Abortion: A question of choice

[Pure Paradox]

You can't live in our world without money. How is a woman supposed to have a child when she can't work? She can't afford housing, food, medical care...etc...not to mention the effect this would have on any other dependents she has.

There has been this wonderful thing called ADOPTION, people... with the added bonus that one doesn't have to kill a kid to be free of him/her.

 

[Marissa]

To be prochoice about abortion is to be pro-abortion. Suppose drug dealing were legalized and you heard this argument:

"I?m personally not in favor of someone dealing drugs at schools, but that?s a matter to decide between the drug dealer and his attorney. We don?t want to go back to the days when drug dealing was illegal, and people died in back alleys from bad cocaine. I personally wouldn?t buy drugs, so I?m not pro-drugs. I?m just pro-choice about drug dealing."

The analogy doesn't work. If drug dealing wasn't allowed on school grounds it would still be legal off school grounds. Dictating where particular actions can take place is not the same as denying complete access to a service/product.

 

[Marissa]

There has been this wonderful thing called ADOPTION, people... with the added bonus that one doesn't have to kill a kid to be free of him/her.

I'm talking about the pregnancy stage, not after the birth. It costs money to be pregnant. Being pregnant can cost you your job. If a woman can't afford to be pregnant, what other option does she actually have?

 

[Jonathan David]

The analogy doesn't work. If drug dealing wasn't allowed on school grounds it would still be legal off school grounds. Dictating where particular actions can take place is not the same as denying complete access to a service/product.

Funny though, because, for some people, there are many parallels between abortion and drugs... whoops, I better clarify that.

In Canada, we are not quite as zealous about the "war on drugs" as the American goverment has been. We are currently implementing harm-reduction strategies as a part of our public health initiatives. We have programs such as needle exchanges and, most recently, a safe-injection site in Vancouver. The idea is not to promote drug use but to recognize that people ARE using some drugs that can be dangerous, both in terms of overdoses and HIV infection through the sharing of needles. As a society, we have decided that, although many of us would rather not see any heroin (for example) in the country, we would rather see drug users kept safe, rather than seeing them ostracized, marginalized, stigmatrized and left in very unsafe conditions where their risk is increased greatly.

Similarly, many on this thread have argued that they would rather not see abortions but, until the material conditions are such that giving birth to a child is socially, economically and in all other ways viable for EVERYONE, they will support access to abortion. Now, I am not saying that women who have abortions are like IV drug users... or that abortion is like heroin (I just haven't tried to think about these analogies at all). The point is that sometimes we choose to support something that, were the world perfect, we may not agree with but we recognize that the alternative is worse.

I also don't know anyone (who is pro-choice) who believes that abortion is without its emotional and physical traumas. It is simply better than leaving women alone, afraid and vulnerable (sorry about the "damsel in distress" portrayal... it's not meant quite the way that it sounds) and having unsafe abortions that can lead to the termination of the pregnancy as well as severe health risks for the woman.

When we talk about abortion, we put the "blame" squarely on the shoulders of the woman. Let us not forget that we all contribute to a society in which there is vast economic inequality, in which tolerance for men who abandon their partners (as well as other sexist behaviour) is, in practice, fairly widespread and in which we continuously vote for politicians who slash social programs so that we can reduce taxes even further.

Peace.

JD

 

[msjones21]

What would the pro-choicers say if they had been aborted?

Uh, I wouldn't be here to say anything. It's a no-brainer. If I had been aborted I wouldn't be here. Not too difficult to comprehend. What a lame argument.

If you're going to debate abortion please come up with something more solid than a line you ripped off of a bumper sticker.

 

[praying]

As a society, we have decided that, although many of us would rather not see any heroin (for example) in the country, we would rather see drug users kept safe, rather than seeing them ostracized, marginalized, stigmatrized and left in very unsafe conditions where their risk is increased greatly.

Oh we Americans are really good at ostracizing, marginalizing, and stigmatrizing it is part of our heritage one of the things the founding fathers were good at so we just march right on in that tradition.

As always JD excellent points, I myself lean against abortion but I am not ready to say others can't because it is not a black and white issue. It is more than just have the baby.

All the people ready to say muderer should be equally as ready to adopt a child and as we know from the number of adoptable children in the US that is not happening:

Some Facts

Preliminary FY 2001 Estimates as of March 2003 (8)

How many children were waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2001? 126,000

What is the gender distribution of the waiting children?

Male 53% 66,175
Female 47% 59,825

How many months have the waiting children been in continuous foster care?
1 - 35 months 65,433
36-59 Months 24% 30,503
60 or more Months 24% 30,064

What is the racial/ethnic distribution of the waiting children?

