnant. However, having said that, there are, again, circumstances that might come up later in the pregnancy, usually health-related, that might make a late-term abortion necessary. In those situations, I say it's between the woman and her doctor.

As for partial-birth abortions, I don't know that much about them. From what I know, they are done rarely and only when there are no other good options. From my admittedly limited knowledge, it seems that the pro-lifers have used the procedure to rally support to their side because of its particularly horrible nature. But if it's a medical choice, as I believe it is, it should be left up to the woman's doctor to decide if it's what's best for her. (If, however, it were simply to be used for a woman who decides at the 11th hour that she doesn't want the baby, I think it would be wrong. I doubt there are many doctors who would do it under those circumstances, though.)

These are, of course, my personal opinions and subject, as always, to reconsideration. My bottom line, though, is that it is among the most personal of choices and the consequences are so huge that it should not be up to anyone else to tell anyone what is best for them.

[Jade]

Hi I am new here, however, whatever compromises we might achieve in our struggle with abortion, it should be clear by now that the debate itself, if we allow ourselves to listen closely to its arguments, perhaps, may shed valuable light on many of the things we believe, and why. But we should not let them obscure the common ground which we all can stand....:)

[Ove]

Wolfgirl : Good points and as i said i am not totally convinced. My gut feeling though is "Pain prevention Yes, Suicide No" but i wont condem anybody for "taking the easy way out".

Abortion must be a matter between the Doctor and the woman and those people assembling in front of abortion clinics and scolding the poor women really pisses me off. Fortunately over here abortion is performed in hospitals, not in special clinics so the situation would be unthinkable here. But then again the minority against abortion is a very very small minority and don't have that much wind in their sails over here at best they can muster a national protestmarch with a couple of hundred participants.

The Danish authorities have been good on clamping down on people abusing their powers to stage protests. A State employed priest was heavily reprimanded when he participated in a demonstration wearing his "uniform". As state employed he was obligated to defend his "Employer"'s wiewpionts and they are pro-abortion. He was off course fully entitled to his private wiewpoints but if he wished to express those he would have to do so in his "civies"

Another horrible idea was a "Memorial Park" for abortions (publically funded off course) where "parents could mourn their unborn children" Yeeecchh!!!! They didn't enjoy much support for that idea fortunately and the project was postponed.

Abortion is a horrible experience (my wife had a spontaneous one) and i don't think many women would do that "for the fun of it" is is a last way out but the opportunity must be there.

[Galadriel]

Originally posted by Ove
Another horrible idea was a "Memorial Park" for abortions (publically funded off course) where "parents could mourn their unborn children" Yeeecchh!!!! They didn't enjoy much support for that idea fortunately and the project was postponed.


Why do forced-birthers act as if women have guns put to their heads to have abortions? I sincerely doubt the majority mourn their "unborn children." Rather, they're glad they don't have to go through with the pregnancy. No one is forced, which is what drives the forced-birthers crazy ...

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

This is an issue where science can end the controversy forever.

The goal is to have only the children we really want to. So we can develop some kind of vaccine or medical procedure (in the man, to compensate women ;) ) that would make him infertile (like a vasectomy). He only could be capable of impregnate a woman after an antidote is taken or a reverse procedure is practiced, and the effect of this reverse procedure would last only a month (but he can do it anytime he wants).

The social thing is that this procedure should be practiced at birth or in the early chilhood as an standard procedure, like vaccination is today (hehe bigfig :D).

The only thing that can stop this after the correct vaccine or procedure has been developed is... you guessed it: Religion.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Thinking a little more about it, the women should have this too. So conception would be only possible when both parents want it.

[compjan]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
This is an issue where science can end the controversy forever.

<..>

The social thing is that this procedure should be practiced at birth or in the early chilhood as an standard procedure, like vaccination is today (hehe bigfig :D).

The only thing that can stop this after the correct vaccine or procedure has been developed is... you guessed it: Religion.

Well ... I don't think we can nail religion as the only block for your idea.

It would have to be forced (unless somehow everyone does it voluntarily). In the U.S. at least, and I suspect many other democratic societies there would be great resistance to early forced contraception, particuarly if there is any fear of health problems. A belief in personal liberty or resistance to the state would be at least as big barriers as religion.

