Are you pro mutilation or anti mutilation?

[chaz345]

I'm in favor of the view that children should be seen as loved and welcome members of a family, not as "consequences." Forcing a woman to keep a child that she genuinely does not want or cannot provide for, or pushing that child off onto the overburdened and underregulated foster care system, does not strike me as an ideal situation for anyone involved.

This is a clearly unfounded position since the incidence of child neglect and the need for the foster care system has increased dramatically since the legalization of abortion. The whole "every child should be a wanted child so we must have legal abortion" mantra of the pro-choice side has been shown through this increase to be completely false.

 

[chaz345]

3. Unwanted babies are common even from married couples, indeed "I never wanted the kid in the first place" is the leading excuse among abusive parents, both married and unmarried

And the incidence of "I never wanted the kid" has actually increased since abortion became legal.

 

[Raewyn]

This is a clearly unfounded position since the incidence of child neglect and the need for the foster care system has increased dramatically since the legalization of abortion. The whole "every child should be a wanted child so we must have legal abortion" mantra of the pro-choice side has been shown through this increase to be completely false.

Not necessarily. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was enacted in 1974, one year after Roe v. Wade was decided. [source: w w w .childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/about.cfm]

CAPTA provides Federal funding to States in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities and also provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects. Additionally, CAPTA identifies the Federal role in supporting research, evaluation, technical assistance, and data collection activities; establishes the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect; and mandates Child Welfare Information Gateway. CAPTA also sets forth a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect.

Is it possible that the incidence of child abuse/neglect is about the same, except now it's caught more often and behavior that might not have been called child abuse/neglect before now is?

 

[levi501]

This is a clearly unfounded position since the incidence of child neglect and the need for the foster care system has increased dramatically since the legalization of abortion.

non sequitur

The whole "every child should be a wanted child so we must have legal abortion" mantra of the pro-choice side has been shown through this increase to be completely false.

no it hasn't.

 

[Shigatsu418]

A woman wants to abort a rape child? She should have thought of that before she walked down that dark alley without a male prescence, not to mention she should have thought before putting on revealing attire.

To whoever said this deserves to be punched in the face. You don't have to be dressed in revealing attire just to be raped, nor do you have to leave your house. People have been raped inside their own homes, right out in the open, not just in dark alley ways. So in order to not be raped you're telling me that I need to stay in my house all day and never leave and never wear anything that's even slightly revealing? Yea 'cause I'm sure you stay in your damn house 24/7.

I have a cousin who was raped and she didn't do anything wrong, didn't dress like a hooker, didn't do anything to purposly get herself into a bad situation so maybe you should keep your opinion to yourself you ignorant 'christian'

 

[purplekitty]

To "Uberbeliever":

You sicken me. If you had any form of intelligence (which you clearly don't), you would know that rape usually happens in the home, done at the hands of someone that the victim knew. You claim to be a follower of God, but I find it hard to believe that someone who believes in God would be so hateful.

I am a Catholic. I am Pro-Choice. Does that mean that I'm going to have an abortion? Probably not--If I was raped or my life was in danger, you bet I would. But otherwise...no. Does that mean I'd take away someone elses' right to do? NO WAY!

You know what the fantastic thing about choice is?
IT'S YOUR CHOICE.
If you don't want an abortion...guess what...YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE. I find it amazing that you people want to take away the rights of someone just because of what YOU believe in.

I also find it very interesting that you people threaten the good Doctors and Nurses that perform abortions and care for the patient afterwards with PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. Not very Christian-like, if you ask me. In fact, not Christian-like, at all. If I remember correctly, Jesus was kind to those who were considered to be "bad"--Prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, etc...

This entire thread is just confirmation of all the studies that prove that those who are liberal are more intelligent. Don't believe me? Do your research.

 

[PETE_]

I find it amazing that you people want to take away the rights of someone just because of what YOU believe in

It's not about taking away someone's rights. It is about making sure that someone's rights are not taken away...the child. At whatever point you believe there to be a child, it has rights, and no one has the right to take that life.

 

[Beccs]

It's not about taking away someone's rights. It is about making sure that someone's rights are not taken away...the child. At whatever point you believe there to be a child, it has rights, and no one has the right to take that life.

