Abortion (again)

[Outspoken]

"Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)




1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% -carelessness (selfishness)

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9% -carelessness (selfishness)

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% -carelessness (selfishness)

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% -carelessness (selfishness)

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% -carelessness (selfishness)

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2% - In the case of a minor carelessness by parents. (selfishness by the parents)

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3% (what? So killing the baby improves the chances of a healthy baby. Oh, I get it, it's that looking glass thinking.)

9. Other: 2.1%"


On the other part is there anywhere that states what types of situations other would fall under?

I'm not ridiculing you Vylo, just adding emphasis to the statistics. Good job.

EXACTLY! About 80 or 90 percent of the time, its a convience thing.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Unfair comparison. A cow is not human at all, a fetus is.

Begging the question.

Slippery slope.

Not this time, consistent application. Or implications. Tell me where I err and why?

Another unfair comparison. Do you really care if your neighbor cuts down a tree in his yard?

Not the point.

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)




1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% -carelessness

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9% -carelessness

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% -carelessness

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% -carelessness

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% -carelessness

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2% - In the case of a minor carelessness by parents.

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3%

9. Other: 2.1%



Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117?127 & 152 As reported by: The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online


That's 79.6 % of the cases at minimum. People these days have a habit of trying to avoid their responsibilites.

Again it kind of begs the question, what if I don't see the above as careless? What if I see putting of child bearing as a responsible thing for which a woman should use any means in her power to attain?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

1. A child is before birth compared to after birth are pretty much the same. This line is cleary a bad one. If you adhere to it you must address babies that are not "born". Those taken out by C-section, etc..In your definition they are not "human". This is also flawed in terms of premature births. For those are physically the same as those still in the womb, yet you call one alive and the other not. that's a very poor anaylsis with major holes in it.

Not really.

1) One depends on a woman's body, the other does not. (btw the fetus is not a child.)

2) One has certain sensory stimuli activated, the other does not.

3) One is more developed then the other. Are you telling me a three month embryon is the equivalent to a full born child?

2. Just as accideintal death, there is no penilty for it. Check your law books for other examples.

There is if it was caused by carelessness or poison. Check child neglect, drinking under age and manslaughter.

 

[Blindfaith]

One is more developed then the other. Are you telling me a three month embryon is the equivalent to a full born child?

When I was pregnant with girl-baby #3, I had to go to the ER because of serious bleeding. Yes, I know....TMI . I'm getting to my point here;

They did blood work, and they did an ultrasound. I was appx 12 weeks along, and I was able to see baby-girl's heartbeat. I'm sure that along with that heartbeat were some nerve endings that could feel a suction if that's the direction I chose. Yes, that "embryo" had a functioning heart - and I hoped and prayed that she'd grow into a healthy baby.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Whether or not it had a heart is irrelevant to me. Cows have a heart but I still eat cows. Even an insect and a fish have a heart.

Just because something has a heart does not mean you now make the woman who's carrying it a forced body, a sort of surogate slave, and take away her future for it any more then you put her in jail for killing a fly or a rodent.

 

[Blindfaith]

Then I have a suggestion to those who don't want to be pregnant. Don't have sex and keep it in your pants.

I'm sorry Dialectic, I can't equate a baby to a cow or jail time.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Why can't they have sex? I think your request is unreasonable with so many easy cures and preventive measures for pregancy.

And I'm likewise sorry but I can't equate a clump of cells with a human being.

 

[pudmuddle]

Then I have a suggestion to those who don't want to be pregnant. Don't have sex and keep it in your pants.

I'm sorry Dialectic, I can't equate a baby to a cow or jail time.

Amen!
I like your sig.
Something like this one:God loves you just the way you are, but he loves you too much to leave you there.

 

[Vylo]

Whether or not it had a heart is irrelevant to me. Cows have a heart but I still eat cows. Even an insect and a fish have a heart.

Cows are not human, insects are not human. Human fetuses are human. THEY ARE YOUR KIND. Show a bit of respect for humanity.

Then I have a suggestion to those who don't want to be pregnant. Don't have sex and keep it in your pants.

Very good advice.

 

[Lillithspeak]

I am "pro-choice"; a woman absolutely SHOULD have the right to choose to have a baby, or not.

The thing is, pregnancy is not like a cold --- one can get a cold even if one does not WANT to; but getting PREGNANT requires conscious ACTION.

A woman who makes a CHOICE not to have a child, DOESN'T GET PREGNANT in the FIRST place.

After she's pregnant, it's no longer SHE, it's SHE and another PERSON. No? Why not? What deliniates PERSON from BLOB-O'-TISSUE?

BIRTH? No, it thinks and feels just as much 5 minutes after, as 5 minutes before.

VIABILITY? No, Human value is not measured by technology; children are viable now at 6 months or before; in time, they will be viable outside the womb from the START.

When is the POINT when abortion is OK? And you must choose a point; obviously abortion at 1 months is MURDER; if you refuse to choose, then you support something that could be murder. In your opinion.