Maybe over time this early contraception would become acceptable like vaccination is today, but I think it unlikely due to the primal instincts involved.

Good thinking though!

Compjan

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by compjan


Well ... I don't think we can nail religion as the only block for your idea.

It would have to be forced (unless somehow everyone does it voluntarily). In the U.S. at least, and I suspect many other democratic societies there would be great resistance to early forced contraception, particuarly if there is any fear of health problems. A belief in personal liberty or resistance to the state would be at least as big barriers as religion.

Maybe over time this early contraception would become acceptable like vaccination is today, but I think it unlikely due to the primal instincts involved.

Good thinking though!

Compjan

The same primal instincts applied to the vaccination example. Many jew people find desirable a procedure that is a lot more intrusive that the one I'm advocating and which don't give any benefit to the victim Lots of cultures with similar procedures comes to mind.

I don't think it should be mandatory, of course. I repeat, it's like vaccination. That would convince the freedom advocates. Giving that, the only real problem would be religion.

[compjan]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


<..>

I don't think it should be mandatory, of course. I repeat, it's like vaccination. That would convince the freedom advocates. Giving that, the only real problem would be religion.

I'm showing my ignorance here, but aren't vaccinations mandatory for schoolkids in the U.S? I know that I had to have several shots before attending my university.

Another issue I just remembered was the racial controversy in some U.S. cities when Norplant was required for poor women seeking welfare. Since most of the women were black, there were accusations of racial oppression, even attempted genocide.

OTOH if we offered Americans tax deductions and free giant screen TVS they'd probably flock to the contraception centers in droves. I'm amazed that some people here will bitterly defend their right to own guns and worship however they want, then give away their privacy to grocery stores to save a few bucks, or give out their address, telephone number, and SSN whenever someone behind a cash register asks. I discovered recently that Circuit City outright refused to sell me a television unless I provided my name and address. Maybe if they set up a program mandating contraception implants before you can get your TV, we'll have this problem licked in no time!

CompJan

[hammegk]

Easy as 1-2-3; (reversible) vasectomy or tubal ligation at birth, but reversible only on completion -- for a couple -- of some real study on Parenting For Best Results.

Just my 2cts :D

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by hammegk
Easy as 1-2-3; (reversible) vasectomy or tubal ligation at birth, but reversible only on completion -- for a couple -- of some real study on Parenting For Best Results.

Just my 2cts :D Aren't we getting quite close to Brave New World here?

Can we imagine the kind of people in charge of deciding who's qualified to have a baby or not?

Are you married?

How much money are you making?

What is the IQ of the parents?

Which church do you belong to?

Are both parents the same race?

Did you ever do drugs (inhaling or not)?

No - as much as I see people having kids when they shouldn't have, I really don't see the committee solution as a better alternative. :)

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Aren't we getting quite close to Brave New World here?


Hi Bjorn!

That is *exactly* what I was thinking when I read through the last ten posts or so.


Originally posted by Bjorn
Can we imagine the kind of people in charge of deciding who's qualified to have a baby or not?

Are you married?

How much money are you making?

What is the IQ of the parents?

Which church do you belong to?

Are both parents the same race?

Did you ever do drugs (inhaling or not)?

No - as much as I see people having kids when they shouldn't have, I really don't see the committee solution as a better alternative. :)

I suspect that there isn't ever going to be a solution to this problem. We want folks to be responsible, to do the right thing, to think, to educate themselves, to consider the consequences of their actions... but how do you *mandate* those things? Of course you really can't. Try as we might to move forward in the USA, it is difficult to make people do something or abstain from something unless you make up a bunch of laws in order to compel them. Look no further to the number of speeding tickets written to see defiance of the law by otherwise "good citizens." Outlawing abortion won't make it go away. People will weigh the penalties and risks and still decide one way or the other.

I suppose that honest communication in the home and in the school system would help. I think children get a lot of mixed messages. Sometimes the media is responsible, but it is hardly consistent. Sometimes parents take the time to talk to their children, but some don't. Some parents are excellent role models and their children look to them for guidance. Some parents are lousy - and the lousy ones aren't all, as the stereotypes portray, shacking up in a trailer park. There are plenty of terrible parents living in half-million dollar homes, substituting money and things for a relationship. It's quite sad.

