When does pro-choice become pro-abortion?

[gerryh]

What you are asking for is the impossible.

Using that reasoning, someone who gets an STD outside of a monogamous wedded relationship should be denied public healthcare (or they should prove to the doctor that they didn't have an affair) since they are responsible for their actions. Or the vasectomy and hysterectomy patients should be denied public healthcare since someone feels everyone must be abstinent or pay the consequences. Lets go back to outlawing contraception since someone says everyone must be abstinent or pay the consequences. What possible reason could there be for having any public funding of sexual health when all we need are HeeHaw doctors:

"Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this."

"Well don't do that!"

We could use that standard for just about anything. No one needs to ski or go tubing yet everyone does so risking injury. Should we deny them public heallthcare because "everyone should be responsible and not do it?"

Sorry Gerry, too many slippery slopes when the responsibility police decide who gets what. And since "God" gave us the biological urge to have sex I'm not going to judge people by what they do and when they do it in the bedroom.

WOW.......where did that all come from?????????????????????? I never said anything about outlawing contraceptives. Never have I said that contraceptives should not be used. I have always maintained that people should take responsibility for their actions. Since contraceptives are NOT 100% effective then people should be responsible enough to take responsibility for the pregnancy that COULD happen. Killing the baby is NOT a responsible action. If someone does NOT want to take responsibility for a baby, then the option is abstinance. Abstinance is not the ONLY option, but if any other option is chosen, then everyone knows what the potential consequence is.


I do not judge anyone for what they do in or out of the bedroom when it comes to sex, recreational or otherwise. What I abhor is someone that will not take responsibility for their actions.

 

[tracy]

and we're back to taking responsibility for ones actions.

Choosing an abortion is taking responsibility. That's a woman choosing to do what's best for her at the time and it may very well be best for everyone concerned. You don't know what drives a woman to abort. It's easy to say "just put it up for adoption"... That doesn't always work out if your newborn isn't perfectly healthy (and oftentimes the right race). It also isn't somthing our society encourages. Those women are often portrayed as horrible people for abandonning their babies. My own birth mom sought counselling for depression relating to the whole experience of putting me up for adoption.

 

[Kreskin]

WOW.......where did that all come from?????????????????????? I never said anything about outlawing contraceptives. Never have I said that contraceptives should not be used. I have always maintained that people should take responsibility for their actions. Since contraceptives are NOT 100% effective then people should be responsible enough to take responsibility for the pregnancy that COULD happen. Killing the baby is NOT a responsible action. If someone does NOT want to take responsibility for a baby, then the option is abstinance. Abstinance is not the ONLY option, but if any other option is chosen, then everyone knows what the potential consequence is.


I do not judge anyone for what they do in or out of the bedroom when it comes to sex, recreational or otherwise. What I abhor is someone that will not take responsibility for their actions.

If someone doesn't want to take responsibility for their broken arm they shouldn't ski. Why just hold one segment of society to this standard? There is plenty of that to go around if that is the standard we intend to use.

And as Tracy said, most often the responsible thing is the decision made by the woman.

 

[Hathor]

Choosing an abortion is taking responsibility. That's a woman choosing to do what's best for her at the time and it may very well be best for everyone concerned. You don't know what drives a woman to abort. It's easy to say "just put it up for adoption"... That doesn't always work out if your newborn isn't perfectly healthy (and oftentimes the right race). It also isn't somthing our society encourages. Those women are often portrayed as horrible people for abandonning their babies. My own birth mom sought counselling for depression relating to the whole experience of putting me up for adoption.

