Abortion

kafka.:

A fetus is not a 'parasite' by anything resembling a scientific definition of the word. Like when it's used to denote homeless or disabled people (and it's used in that way very often which only makes your argumentation even more distasteful) its purpose is to dehumanise and to dissociate, not to give an objective definition of a term. Of course, there's no need to dehumanise something that is not human or to dissociate yourself from something with which you have no attachment, your discourse just goes to show that it takes a great effort to make abortion a morally unambiguous act and consequently that it can't be morally unambiguous.

I tend only to lurk this thread, but: the only thing that is not parasitic of a fetus is the fact that the mother's body does not try to reject it. Other than that, it fits all the points.

There's a Planned Parenthood down the street from my house, and yesterday, coming home from the store, was the first time I didn't see any pro-life people standing outside it, protesting.

I usually lurk this thread but since the last post was close to two months ago, I feel it's time for me to add my two cents. I'm not sure that I'd ever have an abortion, but I am very firmly pro-choice and it infuriates me when people try to take away the option for a woman to have one if she needs it.

^
My brother read an article and paraphrased me an amazing quote from it in the car. Basically, no one else should be allowed to make a decision from someone else regarding the individual's health unless it is a next of kin/power of attorney sorta thing. I agree completely. I'm not allowed to deny Joe Blow antidepressants or tell Shelia to stop chemo so why should anyone else be allowed to make medical health decisions on my behalf?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444238-santorum-says-obama-looks-down-on-disabled-encouraging-more-abortions

"One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare — another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country."

I just can't get over the irony of a Republican candidate who is out to slash welfare and disability benefits, claiming Obama has an abortion agenda to rid society of the disabled. And this guy is a legitimate front runner for the GOP primary.

^
And don't forget about the evils of contraception. Because if there's one thing a country in an economic depression needs, its more people to feed that can't work.

dru is powerful.:

^
And don't forget about the evils of contraception. Because if there's one thing a country in an economic depression needs, its more people to feed that can't work.

How could I forget.
It's ironic (and really, downright sad) that he says Obama's health care mandate for free prenatal testing is intended to cause more abortions, but somehow limiting access to contraception wouldn't do the very same.

^Speaking of which, last Friday I had to listen for an assignment the Rush Limbaugh talk show. The first thing I hear as soon as I tune in is him saying to the audience that planned parenthood is encouraging young people to have sex with their "pornographic" site.

He seriously just told the audience to go into the page and to see how explicit and offensive it was.

I just...

While I couldn't do it, I understand there can be reasons an abortion may do both the mother and the child a favor. Rape, poor financial situation, poor social environment, the threat of "honor killings" and other religious fanatism, sickness or severe handicap, an unstable political situation (as in Darfur, not "US presidential elections") or an unwanted pregnancy at the worst possible time, can be perfectly valid reasons.
While I think giving the child up for adoption - in the case of a healthy child - is the more humane alternative, I have no right to judge any woman to decide that her body is hers alone and if she can't or won't be a good mother, she should have the right to make "that" decision.

Also, adoption has the disadvantage for the mother that her body will first have to undergo all the changes, stress and often grave dangers of pregnancy and labor/birth. When a mother really is not to blame for her pregnancy (rape, accident,..), can this be expected of her? In my opinion, no. Women have died giving birth; why die for an unwanted child? People need to stop caring only about the child's life and see the mother as just as much of a vulnerable, mortal, sensitive human being with fears, pains, and feelings.

Because honestly? The mother has lived and come to appreciate life, but can the same be said for a 3-months-old embryo? We become self-aware as we develop, and we become afraid of death and sensitive to or traumatized by pain and the like, over time. A woman/girl will be far more vulnerable in this aspect than an embryo that has so far not had a single glimpse of life which, in utero, begins to be perceivable to the child toward the end of pregnancy.