AI/AN Non-Hispanic 2,146
Asian Non-Hispanic 484
Black Non-Hispanic 56,306
Hawaiian/PI Non-Hispanic 400
Hispanic 15,253
White Non-Hispanic 42,913
UnKnown/Unable to Determine 5,602
Two or More Races Non-Hispanic 2,895

SOURCE: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data submitted for the FY 2001, 10/1/00 through 9/30/01.

Lot of kids out there.

 

[infinite-speck]

I am new to this forum (and site as well) and would like to ask if it is allowed to speak my mind on this matter which is ultimately the legality of abortion in regards to both public law and religious doctrine.

I must say that my views are most likely going to rub most christians the wrong way however I have an opinion on this matter and would like to discuss it with others who are open to a biblical and legal debate (legal pertaining to law and government)

If this is not the place to discuss such matters, I beg your parden and thank you for the time to answer my question.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Jonathan David]

I am new to this forum (and site as well) and would like to ask if it is allowed to speak my mind on this matter which is ultimately the legality of abortion in regards to both public law and religious doctrine.

I must say that my views are most likely going to rub most christians the wrong way however I have an opinion on this matter and would like to discuss it with others who are open to a biblical and legal debate (legal pertaining to law and government)

If this is not the place to discuss such matters, I beg your parden and thank you for the time to answer my question.

Thank you in advance.

Welcome to the forum. I think that this is the perfect place for that... we don't all pull a lot of punches around here (you know who you are )so don't worry about rubbing people the wrong way as long as you are following the forum rules (although many of us have been guilty of crossing a couple lines here and there). Some people will agree with you, some won't... but every perspective is good for the discussion.

Peace.

JD

 

[praying]

I am new to this forum (and site as well) and would like to ask if it is allowed to speak my mind on this matter which is ultimately the legality of abortion in regards to both public law and religious doctrine.

I must say that my views are most likely going to rub most christians the wrong way however I have an opinion on this matter and would like to discuss it with others who are open to a biblical and legal debate (legal pertaining to law and government)

If this is not the place to discuss such matters, I beg your parden and thank you for the time to answer my question.

Thank you in advance.

Ohh come on in the water is fine, you might get splashed but hey, what's a good debate without some splashing

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

Uh, I wouldn't be here to say anything. It's a no-brainer. If I had been aborted I wouldn't be here. Not too difficult to comprehend. What a lame argument.

If you're going to debate abortion please come up with something more solid than a line you ripped off of a bumper sticker.

Did you read my last syllogism?

Here are some more of them.

Abortion is depriving a child of life.
Depriving a child of life is wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Abortion is allowing parents to kill their children.
Allowing parents to kill their children is wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Abortion is allowing doctors to do intentional harm.
Allowing doctors to do intentional harm is wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Abortion is denying a child the ability to live his or her life.
Denying a child the ability to live his or her life is wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

 

[Jonathan David]

Ohh come on in the water is fine, you might get splashed but hey, what's a good debate without some splashing

Did you see the waterfight that Tulc and Kelly tried to start on that other thread? Poor Colonel got soaked.

http://www.christianforums.com/t95017
He he he.

Peace.

JD

 

[infinite-speck]

Well thank you for the invite.

Here is my point of view for what ever it is worth.

The question (no matter how you phrase it) is should a woman be aloud to legally choose to terminate/kill/abort/remove/extract... a fetal baby prior to birth?

I am looking for a stable base that everyone can agree on. No debate will ever end unless an agreement on "terms" is formed.

As you may have geussed I am a man and in most forums pushed aside as an outsider in this issue because It would not be my choice anyway.

I feel that the simple fact is that one side wants to dictate control over the other. One says no the other says yes. One side says "its murder" the other does not agree.

Ok, here it comes, I feel that there has been a big hole in this debate from the begining. What is the hole? Well you may have guessed but it's the fact that when a women becomes pregnant there are three people involved (I say people because I do feel that a baby is alive at conception - its not a religious basis but a chemical/bilogical and scientific fact - if we consider a single celled organizam "life" then we can agree that a fertilized egg at the moment of conception is life as well - basic bilogy):
The Woman, The Man and The Baby.

So when everyone is arguing about the right to choose, who are they arguing for?

The woman? If so, are they saying that once concieved the man no longer has any say in the matter? He is essentially stripped of all choices as it pertains to the child and its future while residing in the whoom of the mother? If you look at the law as it stands (in relation to abortion/child custody/paternaty) in none of the text that I have researched does it ever once mention the mans ability to make a choice. We (as men) do not have a choice in the matter once the child is concieved. Essentially the woman has not only been given the power to choose between life and death of a child but the overall outcome of three lives: Man, Woman and Child.