there are so many families, unable to reproduce on their own, looking for a child. yes they may not want a baby of a certain race or one with health issues, but there are many who would accept any child regardless. i think that a mother should at least put a teensy bit of effort into finding out if anyone wants her baby, before she decides to up and kill it. and why should it have birth defects/health problems? maybe because...she was drinking or on drugs during pregnancy? I'm sure she's such a responsible young lady, that's impossible. (yes I know that not all birth problems are caused by substance abuse during pregnancy, but all the partying MIGHT not help the baby overly)
when the baby is born, no one can force her to look after it, can they? it will go to a foster home or something if no one wants it, and she can be free of it. and if she has psychological issues later becasue of it, that sucks but its better that shes a little sad than that the baby never existed to be put up for adoption, isn't it? to me, abortion is the easy way out for too many self-absorbed, careless women. I cannot respect that choice, but I know that I cannot understand her suffering (what, I'll have all sorts of stretch marks and sagging??!). all I know is that I could never, ever kill that 'cluster of cells' living inside me. it is completely unnatural and goes against every instinct a woman should have, I think

 

[Zzarchov]

Oh really Hathor?

Ever tried to put a mentally disabled baby up for adoption (Even if you'd planned to do so from the moment you found out you had conceived).

They don't take em in, because no one wants to adopt a kid with that condition. I can't blame them, taking care of a person with a toddlers mental capacity and the strength of a 24 year old man while you are starting to grey and get frail isn't something most people want to endure.

There are times you just can't put your kid up for adoption.

 

[Hathor]

there are peole who will take that kid in, I know, because I have close relatives that foster people with severe mental problems. but that isn't the point. there are group homes and stuff, think about it, if a mentally challenged baby is born and the mother dies, there are no relatives in the picture, what do they do with the child? they must do something. if she does not want to take care of the child it's pretty damn unlikely that she'll be forced to. and also, when we talk about abortion, we are talknig about normal, healthy children, yes there may be the odd exception, but how can you say 'well, I guess I'll kill this baby now because it might turn out retarded and someone might not want it.' because by the time the defects would start showing, it's likely that its past the time when abortion is legal. with mental disabilities it may be hard to tell until well after the child is born.

 

[tracy]

there are peole who will take that kid in, I know, because I have close relatives that foster people with severe mental problems. but that isn't the point. there are group homes and stuff, think about it, if a mentally challenged baby is born and the mother dies, there are no relatives in the picture, what do they do with the child? they must do something. if she does not want to take care of the child it's pretty damn unlikely that she'll be forced to. and also, when we talk about abortion, we are talknig about normal, healthy children, yes there may be the odd exception, but how can you say 'well, I guess I'll kill this baby now because it might turn out retarded and someone might not want it.' because by the time the defects would start showing, it's likely that its past the time when abortion is legal. with mental disabilities it may be hard to tell until well after the child is born.

We have two kids in our unit right now who can't find homes. No one wants to foster them. Don't tell me the merciful thing is to let them languish in a group home. I'd rather be dead than live like some children I see.

BTW, many chromosomal abnormalities like Down's Syndrome are able to be diagnosed early in the pregnancy. The funny thing is even though half of the people in our country say they are against abortion, over 90% of in utero diagnoses of Down's syndrome result in termination of the pregnancy. Either only pro-choice people have babies with Down's syndrome or a lot of pro-life people change their mind when it happens to them. Suddenly abortion may be the right choice sometimes... It's hypocritical to judge a woman who decides to abort based on other reasons when most people would do it under circumstances they judge to be acceptable.

 

[tracy]

there are so many families, unable to reproduce on their own, looking for a child. yes they may not want a baby of a certain race or one with health issues, but there are many who would accept any child regardless. i think that a mother should at least put a teensy bit of effort into finding out if anyone wants her baby, before she decides to up and kill it. and why should it have birth defects/health problems? maybe because...she was drinking or on drugs during pregnancy? I'm sure she's such a responsible young lady, that's impossible. (yes I know that not all birth problems are caused by substance abuse during pregnancy, but all the partying MIGHT not help the baby overly)
when the baby is born, no one can force her to look after it, can they? it will go to a foster home or something if no one wants it, and she can be free of it. and if she has psychological issues later becasue of it, that sucks but its better that shes a little sad than that the baby never existed to be put up for adoption, isn't it? to me, abortion is the easy way out for too many self-absorbed, careless women. I cannot respect that choice, but I know that I cannot understand her suffering (what, I'll have all sorts of stretch marks and sagging??!). all I know is that I could never, ever kill that 'cluster of cells' living inside me. it is completely unnatural and goes against every instinct a woman should have, I think

They can't make an effort to see if someone would adopt their baby unless they go too long in the pregnancy and that basically removes the possibility for abortion.