Lastly, we need to get our moral priorities straight. Timely!! abortion may cause the embryo a few seconds of pain, but what about children born sick or severely handicapped or to a horrible environment? They have a liftetime of hell ahead of them because their mothers didn't want to inflict a second of pain to an unaware embryo. Am I being harsh? So is reality.

I want to be a mother, but I'm taking every precaution to be a good mother to a healthy kid. I'm getting myself checked out for genetic conditions I might pass on; those I am aware of I'm insisting to balance out with the right paternal DNA. Also I'll be having my uterus etc. checked out to confirm or create an ideal environment. As far as good genes go, I'll go every step of the way of birthing a healthy baby who can look forward to growing up, rather than being "romantic" with some nice lovable guy again and again only to birth children with genetic problems or miscarry. I'd rather throw my savings at a sperm bank with thoroughly screened donors.
This little effort, is how many abortions could be avoided. Reason over romance.

Quote

"One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare — another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country."

I just can't get over the irony of a Republican candidate who is out to slash welfare and disability benefits, claiming Obama has an abortion agenda to rid society of the disabled. And this guy is a legitimate front runner for the GOP primary.

And what's wrong with preventing the birth of children who will be doomed to suffer all their lives, mentally and/or physically? I think Obama's idea is brilliant. I would abort a child in this one single case - if it was doomed to live a life of "no future". And - I don't think society is asking too much of people by asking that they give back.

Also, being an able person does not make you elite. And it's not just that severely handicapped people are, excuse me but there's no nice way to say it, useless to society, but also the fact that many of them suffer physically and mentally. Why do this to them if prenatal testing can prevent it? I'll have it done, even if it kills my savings. I don't want to thoughtlessly put a sick child into a world where you have to stand on your own feet at some point.

I have a question because my Language Arts class is having a debate about this topic-
I am on the pro-choice side, but I can't seem to come up with a good answer for why the killing of a fetus outside of the mother and physician's consent is considered by murder or homicide (it varies by state, but I still can't come up with a good answer for why some states have that law, like California [before 8 weeks?]). I didn't want to be stuck with a quesiton that I didn't have an answer to.

matt murdock:

I have a question because my Language Arts class is having a debate about this topic-
I am on the pro-choice side, but I can't seem to come up with a good answer for why the killing of a fetus outside of the mother and physician's consent is considered by murder or homicide (it varies by state, but I still can't come up with a good answer for why some states have that law, like California [before 8 weeks?]). I didn't want to be stuck with a quesiton that I didn't have an answer to.

That depends on if you support the fetal homicide laws or not.

You could argue the fetal homicide laws are a double standard, and driven by emotion, rather than the science that a fetus is not a developed person nor a citizen with rights, so the laws are unjust in the first place because the undermine Roe v. Wade.

Or, if you support fetal homicide laws, typically (but not in all states) the standard used in laws is viability- could the fetus survive outside the womb? In that instance, fetal homicide is a crime for the same reason abortions are illegal after a certain time period, because the fetus could survive outside of the mother's womb.

You could also point out the inconsistency of the laws on fetal homicide is a reflection of poor legislation, and shouldn't have any bearing on abortion rights.

My biggest fear with all of the Republican Candidates is the social issues. I believe that abortion is a woman’s right, not just for rapes an incest. How is it a man’s ( by that I mean Men Politicians such as all of the GOP Candidates) to make that decision for a woman? He doesn’t have to carry an unwanted child.

I do not want children, and for that reason I have chosen to be abstinent, but when I get married, and I am on birth control but if an accident happens I will not have it. Its not just that I do not want to raise a kid its I don't want to give birth so adoption wouldn't be an option for me if, god forbid, that ever happened.

I believe that late term abortions or partial birth abortions , where if in another case a woman gave birth prematurely to a child of the same age would survive if given proper medical care, is wrong unless there is a terminal birth defect where the child would only survive a few hours or days.