The child? What is the moral stake in saving a childs life - irregardless of ones definition of life? Death Penalty - Abortion both are the acts of taking life correct? As I said before the life of a child begins the moment of conception (in my humble view) so by these terms Abortion can be translated into Killing. So the point is who really has the childs best interest in mind when they say "dont let them (women) kill the babies"? How can they have any idea what is best for that baby? I am going to use some blunt terminology here - I hope I do not offend anyone. What they are saying is this (essentially) "You should have kept your legs closed now do what (we think) is right and cary that baby to term. After that, do as you please". It may sound harsh but I dont see many non-abortion advocates opening there doors to the countless number of abandoned, sick, dieing, disturbed, abused and misstreated babies into there homes. No, once the baby is born its the mothers problem (well actually, it's no longer just her problem - its the Man, Woman and sadly the Childs problem)

So although I dont seem to have a point with all of this rant I want to make just a few things clear:

To the "Pro-Lifer's" (I dont mean to lable ya'll) - do you really want to open the door to governmental control over the process of sex, conception and child birth? Telling you how, when, were and why you can have sex with another concenting adult? Because believe me, that is were it is heading when you delve into the realm of Governmental Controls - they always have an agenda. Luckily you have the right to protest, march and lobby for what you feel is right and just. But what you fail to understand (or maybe you do and dont really care) is that the same rights you are using to protest, march and lobby you are at the same time attempting to take away. The ability of a woman to decide on the fate of the child she carries is not a matter of governmental control but one of personal duty. You as a body are asking the government to literally control a persons actions for the crime of becoming pregnant - irregardless of the circumstances or situation. Its as if you are condeming the woman for being human and asking the government to "imprison" her until the child is born. But I dont see much going on after that. (As a note, I understand the case of argument of incest, rape, etc... these are no-brainers in my opinion)

To the "Pro-Choicers" (again I appologize) who are you? Who are the rightful pro-choice people? There are only 3 per conception - Man, Woman and Child. Unfortunately, the man has absolutely no legal say in the mater and the child does not possess the ability to speak, and wont until about 18 months after birth. So it can be argued that the woman is making a life decision for 3 people, not just her self.(again I understand the extream cases - and as to the cases of abandonment - the word "man" does not pertain to those individuals as it would adorn them with human qualities). So who is she to make the ultimate discision? Who is she to precide as judge and jury as if she is the only person affected by the final outcome? To give any individual this amount of power, especially during a stressful period such as this, is criminal. Even convicted murderers have an appeal process.

So this is my final words on this and I will let you spark up the zippo's and have a winnie rost:

Dont ask to control another unless your willing to be controlled and dont ask for the right to kill from a singular voice.

Let it roll.

(p.s. - the spelling is hidious I know, just do the best you can, ya'll seem to be intelligent people and can decypher minimal errors)

 

[Jonathan David]

Intersting. Truth is I am too tired to read properly but one thought comes to my foggy mind.

One piece of this which hasn't been discussed is the nature of the relationships. It seems to me that a healthy sexual relationship includes having conversations about this topic. "What sort(s) (if any) of birth control will we use?", "What will we do if we get pregnant?" Hopefully, this sort of conversation takes place before the sex so, in fact, men are involved in the decision too.

If however, this sort of conversation has not taken place, then I have no problem with the woman having final say on what happens to her body because, as you pointed out, she is the one who will carry it, deal with the social/economic consequences, etc. (that is what you mean, right?). I do not believe that the pattern with abortion is couples who have good pre-sex conversations, agree to not have an abortion, get pregnant and then the woman goes "oops, I changed my mind." It may happen occasionally, but I I do not believe that it is even close to being the "norm".

Men have the choice of who they sleep with. If one is totally against abortion, he should not have sex with someone who has said that she might have an abortion if she were to get pregnant. We should be teaching our children how to communicate about sex rather than teaching them to be ashamed of it.

Finally, I believe that, even in those situations where the woman might change her mind, it is her right to make the final decision. I think that I would be angry, feel betrayed, etc if we had agreed to not have an abortion... but it would be her right... just my opinion.

Peace.

JD

 

[loveisallyouneed]

To be prochoice about abortion is to be pro-abortion. Suppose drug dealing were legalized and you heard this argument:

"I?m personally not in favor of someone dealing drugs at schools, but that?s a matter to decide between the drug dealer and his attorney. We don?t want to go back to the days when drug dealing was illegal, and people died in back alleys from bad cocaine. I personally wouldn?t buy drugs, so I?m not pro-drugs. I?m just pro-choice about drug dealing."