Have a nice week!

[hammegk]

Hmm, you think Big Brother isn't already here? Get a Drivers License, passport, enroll kids in school, etc.

On having a baby, maybe just a simple contract:

Man & woman sign, "we agree to have a child and support it".

The law for vasectomy/tubal lit at birth might be doable. Want to start the petition?

[mindless]

On having a baby, maybe just a simple contract:

so what happens if someone beats the system e.g. has the operation reversed in a back street surgery and forces himself on someone?

or what if a woman gets pregnant wiothout a certificate, would the state forcibly abort the pregnancy? This is starting to sound like one of those futuristic sci-fi horror stories.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I don't know what all this fuzz is about? If we
1.- Make the operation voluntary
2.- Give some benefits to the people that do it (some tax exemptions would be good because people that have only the child they want tend to use less social services)

then the practice would become very common.

Also, I didn't propose an exam before allowing parenting. They simply have to go to a consultory and have their impediment removed for a month. Any time they want. The times they want to do it. No question asked.

Can you imagine how many problems we would solve if each children is a wanted children?

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I don't know what all this fuzz is about? If we
1.- Make the operation voluntary
2.- Give some benefits to the people that do it (some tax exemptions would be good because people that have only the child they want tend to use less social services)

then the practice would become very common.

Also, I didn't propose an exam before allowing parenting. They simply have to go to a consultory and have their impediment removed for a month. Any time they want. The times they want to do it. No question asked.

Can you imagine how many problems we would solve if each children is a wanted children? Understanding that this is only theoretical, I like it. The idea that you have to make a conscious choice to have a child is a good one. I, too, have concerns about forced sterilization, requirements for parenthood (though there sure are a lot of parents who shouldn't be), etc. But your method doesn't stop anyone from having children if they want them, but would stop an awful lot of people from having them by accident. The only problem is the "slippery slope" sort, as in what if, once you had the procedure, vaccine, whatever, THEN they decided not to let you reverse it for whatever reason. I think that idea of giving anyone else, especially the state, the power to control your reproduction would scare a lot of people off, including perhaps even me, and I don't want any more kids. But in theory, it's a good idea.

Even now, I'm all for tax benefits for people who choose NOT to have kids, instead of all the benefits for those who do.

[Bjorn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I don't know what all this fuzz is about? If we
1.- Make the operation voluntary

Well, isn't it? Today? I did it already ....

[B]Can you imagine how many problems we would solve if each children is a wanted children?

Yes. On the other hand, I must admit that the second of my children wasn't really planned to happen at the time. We still had her (it was 'of course we will').

I guess not all unplanned children are unwanted.

But to prevent abortions by voluntary surgery? Man, if you can't make it with condoms and pills I don't think the teenagers will line up for 'just a little cut, don't worry ...'

:)

[Yahzi]

Against abortions? Don't have one.

Abortions are a form of birth control, always have been, and always will be.

There is no scientific defintion of when live begins - only social ones. As long as people value babies, infanticide will be wrong. But who values fetuses? And why should we?

I can make a good argument for why we should value babies, and hence why we should continue to prevent infanticide. But given that 3 out of 4 pregnancies result in natural first-month abortions, I just can't get worked up about a few more here or there.

Sure, at some stage - 6 months, 3 months, whatever - it looks like a baby. So we get attached. We can make rules then.

But it's just a social judgement call. The fundamental principle is that a woman controls her own body at all times - if she is bearing a 7 month old fetus, does this eliminate her right to commit suicide?

And if she doesn't have the right to commit suicide, then fundamentally she doesn't control her own life.

Me, I vote for control of my own life, please. If that means accepting suicide and abortion, well... nothing good is cheap.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Against abortions? Don't have one.

Abortions are a form of birth control, always have been, and always will be.

There is no scientific defintion of when live begins - only social ones. As long as people value babies, infanticide will be wrong. But who values fetuses? And why should we?

I can make a good argument for why we should value babies, and hence why we should continue to prevent infanticide. But given that 3 out of 4 pregnancies result in natural first-month abortions, I just can't get worked up about a few more here or there.

Sure, at some stage - 6 months, 3 months, whatever - it looks like a baby. So we get attached. We can make rules then.