Some Republican candidates want to end Amniocentesis, or a prenatal test for chromosomal and fetal infections. They want to put an end to this because they believe that if a mother knows she is going to have a mentally handicapped child she would abort, I still believe that it is within her rights to do so.

Nothing makes me madder than when people want to tell me what I can and cant do with my own body. With my personal beliefs I don't think a baby is a person until it is born. And If someone wants to tell me I'm committing a sin, well that's not on their conscience is it? That beef is between me and God no one else.

Abortion isn't just a woman's issue. It affects everyone, especially when people want it to be socialised.

Myself, I err on the side of choice. Considering the other laws passed while Obama has been president (For instance, Plan B being unavailable to women under 17), and his personal stance on it, I can't really say that Obama's a better option.

As for being bothered about what you can and can't do with your body- a lot of people believe that a fetus is not your body (and considering the number of people who call a fetus parasitic on the pro-choice side, they don't think it's your body either) and as it's not your body, whether or not you have the final call on what happens to it is a pretty difficult decision.

I don't see a republican president making enough changes in the Supreme Court to allow Roe v Wade to get overturned. George W Bush was against it, yet he didn't manage to change the supreme court enough to get it overturned, and the current supreme court is highly unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade.

lovecraft:

Abortion isn't just a woman's issue. It affects everyone, especially when people want it to be socialised.

Myself, I err on the side of choice. Considering the other laws passed while Obama has been president (For instance, Plan B being unavailable to women under 17), and his personal stance on it, I can't really say that Obama's a better option.

As for being bothered about what you can and can't do with your body- a lot of people believe that a fetus is not your body (and considering the number of people who call a fetus parasitic on the pro-choice side, they don't think it's your body either) and as it's not your body, whether or not you have the final call on what happens to it is a pretty difficult decision.

I don't see a republican president making enough changes in the Supreme Court to allow Roe v Wade to get overturned. George W Bush was against it, yet he didn't manage to change the supreme court enough to get it overturned, and the current supreme court is highly unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade.

How exactly does the legality of abortion affect uterus-less people when abortions are not paid for through taxes?

kafka.:

How exactly does the legality of abortion affect uterus-less people when abortions are not paid for through taxes?

Because you could be killing the fetus that is half them?

I'm not saying that men should have the final say- I'm saying that calling it a women's issue is to ignore the other facets of the issue.

As well, there's quite a few organizations which provide abortion and get government money, even if they're not providing them in the US.

Further, Obamacare is going to cover "Reproductive Services" which abortion falls under.

So, yeah, it isn't exclusively a women's issue.

There is a difference between saying abortion affects only women and only women have a right to make decisions about abortion. If I chose to have an abortion, it would certainly affect my fiance in a huge way. Abortion affects people morally opposed to abortion emotionally, male or female. Abortion's legality affects people in the medical professions, whether they're male or female.

lovecraft:

Because you could be killing the fetus that is half them?

I am so profoundly puzzled by this phrase I can't even begin to respond to it. Why would anybody feel like their as of yet immaterial genetic offspring are "half themselves" and forge any kind of deep connection with them? A child is much less than half of a parent because genes don't work that neatly - a couple in which one parent is a ginger and the other dark hair won't have children whose hair is half black and half red, not to mention that our sense of self and identity is only to a very small extent defined by genes, environment plays the biggest part in defining who we are.

Quote

I'm not saying that men should have the final say- I'm saying that calling it a women's issue is to ignore the other facets of the issue.

Which are? Even if your first point were valid, that's just one other facet of the issue, not several other facets.

Quote

As well, there's quite a few organizations which provide abortion and get government money, even if they're not providing them in the US.

Further, Obamacare is going to cover "Reproductive Services" which abortion falls under.

So, yeah, it isn't exclusively a women's issue.