Sometimes sure, they are drinking and doing drugs in their pregnancy. I could argue it's better to abort than make a child face a lifetime of foster care with fetal alcohol syndrome. Though, most of the children I look after are here through no fault of their mother's. It's unfortunate that people have the perception that a messed up baby is automatically the mother's fault. They have enough guilt already.

If you think every woman who terminates a pregnancy is doing it to keep partying or avoid stretch marks then you really don't want to understand. I sincerely hope nothing ever happens in your life to challenge your feelings that you could never abort. I've seen such horrible cases in my work that I know for a fact there are certain conditions under which I would choose abortion. I think it's the more merciful choice sometimes. I don't think I'd ever do it for convinience sake, but even that hasn't really been tested. Had I been pregnant at 17, I'd like to say I would have chosen adoption, but I really don't know because it didn't happen.

 

[amagqira]

I have been following the discussion with interest and find myself most closely allied with Tracy. It is very seldom that any choice is in terms of black or white, most often choices are not clearcut and it ends up deciding between the best of two bad choices. My daughter told me this past week that she had an abortion several years ago and the anguish and sorrow she still felt, was palpable and real. My heart went out to her and I silently wept with her.

I have long ago accepted that a fetus is a person and that having an abortion is tantamout to killing a live person. The legal position in Canada that a fetus is not a person is a convenient way of legalising an abortion and IMHO a fraudulent argument, but it serves an important purpose. It is a legal sidestep and does in no way change the fact that a fetus is a person. I remember the furore causes by the case in the USA when a decision had to be made as to whether a woman who was severely brain damaged (? Schiavo) could be starved to death. I could equally argue that she was also a bunch of tissue and nothing more - problem is that we then enter the minefield of euthanasia and nobody wants to go there.

If more than 30 years of working in the health sector has taught me anything, it would be compassion and respect for the tough personal decisions people have to make and not to use personal beliefs to influence the way I treat people. I believe in working within the realms of what is scientifically possible and sensible and accept that boundaries will change continiously.

No, I do not believe that charging somebody for a double murder (mother and fetus) makes any practical sense whatsoever. Whilst I sympathise, I find it difficult to accept the argument that when the mother has decided that a fetus is a person, that a double murder charge serves any purpose whatsoever. It merely muddies the waters.

 

[Kreskin]

there are peole who will take that kid in, I know, because I have close relatives that foster people with severe mental problems. but that isn't the point. there are group homes and stuff, think about it, if a mentally challenged baby is born and the mother dies, there are no relatives in the picture, what do they do with the child? they must do something. if she does not want to take care of the child it's pretty damn unlikely that she'll be forced to. and also, when we talk about abortion, we are talknig about normal, healthy children, yes there may be the odd exception, but how can you say 'well, I guess I'll kill this baby now because it might turn out retarded and someone might not want it.' because by the time the defects would start showing, it's likely that its past the time when abortion is legal. with mental disabilities it may be hard to tell until well after the child is born.

The pre-Morgantaler years were the times of orphanages and overcrowded mental hospitals. Adopting everyone didn't work and there are plenty of orphanage horror stories. To have that kind of society again because a woman is forced to give birth serves only one good - the chance for organized religion to secure a captive audience. Ever wonder why most of them were run by religious groups?

 

[jimshort19]

Kreskin, "Adopting everyone didn't work..."

Even the image of adoption is difficult. Boorocracy, lawyers, time, money, frustration, failure. After we fix adoption we will have a better option in it. Quite aside from whether we should have the readily available choice of taking the fetus off of life support before it is born, why not have the readily available choice of adoption? Is there really a baby shortage in this world, and if so, what is causing it?