But it's just a social judgement call. The fundamental principle is that a woman controls her own body at all times - if she is bearing a 7 month old fetus, does this eliminate her right to commit suicide?

And if she doesn't have the right to commit suicide, then fundamentally she doesn't control her own life.

Me, I vote for control of my own life, please. If that means accepting suicide and abortion, well... nothing good is cheap.

Hi Yahzi!

Of course, there is the viability issue with a 7 month old fetus. It is quite possible that the fetus could be saved at 7 months, given our current technology, a fetus that is 23-24 weeks old can survive. This is a medical fact. At that point, I wonder if the mother's "right to suicide" should outweigh the the potentially viable fetus' right to be given a fighting chance.

I'd hope that this is but a hypothetical situation, though I wouldn't be surprised if situations like this have come up.

Suicide is such a foreign, strange concept to me that I'm not sure how to consider it. It goes against our natural desire to survive. I realize that doesn't mean people don't attempt it - I just cannot imagine a situation so grave that I'd consider suicide. But that is me - I'm sure others can come up with plenty of reason why their life isn't worth living.

Anyhow, like I posted earlier, I'm pretty sure that mandates won't completely eliminate the issue of abortion and with people having many different opinions and beliefs concerning life, abortion, etc., we'll never find a solution that is 100% satisfactory to all people.

Have a nice evening!
Sort

[Ove]

The problem with contraception, voluntarily vasectomi etc. is that it is only choosen by sensible people. I've had a vasectomi (two kids are enough thank you very much) but i know people who have 4 or 5 kids who never should have had any.

There was a quite stirring documentary on Danish television about "unfit" parents, basically the kind that has their children removed immidiatedly after birth (drug addicts, alcoholics etc.). We followed one couple specifically. They had already had two children removed and now they were in family therapy with number 3. It wasn't going well and the therapists was trying to explain to the mother (a drug addict) why they were going to take her child away. Then she replied triumphantly: "Ha, then im only going to have one more".!!!!!!!!!

I know any thought's about forced sterilisation, sound terribly like some of Adolf's old idea's on the other hand some people just ain't fit to be parents so what to do?

I'm afraid i don't have a "patent solution" but then again, who has?

[Yahzi]

I just cannot imagine a situation so grave that I'd consider suicide.
You are a remarkably lucky person.


we'll never find a solution that is 100% satisfactory to all people.
Probably because life itself isn't 100% satisfactory.

Striving for perfection in our attention to potential person's rights while billions rot in poverty, ignorance, and oppression seems just a bit near-sighted.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Yahzi

You are a remarkably lucky person.




Hi Yahzi!

I wouldn't consider luck to have anything to do with it. I've had some difficult times in my life, some times when I was confused, depressed, etc.. I'd guess that we all have times of despair at one point or another in our lives. Suicide just isn't something that I've ever considered nor something I can imagine considering. Maybe it was my upbringing or my attitude toward life, I don't know... I just know that it isn't anything I'd consider.

Have a nice evening!
Sort

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
Understanding that this is only theoretical, I like it. The idea that you have to make a conscious choice to have a child is a good one. I, too, have concerns about forced sterilization, requirements for parenthood (though there sure are a lot of parents who shouldn't be), etc. But your method doesn't stop anyone from having children if they want them, but would stop an awful lot of people from having them by accident. The only problem is the "slippery slope" sort, as in what if, once you had the procedure, vaccine, whatever, THEN they decided not to let you reverse it for whatever reason. I think that idea of giving anyone else, especially the state, the power to control your reproduction would scare a lot of people off, including perhaps even me, and I don't want any more kids. But in theory, it's a good idea.



There could be a way to make it independent of the government's wishes. The one day shots could be sold freely.


Even now, I'm all for tax benefits for people who choose NOT to have kids, instead of all the benefits for those who do.

Agreed

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Bjorn
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I don't know what all this fuzz is about? If we
1.- Make the operation voluntary

Well, isn't it? Today? I did it already ....


Not in your early chilhood. I meant voluntary for your parents.

[B]Can you imagine how many problems we would solve if each children is a wanted children?

Yes. On the other hand, I must admit that the second of my children wasn't really planned to happen at the time. We still had her (it was 'of course we will').
I guess not all unplanned children are unwanted.