So when I say "I'm pro-choice", I mean "she can CHOOSE not to get PREGNANT."

I frequently "harass" the people at the pro-abortion booth in the state fair, and ALSO those in the pro-life booth; the life booth people always respond with kindness and well-thought answers; the pro-abortion usually threaten to have me thrown out of the fair. Why? Merely for calmly asking: "What's the difference between aborting 2 weeks after conception, and 12 months after conception? When is it murder?"

Last year I actually had a CIVIL conversation with a pro-abortion-proponent. But it was quite depressing --- you cannot converse with anyone unless you have common ground; and we had none. She saw nothing wrong with euthanasia, saving MEDICINES for YOUNGER-WORTHY people. Human life had no value at all. And why should it? We're no different than the animals; we're simply the creation of a vast line of cosmic chemial accidents; we are nothing more than SLIME crawled from the SEA...

On abortion, she pointed at me and said, "What would YOU do if YOU got someone PREGNANT?! Would YOU support the child??? I informed her there were plenty of people willing to adopt the child; and, besides, even though I'm in my early forties, I have never been married, and do not believe in sex before marriage. I am a virgin, and NO one will get pregnant from me.

She was astonished --- that idea had never OCCURRED to her.

So vastly different were our value systems, that was as far as the conversation went. No common ground.

I consoled myself by going over to the "Pro-Life" booth and pointing my finger: "Who do YOU think YOU are to tell a woman what to do with her OWN BODY! Doesn't SHE have the right to control HERSELF? What gives you the right?" They smiled at me, and calmly answered, with eloquence. They always do --- the "Pro-Life" side is always calm and intelligent; the "Pro-Abortion" side is always angry and threatening.

Could you possibly be more biased?

The pro-life side who have bombed clinics, shot doctors and nurses and the volunteers who were helping women run the gauntlet of vicious, screaming Christians; the ones who put doctors and clinic workers faces on computer screens with x's through their faces after having been murdered, oh, and those calm, reasonable folks who think that life has no value when that life is that of a person who helps someone have an abortion, those are the folks who are always calm and reasonable to you?

Can you clone them. Your side needs more of them.
The ultimate difference between pro-choice and anti-abortionists is that the pro-choice folks aren't trying to force you to have an abortion, whereas the anti-abortionists always think they have the right to force someone else to have a child they don't want.


Lillith

 

[Lillithspeak]

I know I'm probably going to get blasted for this. But, here goes. It's obvious by many posts on these boards that there are many calloused, cold, people in this world. Who profess to care about human life, but support the destruction of a defensless life. I'm sickened by the whole thing. My children are the most beautiful, precious things to me. They've touched the lives of many around them. And to think that there are people out there that support snuffing that beauty and innocence out at will.

What really sickens me are those who say, "I wouldn't get an abortion, I don't agree with them. But I think a woman should have the right to choose."

If a women needs the right to choose, outlaw the practice and give her the right to choose an alley.

Is that yet another expression of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" propaganda? Which, is actually more like, "I revere all life so long as it conforms to my religious belief system, otherwise, go die in a back alley abortion, or become sterilized by the infections so there won't be any more babies at all." That's ctually the real Christian thinking from what I've seen.

Lillith

 

[Blindfaith]

Has anyone here who is pro-life condoned bombing an abortion clinic? I don't think so.

My point above is that if you aren't responsible enough to care for a child, maybe you aren't responsible enough to have sex, which has its own set of consequences.

 

[Knight]

Abstinence works every time it is tried.

 

[Lillithspeak]

"Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)




1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% -carelessness (selfishness)

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9% -carelessness (selfishness)

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% -carelessness (selfishness)

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% -carelessness (selfishness)

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% -carelessness (selfishness)

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2% - In the case of a minor carelessness by parents. (selfishness by the parents)

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3% (what? So killing the baby improves the chances of a healthy baby. Oh, I get it, it's that looking glass thinking.)

9. Other: 2.1%"


On the other part is there anywhere that states what types of situations other would fall under?

I'm not ridiculing you Vylo, just adding emphasis to the statistics. Good job.

While you arrogantly suggest that it's all carelessness, consider that the most effective form of birth control is only 99% effective, when it's the correct dose. Mine had to be adjusted 5 separate times in my childbearing years, so there were months and months where my birth control wasn't effective and I could have had an unwanted pregancy. The same is true for many, many other women. Your lack of knowledge regarding biology is astounding.

Lillith

 

[Lillithspeak]

Has anyone here who is pro-life condoned bombing an abortion clinic? I don't think so.

My point above is that if you aren't responsible enough to care for a child, maybe you aren't responsible enough to have sex, which has its own set of consequences.

Does that apply to those who are married and whose birth control failed? Or for those who cannot use the most effective means of birth control and so a lesser method failed? When they run out of the funds to support their numerous children will you pay the bills or just accuse them of being irresponsible?
Lillith

 

[Blindfaith]

First off, get rid of the angry attitude. Being in-your-face isn't going to help your position whatsoever.