No one has the right to make a woman have a child that's forced upon her, either.

 

[PETE_]

No one has the right to make a woman have a child that's forced upon her, either.

It should not matter how the pregnacy came about. Once you believe that there is a child, whether it be conception, first brain waves, first heartbeat, able to survive on its own, or any other point, no one should have the right to kill it.

 

[happydance]

Above all else, I am pro-prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

Though abortion is a decision I will likely never make for myself, I believe it should be a legal and safe option available to women. . . The earlier in the pregnancy the better.

 

[Alexandrah]

I thought this was going to be a thread about circumcision!

(I'm against it, and consider it to be mutilation)

Oh well

 

[cantata]

I thought this was going to be a thread about circumcision!

(I'm against it, and consider it to be mutilation)

Oh well

Start a thread?

I'd be interested in a discussion about it.

 

[Madcoil]

So is there a choice where we can kill the mother, father and the baby AFTER the baby was born?

 

[sago]

K, first post, sorry if we're done to death here. In the interests of disclosure I would be firmly pro-choice in US political terms (I'm not Amercian).

The problem with this debate is that both sides paint the other with extreme viewpoints and then noisly bash each other. Unfortunately there are the odd people with such monstrous extreme viewpoints, but they do have a habit of clouding the debate.

The abortion issue is one of drawing a line.

Nobody (but the genuinely insane, I guess) would avocate allowing an abortion to a woman at the onset of full-term labor because she just decided she didn't want to have the baby.

Similarly nobody sane would advocate not-intervening in an ectopic pregnancy. Under this definition Uber would qualify as insane, but let's not remember that there are many uneducated people who don't understand this kind of stuff and who think that any argument posed by someone with an opposing viewpoint must be antagonistic by default.

Nobody of either side I've ever met has ever claimed that abortions are fun, great for society and should be encouraged. This is one you see by some conservative writers of the ilk "liberals want to see as many abortions as possible".

I would guess that almost to a person, people on both sides of the debate see abortions as a tragedy.

Like I said I'm in favour of safe legal abortions.

But lets get real about the debate. Since abortion was legalised the proportion of abortions given to rape victims is vanishingly small. In those nations that keep statistics on these things the number of abortions on fetuses that were unviable or would suffer from horrendous physical or mental deformities is also very small.

Those of us who are pro-choice shouldn't pretend like rape victims and the extremely disabled constitute anything but a vanishingly small proportion of the number of aborted pregnancies.

If, for example, that was the only issue that pro-choice folks were concerned about, it would be very possible to create a legal framework to allow those extreme case interventions while making the vast majority of abortions illegal. Clearly this isn't the argument.

So does anybody want to have a real debate about this? Here are some axes, on which lines should be drawn.

The axis of development: from a pair of unfertilized gametes to a full-term baby. The axis of the child's health: from a fetus that couldn't possibly survive to one that is entirely healthy. The axis of health (including mental health if you value this): from a pregnancy that we're certain would kill the mother to one that would have no ill effects. The axis of circumstance: from a pregnancy arising from a incestuous rape to one conceived in a stable and normal relationship.

Why and where do you draw the line in each case?

My intuition is that the overwhelming majority of people would want to draw a line in each of those axis, not at the ends. So where, and most importantly why?

In fact even in countries where abortion is entirely illegal, medical treatments are allowed that terminate the pregnancy process within all but the last of those axes.

 

[cantata]

But lets get real about the debate. Since abortion was legalised the proportion of abortions given to rape victims is vanishingly small. In those nations that keep statistics on these things the number of abortions on fetuses that were unviable or would suffer from horrendous physical or mental deformities is also very small.

Those of us who are pro-choice shouldn't pretend like rape victims and the extremely disabled constitute anything but a vanishingly small proportion of the number of aborted pregnancies.

I agree with you.

However, just a small point: I think the reason that these issues are frequently brought up by the pro-choice side is to remind pro-life people that whatever your position on 'voluntary' abortions, so to speak, there is and always will be a need to have some abortions - in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or when she simply cannot mentally tolerate giving birth to her attacker's offspring. No one is claiming (or should be claiming) that these individuals make up a significant proportion of abortion patients; we simply wish to highlight that there will always be valid reasons for performing some abortions, and that hence an absolutely-no-way stance on abortion is not viable.