Not all. That's true. But what's the proportion against unwanted unplanned children?


But to prevent abortions by voluntary surgery? Man, if you can't make it with condoms and pills I don't think the teenagers will line up for 'just a little cut, don't worry ...'

:)

That's because it's a temporary way to avoid pregnacy, not a temporary way to be able to procreate.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
There could be a way to make it independent of the government's wishes. The one day shots could be sold freely.Maybe it's just my paranoid nature, but I would never trust that the government wouldn't somehow get control of it. For example, they decide that they don't want people having any more kids, or that they want to determine who does, or whatever. Now they just restrict and regulate the production of the antidote or the availability of the procedure. They suddenly make it illegal to make, buy or sell it (much like marijuana, but that's another whole rant). That's what would worry me.

Again, in theory, since that's all we're talking about here, I'm for it.

[Hunter]

Well Lucifuge, I have to hand it to you, I think your idea has a lot of potential. And as long as the sterilization is reversible (at any time and with no strings attached, i.e "the parenting test") then I wouldnt mind at all. Of course as mentioned above countless times, if the situation changed suddenly and the "test" or some such became mandatory things would become very bad.

Of course unwanted pregnancies could and would still occur from time to time. And of course some may want a abortion which brings us right back to where we started. We still need to know when a fetus is no longer simply a mass of dividing cells and is a baby.

Of course one idea taken from science fiction may solve the problem....the "iron womb". A device that perfectly simulates the natural womb of the mother and within which the child may be placed and gestated to maturity. What do you think?

-Hunter :cool:

[hammegk]

Sounds ok on a voluntary, no parenting test basis, but I'd like to see it become mandatory for mother and father (if he can be identified) on birth of first illegitimate child. Tubal lig for mom before she leaves delivery room, and a parenting test to get it removed. Ditto for dad, get snipped, or 10-20 hard time.

Just my 2cts.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Hunter
Of course one idea taken from science fiction may solve the problem....the "iron womb". A device that perfectly simulates the natural womb of the mother and within which the child may be placed and gestated to maturity. What do you think?But who cares for all these babies? There are, supposedly, millions of abortions a year. Who will care for these millions of unwanted babies? And what of over-population, which is already a problem?:confused:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
But who cares for all these babies? There are, supposedly, millions of abortions a year. Who will care for these millions of unwanted babies? And what of over-population, which is already a problem?:confused: Just read 'Brave New World', it is all solved there.

But we wouldn't like it that way, would we? :rolleyes:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
But who cares for all these babies? There are, supposedly, millions of abortions a year. Who will care for these millions of unwanted babies.....

Have you seen The Matrix?

I believe we have some AIers here who may be doing the code as we speak.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Just read 'Brave New World', it is all solved there.

But we wouldn't like it that way, would we? :rolleyes:

But everyone was happy in Brave New World so what's the problem?


that soma is soooo goooodddd.......................................

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

The woman's right to choose I can agree with, but in the following case I had doubts that this female aquaintance was being responsible.

She is now in her thirties, she has had 4 abortions (starting at 17 - I supported her on this one at the time, the last one when 24). Now she wants to have a baby. She has trouble conceiving now, and when she does conceive she miscarries in each case. I am not sure why she can't have a baby now (whether it is ralated to damage done during the abortions she had) but I can't help thinking, thank-goodness she can't have a baby.

I do not think abortion should be used as birth control, and this female aquaintance seemed to do so.

[Yahzi]

Fade
Do I think less of women who get abortions as birth control? Yes.
So women who use a form of birth control that prevents a fertilzed egg from sticking to the uterus wall are morally inferior to women who use a form of birth control that prevents the egg from being fertilized?

You think less of women who use the pill?


Hunter
I simply am not sure of what the right answer is (assuming there is one).
The morally correct position on abortion is quite simple: If you are against abortions, don't have one.

On the other hand, if you feel some need to control other people's actions even when it cannot possibly have any effect on you at all, then perhaps you should consider your control issues.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Hunter
Hi everybody, it's me again.

I've been pondering the topic of abortion for some time now, but I'm stuck. I simply am not sure of what the right answer is (assuming there is one).