Second, there is such a thing as adoption, but we all know that the mother would have to go through 9 months of inconvenience and another week of recovery. When you play you pay, and that includes birth control - it isn't always accurate.

I'm going to say this only once: Do not be insulting to any poster in any direct manner. If there can't be a discussion that is civil, without it becoming hostile or insulting, I'll shut this thing down, trash it and issue warnings.

Have I made myself clear?

 

[tcampen]

Second, there is such a thing as adoption, but we all know that the mother would have to go through 9 months of inconvenience and another week of recovery. When you play you pay, and that includes birth control - it isn't always accurate.

I don't disagree with your point that adoption should be an option more often explored, and even adoption costs be government subsidised to make it more accessable.

But I would take exception to the idea that 9 full months of pregnancy is a mere "inconvenience." My wife did not experience a mere "inconvenience" during her pregnancy, and I'm not aware of any other woman who would characterize their experience as such either. It is a life changing event - among the most dramatic a woman can go thru. It is often trying, difficult, emotional, and even extremely painful. But for the willing woman, also wonderful, exciting and fulfilling.

And "one week of recovery" may be true for a small minority of women, but no women I know were anywhere near their pre-pregnancy physical condition within a week, not even after several months. The process of childbirth can be, and often is, an extremely taxing event on the body. Remember that only in the last 100 years has giving birth not become a such risky event for the baby and the mother.

As a mother yourself, your pregnancy, birth and recovery must have been among the easiest I've ever heard, but I would not characterize your experience as the norm by any stretch. The assertion that pregnacy and birth is a mere "inconvenience" for a couple of months, and you're good as new a week after the birth with your child with new adoptive parents could send as destructive a message as the so called abortion due to the "inconvenience" of pregnancy idea.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your promotion of adoption over abortion, but rather your characterization of pregnancy and childbirth.

 

[Blindfaith]

tcampen, I think that you totally misunderstood me. I'm very sorry for not making myself more clearn.

When I said that there was 9 months of inconvenience, I was referring to a woman who believes it's easier to terminate the pregnancy rather than go through the 9 months of pregnancy and explore the possibility of adoption. Heck no, pregnancy isn't inconvenient! I can be pretty uncomfortable the last trimester, and kind of nauseating the first trimester, but nothing compares to holding that baby for the first time. Nothing.

And as far as a 1 week recovery? I guess in my situation with having 3 other children, with out last one I didn't have a choice but to get up and get moving . But if a woman doesn't take the necessary time to heal and recover, she's gonna crash a month down the road (me).

tcampen - I wouldn never simplify pregnancy or delivery. I consider pregnancy a partnership with God in bringing one of His new creations to life. Pretty amazing.

Adoption? Yes, I wish more people would look at that option as viable. My brother and I were adopted and we turned out okay {for the most part }

 

[Vylo]

Your lack of knowledge regarding biology is astounding

Before you go off on me, I am well aware of the limitations of birth control. However to quote you:

consider that the most effective form of birth control is only 99% effective, when it's the correct dose

ONLY 99%? 99% is pretty good odds.

Mine had to be adjusted 5 separate times in my childbearing years, so there were months and months where my birth control wasn't effective and I could have had an unwanted pregancy. The same is true for many, many other women.

I haven't had a chance to address this on these boards, please forgive me. In a case were a woman can prove she has taken proper precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancy then she should be allowed the option.

When they run out of the funds to support their numerous children will you pay the bills or just accuse them of being irresponsible?

If they cannot support the children, then they should give them up for adoption. If you have more then one unwanted child, perhaps that is a sign to keep in in your/his pants.

In the event of an unwanted child, and the parent can be proven to have used proper birth control, they should be given the options of:

A. Abortion

B. Government funded care during the pregnancy, and any rehabilition costs that may occur resulting from the pregnanch. The child after being born would become a ward of the state, and given up for adoption.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Cows are not human, insects are not human. Human fetuses are human. THEY ARE YOUR KIND. Show a bit of respect for humanity.

That's the fallacy of begging the question and poisoning the well. I have already refuted your position, just because you don't like my refutation changes nothing. Sometimes we have to accept things we don't like.

In any event its true cows are not human, but neither is a fetus in the important sense. If a fetus is human, then sperm cells and skin cells, and amputed arms are humans. All have the potential to become a person.

In any event a cow can probably feel more then a fetus and probably thinks more as well.

So what is your real basis for drawing the line? DNA?

Like I said my skin cells contain human DNA. So by scraping off some skin cells do I become a murderer?


By eating a walnut have I chopped down a tree?


Like I said it is a value judgement. And many, many religious people have no problem with abortion, so the Bible obviously isn'ty fully supporting one side or the other. Israel for example is very pro-choice. Do you think the Jews are simply ignorant of the Bible? Do you think they don't take the Bible seriously?


Again your only basis for argument is that the fetus has a soul and God doesn't want that fetus aborted (for whatever reason).

Something that is a matter of pure faith not even comvincingly supported by Scripture.

And for this you would hamper a women's future, our sexual freedom, and a woman's right to her own body and privacy.