 

[sago]

Cantata, Happy Birthday. Thanks for pointing out that - I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I think that absolutely-no-way is the kind of position one reverses into rather than takes up by choice. It is very rare in my experience to find a pro-life supporter, who understands what they're talking about, arguing against medical intervention in an ectopic pregnancy, for example. The power of the internet allows us to track them down, of course, and we can levitate them to troll status without actually moving the debate on.

Us pro-choicers are all too keen to run for the 'rape and unviable' fort, and that confuses the issues. If rape-and-unviable was all we were concerned with, we could abolish access to abortion except in these circumstances very easily. It would get overwhelming pro-life support.

I think us pro-choicers are being disingenuous playing that card, because that's not the real issue for us. And we do it because we're uncomfortable bringing the real issues out in the open.

The vast majority (but of course, not all) of abortions are carried out on healthy fetuses that have resulted from sex outside of a long-term stable relationship where poor contraception was practiced. If we support abortion-access we shouldn't pretend it is otherwise. And we must be willing to make the argument that in such cases the abortion is morally justified.

IMHO, of course.

 

[cantata]

Us pro-choicers are all too keen to run for the 'rape and unviable' fort, and that confuses the issues. If rape-and-unviable was all we were concerned with, we could abolish access to abortion except in these circumstances very easily. It would get overwhelming pro-life support.

I think us pro-choicers are being disingenuous playing that card, because that's not the real issue for us. And we do it because we're uncomfortable bringing the real issues out in the open.

The vast majority (but of course, not all) of abortions are carried out on healthy fetuses that have resulted from sex outside of a long-term stable relationship where poor contraception was practiced. If we support abortion-access we shouldn't pretend it is otherwise. And we must be willing to make the argument that in such cases the abortion is morally justified.

Great post - I'd rep you again if I could

Of course, this makes a lot of sense; as a pro-choicer, I believe that there are excellent reasons for permitting women abortions in cases where it is not medically necessary and the pregnancy is not the result of rape, but as you say, these two examples get wheeled out over and over again where a better case really needs to be made for all the other circumstances where a woman might desire an abortion.

You'll get to know that I harp on about this a lot, but I see a certain similarity here between people who argue in favour of abortion from this position of appealing to a highly emotive minority, and people who argue in favour of gay rights from the "They can't help it" angle There are better, and more important, arguments to be made in both debates.

 

[levi501]

Us pro-choicers are all too keen to run for the 'rape and unviable' fort, and that confuses the issues. If rape-and-unviable was all we were concerned with, we could abolish access to abortion except in these circumstances very easily. It would get overwhelming pro-life support.

I think us pro-choicers are being disingenuous playing that card, because that's not the real issue for us. And we do it because we're uncomfortable bringing the real issues out in the open.

I don't quite agree.

All too often in abortion debates anti-choicers will unfortunately resort to, "take responsibility for your actions" bit. This suggests that a woman should be required to have the child because she chose to have sex. This isn't a valid reason for being pro-life and to point that out non-consensual sex is mentioned to test that. Obviously an unborn human's right to life shouldn't hinge on whether sex was consensual or not. It's simply brought up or discussed to get those with faulty reasoning back on the topic at hand, which IMO is... whether a fetus by it's nature has the right to live inside another without her permission.

I do agree that people get far too distracted with discussions on non-consensual sex or "personhood" debates where there's some attempt to draw an arbitrary line. I think they all clowd what the discussion should truly be about... a woman's right to bodily intergrity.

 

[sago]

Good points cantata, levi501. Cantata - good analogy with the homosexual debate.

> Obviously an unborn human's right to life shouldn't hinge on whether sex was consensual or not.

The problem of the 'obviously' is really my point. We can't always agree on the criteria we use to draw these lines. For some people certain criteria are crucial, for others they are irrelevant.

As long as we try to force certain criteria out of the debate we're going to be constantly going cross-purposes. Attacking straw-men extremities, and getting ever more frustrated when the other side don't see sense.

I agree with you levi that intent isn't a criteria that I think should be important, but I can see how it would be to someone else and I think it is counter productive to try to ridicule that when trying to debate the issue.

 

[PETE_]

Should not the criteria be --When is there a life?