Hence, I come to you fellow forum dwellers seeking your opinions on the topic of abortion and more importantly, why you hold those opinions.

My thanks to you all in advance.

-Hunter:cool:
P.S Forgive my temporary absence...My Dad is in the Hospital right now. I hope to get back to posting (and especially reading) these forums at top speed soon.

I am anti-abortion and pro-choice!

I hope your dad gets better soon!!:)

[Fade]

So women who use a form of birth control that prevents a fertilzed egg from sticking to the uterus wall are morally inferior to women who use a form of birth control that prevents the egg from being fertilized?

You think less of women who use the pill?

(wow, old thread!)

Yazhi, I think abortion is a nasty, terrible thing. I really wish that there were a system in place that allowed for abortions to NEVER happen. It's an evil that I am comfortable having exist, because it serves a vital function.

[Yahzi]

I used to feel that way.

Then I learned that 3 out of 4 pregnancies end in a natural abortion, and I decided that it really wasn't a big deal.

I don't see anything wrong with Ru-486. If a woman wants to take a pill to not get pregnant, I don't care if she does it 1 month before or 1 month after we have sex.

I think what priests do to little children - preaching hellfire and eternal torment and subservience to invisible threats - is a nasty, terrible thing. Compared to that, I've found abortion just doesn't really bother me very much.

[Fade]

I long ago learned that arguing any aspect of abortion is ultimately fruitless. Suffice it to say I don't agree with you.

[Seismosaurus]

My views on this subject tend to be rather black and white...

I do not regard a foetus as a Human being until it is capable of surviving outside the womb.

Until it reaches that point, then as far as I am concerned it is no more deserving of a right to life than a fingernail.

Now as far as I can tell, the borderline for this criteria is about 24 weeks. So I support a woman's right to have an abortion on demand, for any reason she cares to think of, up to that point.

After that point I would support abortion only if the health of both mother and child were in clear and certain danger - and I'd try to remove the child and let it live in that case.

As for creating a society in which all children could have a good life - I think it is incredibly naive to think this would solve anything. Even assuming it were possible, does anybody really think that not one woman would ask for an abortion just because of this? To give but a single example, what if a model got pregnant and didn't want to lose work through looking fat?

The fact is that when you give a choice to a population of hundreds of millions, some are always going to choose the option that you don't like no matter how rosy you make the alternative. So the only way to end abortions would be to remove that choice altogether, which is going to keep the whole can of worms open. And you would still have illegal and cross-border abortions to deal with in any case.

[Darwin]

Thumbs up for abortion.
Why?
There are already a lot of people on this world and the amount of them is not decreasing,there is only so much space.
Ecological pressure of this overload could lead to problems much greater.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well the matter of abortion is purely that of a value judgement i.e. a matter of when we ascribe personhood to a given organism. Personhood is when the state recognizes basic rights in an organism and protects such rights.

Now nobody is seriously arguing that the fetus is technically alive. A body organ, insects and cows are all alive. However that doesn't automatically give any of those things personhood.

Likewise having feelings is not sufficient to give a fetus rights. Cows for example have feelings but they don't have rights.

Also the matter of potential personhood is also insufficient. Mainly because its so arbitrary. Technically any cell(through cloning) or any sperm/egg is likewise a potential person, that doesn't give such things rights either though.

So what determines personhood? More or less approximation and conveniance. Like I said, it's a value judgement, a matter of purely how we feel about the subject(s) in question.

Deciding personhood is a tricky thing. To which deciding that personhood is attained at birth is the most efficient way of doing so. If after birth, then we have to decide when and there is possibility of abuse. If before birth, we are faced with the same problem. Those two things are hard to detect. But birth/nonbirth is not. There is also historical/legal precedence for this viewpoint, as so far in the US the only ways to become a citizen involve you either being born on US soil, from US citizens or imigrating. Attributing personhood at birth though would call for a revision to these standards.

If we decide personhood begins at birth, we are in a sense giving a fetus citizenship, in which case an immigrant need just come here to the US for example, and get pregnant and the fetus is already a US citizen. This may lead to rather messy affairs best avoided.

I personally don't really care about a fetus as much as I do the freedom of the woman who wants an abortion or the quality of life of such women. So I don't really care if it is terminated.