I said that we should ignore for a moment the issue of taxes covering abortion costs because this is not the case in the US and in states with socialized health care abortion's legality is not up for debate (which suggests tax payers have no problem paying for it) so it's rather pointless anyway and because it would move the discussion too much off topic.

kafka.:

Why would anybody feel like their as of yet immaterial genetic offspring are "half themselves" and forge any kind of deep connection with them?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what happens when most women are pregnant? I've heard the pregnancy is the bonding experience for mother and child, whereas the father is more likely to bond with his child after meeting it. So, to answer you question, I guess it's just natural.

kafka.:

I said that we should ignore for a moment the issue of taxes covering abortion costs because this is not the case in the US and in states with socialized health care abortion's legality is not up for debate (which suggests tax payers have no problem paying for it) so it's rather pointless anyway and because it would move the discussion too much off topic.

So no one's against abortion in the UK?

Quote

I am so profoundly puzzled by this phrase I can't even begin to respond to it. Why would anybody feel like their as of yet immaterial genetic offspring are "half themselves" and forge any kind of deep connection with them? A child is much less than half of a parent because genes don't work that neatly - a couple in which one parent is a ginger and the other dark hair won't have children whose hair is half black and half red, not to mention that our sense of self and identity is only to a very small extent defined by genes, environment plays the biggest part in defining who we are.

True, I was making more of an emotional than scientific reason, because you can't get pregnant without a man involved.
However, to say that men don't care at all until their child is born is so far off the mark as to be ridiculous. If a man's wife loses a pregnancy, he'll be upset, because he was expecting to have a child. If a pregnant woman dies, it's considered especially heinous by most of society. If a woman has an abortion? Oh, too bad dudes, you automatically don't give a shit about it because it hasn't been born and wasn't real to you anyways.

Quote

Which are? Even if your first point were valid, that's just one other facet of the issue, not several other facets.

How it's funded, the safety of it (and the uterus is damaged by multiple abortions, this is a fact), the fact that people consider it murder, the affect on medical professionals who choose or choose not to perform abortions, the affect on family members, the affect on society... There's a lot more to abortion than "I don't want a kid, I fucked up, so I'm going to have an abortion."

To reiterate my opinion- I don't think abortion should be illegal, I don't think men should have the final say in abortion, and I don't think society should have the final say on abortion. I'm saying it's not just a women's issue.

It's one of those things in which you cannot take one side completely, you know? On one hand, it is wrong to end someone's life, even if it's just a fetus. I don't agree with the church saying it's a cruel murder, but it would still be very difficult for a woman to lose her baby, she would eventually blame herself for killing her own child. Sometimes we think that it would be better for that child not to be born into this world, where they would suffer so much, and I agree on a certain level. I've been through an awful lot and trust me, sometimes I wish I hadn't been born at all. But my life actually does matter to someone, even if it's just my mom. It's true that suffering can make monsters out of some people, but don't we all deserve a chance? Abortion is wrong. Raising a child in the middle of suffering is wrong. But sometimes people who go through immense amounts of pain are the ones who do better. Pain fuels creativity and will power, so these kids who weren't even meant to be born and are raised in the middle of pain turn out to be amazing people who do matter. Aborting a child is giving up on a human being, it's giving up on life. On the other hand, it's the woman's body, we can't force her to have a child she doesn't desire. In case of rape, I think abortion should be legal. But in case of stupidity, like, "oh we totally forgot the condom", she should have the child but the child should be given to an orfanage. It's not the best solution, I know. But at least the kid would get a chance in life...

This is a very tough question and it's impossible to pick one side and be completely pro or completely against it, at least for me.

weird soup:

Pain fuels creativity and will power, so these kids who weren't even meant to be born and are raised in the middle of pain turn out to be amazing people who do matter.

Like the handful of people in history books?

Quote

But in case of stupidity, like, "oh we totally forgot the condom", she should have the child but the child should be given to an orfanage. It's not the best solution, I know. But at least the kid would get a chance in life...

If she's too stupid to remember a piece of latex, how can she be responsible throughout a pregnancy?
Won't she do stupid things, like go on roller coasters or drink?