Basically, being personally against abortion but favoring another?s right to abortion is self-contradictory and morally baffling. It?s exactly like saying, "We?re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor?s right to abuse his child if that is his choice."

Someone who is prochoice about rape might argue that it?s not the same as being pro-rape. What?s the difference, since being prochoice about rape allows and promotes the legitimacy of rape? Those who were prochoice about slavery believed their moral position was sound since they personally didn?t own slaves. Similarly, most people in Germany did not favor the killing of Jews, but did nothing to stop the killing.

Some people have an illusion that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between pro-abortion and prolife positions. It isn?t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn, and both are willing for children to die ? even if they do not directly participate in the killings.

Well it's baffling to me that you decided to completely ignore the part where I talk about making laws based on what infringes upon others rights. Child abuse infringes upon the right of a child. Abortion doesn't infringe upon your or my rights, at all. Drugs are illegal because they infringe upon my right to live in an enviroment free of drug related violence and harrasment. So, your examples are totally meangingless and don't support your argument.

For the record, did I ever say I was pro-choice? I said I struggle with the issue in matters of US law.

I work with and support pro-life movements that help women with adoption and counseling. That's a lot more than I can say for most staunchly pro-life people I've met who just like to bang on the soapbox, at least I put my money where my mouth is.

 

[Tracie]

loveisallyouneed brought up a couple good points (and some I don't agree with ). But one is the fact that the father has no say. If you go to any of the "baby/parenting" boards online that have an abortion forum, you will be completely shocked. I recently read a post about a man who has 2 children with his wife. They had just gotten pregnant with their third child and she was upset because she had just gotten back into shape and didn't want to be pregnant again. Well, she decided she wanted an abortion, but the husband did not. So, instead of discussing it any further, she went and had the abortion without telling him.

These kind of stories just go on and on and on. One after another. Oh...there are so many teenagers who are suicidal because their parents made them get an abortion. It's horrible.

Plus, I'd like to know if anyone knows a woman who has had an abortion and it hasn't affected her in a huge way to this day. The people I know (even the ones who decided to use it as a means of birth control...which is pretty much every one), it has ruined their lives. Sure, they can be productive members of society, but even decades later it is constantly on their mind....the biggest regret of their life. Do things that are "right" or "ok" or for the greater good have that affect on people?!

Tracie

 

[Jonathan David]

I guess the point is its an "unwanted" pregnancy. So, no, I don't know any women who have had abortions and just forgotten about it... but the ones that I know still think that it was a better (less bad) option than it would have been to have the child. This is not about a good option and a bad option... it is about what is best, for the parties involved, in a really bad situation.

Peace.

JD

 

[loveisallyouneed]

Tracie, you bring up a good argument I hadn't considered. Abortion infringes upon the rights of a man! The child is a product of two people, even though it may be difficult to argue in the court of law, we may be able to say that abortion infringes upon the rights of fathers who want their children. Boy would that be interesting to see pan out!

I've known firsthand, women who've had abortions, and many of them need counseling to deal with depression. It is very devestating, adoption can be and is also, very, very difficult to deal with psychologically. Though I know a young Mormon woman who became pregnant and gave up her daughter for adoption and was very happy with her decision.

Thanks for making me think of an angle to this argument I hadn't considered before!

 

[msjones21]

Plus, I'd like to know if anyone knows a woman who has had an abortion and it hasn't affected her in a huge way to this day.

My gramma had an abortion when she was in her 30's. She can sit through a sermon on abortion with a completely straight face. To this day she can say that at the time her abortion was the best decision. I know another girl who has had two abortions and has no regret. Her first one was four years ago when she was in high school. Her most recent one was due to rape. I have another friend who had two children out of wedlock. She is so unhappy with her life. I'm not saying that abortion would have improved that, I'm just saying that not everyone is destroyed by their choice to abort and not everyone is sublimely happy because they chose "life".

Though I know a young Mormon woman who became pregnant and gave up her daughter for adoption and was very happy with her decision.

Ask me if I don't live with pain and regret for giving my son up for adoption.

 

[loveisallyouneed]

Ask me if I don't live with pain and regret for giving my son up for adoption.

I know you do, as did the young Mormon woman, but her happiness outweighed that, she had a lot of strength. It was rare, and it left an impression on me. Her faith in the Lord comforted her that she did the right thing.

 

[Pure Paradox]

The analogy doesn't work. If drug dealing wasn't allowed on school grounds it would still be legal off school grounds. Dictating where particular actions can take place is not the same as denying complete access to a service/product.

I don't know what Australia's like, Marissa, but around here, it isn't legal to drug-deal ANYWHERE, whether on or off school grounds.