And this is merited by the fact that the fetus is similiar to an organ, has very little to no awareness(equivalent to a mouse or jellyfish I imagine), and that drawing the line for fundamental rights at birth is a very efficient way of establishing rights.

Having a baby one not of age can limit a female's oppurtunities. Messing up her future and creating social problems. It can also lead to increased sexism, as such women are usually reliant on men for economic support. As well as potential loss to civil liberties.

To elaborate on the civil liberties thing, when abortions were at one time illegal, a woman could actually be investigated by law enforcement for a miscarriage, as such a thing was a potential case of murder/manslaughter i.e. an abortion. That to me is a serious violation of privacy for a fetus.

But this brings up a good point. If we give basic personhood to a fetus, when do we do it? At conception? If so, is a miscarriage then a potential case of manslaughter or child neglect? Should the authorities take measures to protect a fetus, by detaining a mother who engages in high risk activities(drinking alchohol for example), just like they do every other citizen? Any other "child" or baby?

Also anti-abortion would lead to back alley abortions, which have a possibility of harming the mother.

Issues like, what if a woman dies in pregnancy, become more complicated. Because then you are no longer murdering a fetus to save a mother, but a person, with rights. You cannot just through rights away for conveniance. Nor can you just commit murder. Could a hospital that then, kills a fetus to save a women, be held accountable for murder?

Also having abortion would make sex a riskier business. I'm sure this is what many conservatives want as few of them believe in sex before marriage. However I, and I imagine the majority, do believe in it. Abortion then is the ultimate contraceptive, as it allows people to remove the fetus if prevention fails, or avoid preventive measures entirely.

Hence the value judgement comes down to this, freedom for men and women, social prosperity, legal efficiency, and safer sex vs the value of a fetus, no more intelligent then a gerbil.

The issue is not very hard for me, nor should it be very hard for anyone else.

[Dancing David]

Abortion the big non-issue.
I wouldn't have one myself, but then I am male.
It is not my place to tell other people what to do,
some people could really be unhappy carrying a baby to term, I can't say whats right for another person.

As I stated in Renata's thread: Why do people who care let children starve, go hungry and live on the streets?

Why is it so hard to terminate the rights of parents who can't care for thier children.

Abortion is a smoke screen for people who don't know how to be good, so they pretend to be good, then they condem everyone around them.

[Yahzi]

I do not regard a foetus as a Human being until it is capable of surviving outside the womb.
In a different but equally pointless thread, I proved the point that it doesn't matter whether or not a fetus is a person. You still have the right to say, "get out now!"

Why is it so hard to terminate the rights of parents who can't care for thier children.
Because we don't have any better alternatives. Even abusive parents can be better parents than the State. State Instituitions simply don't do well at replacing families, much like laws don't do well at replacing morality.

[Hunter]

Hmmm....well it seems to me that it all boils down to the issue of personhood now doesnt it? Some folks consider the foetus a child at conception, others consider personhood as being gained around the same time brainwaves develop, and still others feel that "True Personhood" is not present untill the actual moment of birth. How can one truly determine when personhood begins?

I hate to say it, but despite all of this discussion the issue still seems a bit murky. Not to mention there is an enourmous amount of emotion that is backing up people individual stances on this issue. Emotion can cloud the mind of the sanest man alive. I myself still am unable to decide when I can consider( beyond a shadow of a doubt that is) when to look upon a foetus as more than a mere mass of rapidly dividing cells but as a living(if not entirely complete) human.

Of course we could go on bickering forever, there ought to be some kind of definitive answer that all can agree upon...then again perhaps I am placing too much faith in humanity. I dont see such an answer coming to light anytime soon. We need to try and regard this in as logical and scientific light as we can. Religion especially could prove a difficult barrier to this as certain absolute doctrines dont have room for much questioning.

-Hunter

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think what priests do to little children - preaching hellfire and eternal torment and subservience to invisible threats - is a nasty, terrible thing.

If that's all a priest does to a child, they should consider themselves lucky! :)

[Silly Green Monkey]

**pokes at the dry bones of the thread**

[Giraffe107]

holy zombie thread batman!

[LarianLeQuella]

There's a lot of ressurections going on here lately. Perhaps it's a sign?









A sign that some folks are bored perhaps!