Enhanced baby distribution, lower transaction costs, 20 minutes or it's free sort of idea. We could fix adoption as a prime alternative human husbandry method, topping up the otherwise unsustainable social system with home grown taxpayers, rather than importing pre-finished foreigners.

But of course we must hire a league of spin doctors to make it sound all nice and smarmy.

 

[Zzarchov]

there are peole who will take that kid in, I know, because I have close relatives that foster people with severe mental problems. but that isn't the point. there are group homes and stuff, think about it, if a mentally challenged baby is born and the mother dies, there are no relatives in the picture, what do they do with the child? they must do something. if she does not want to take care of the child it's pretty damn unlikely that she'll be forced to. and also, when we talk about abortion, we are talknig about normal, healthy children, yes there may be the odd exception, but how can you say 'well, I guess I'll kill this baby now because it might turn out retarded and someone might not want it.' because by the time the defects would start showing, it's likely that its past the time when abortion is legal. with mental disabilities it may be hard to tell until well after the child is born.

You act like not giving a lump of cells life is depriving someone of some joy. Everytime a man ejaculates or a woman has her period a bunch of potential humans now will never be.

There are already too many people on this planet, keeping there from being more (through abstinence, contraception or even abortion) is not some great crime.

We know that with birth control and adoption that crime rates drop, and part of that is the end of forcing a kid to grow up where no body wants him (its also the reason we have too few rather than a surplus of children)

 

[Kreskin]

I personally can't get past denying people the right to decide their own destiny. Rights don't stop immediately after sex and get put on hold for 9 months. Forcing people to deliver children is draconian.

 

[jimshort19]

Zzarchov, "Everytime a man ejaculates or a woman has her period a bunch of potential humans now will never be.

Zzarchove, what kind of man are you? Have you no morals?

Save the sperm! Save the eggs! Save the stem cells! Save the ideas!

 

[Kreskin]

Zzarchov, "Everytime a man ejaculates or a woman has her period a bunch of potential humans now will never be.

Zzarchove, what kind of man are you? Have you no morals?

Save the sperm! Save the eggs! Save the stem cells! Save the ideas!

It should be illegal to ejaculate unless it is for the sole purpose of fathering children. Men are responsible for their ejaculate and must pay the consequences for denying life to their gametes. The only exception for those with massive sperm build up would be to visit a sperm bank, but when doing so they can't look at pornographic materials. They can only think happy life giving thoughts.

 

[jimshort19]

Kreskin, "The only exception for those with massive sperm build up..."

MSB is a matter of utmost seriosity, too often dismissed by cynical nymphs with large breasts.

Consider that the average hooker literally spits out over 10 lbs of life-giving spunk every year. That is over one million people. This is genocide. And who is to blame? Is it the woman or the other woman? The government?

Consider the Christian fundamentalist view: swallowing is cannibalism.

 

[Outta here]

MSB is a matter of utmost seriosity, too often dismissed by cynical nymphs with large breasts.

ahem. Please don't underestimate the amazing counteractive measures taken by we the nymphs of the optimistic persuasion - (possibly due to less positive energy being expended upon upholding larger than necessary breast endowment.) :wink:

Consider that the average hooker literally spits out over 10 lbs of life-giving spunk every year. That is over one million people. This is genocide. And who is to blame? Is it the woman or the other woman? The government?

ermm... Genocide? I would have thought that would be spermicide... *groan*

Consider the Christian fundamentalist view: swallowing is cannibalism.

lolll :lol::lol:

 

[gerryh]

Infanticide is infanticide, wheher it be the mother, the doctor, or all the small minded idiots that support abortion. All are just as guilty. All are no better than Clifford Olson and his ilk.

 

[Hathor]

ok you guys are right there, i wasn't really considering the suffering htat the mother is preventing in SOME cases. if your baby is going to be dependent on others for the restof its life, if it is going to be unable to function as a member of society, then i cannot say that the mother is doing something wrong. but i know kids who have birth defects and yeah, they are a little screwed up, but they can live happy lives. if they are going to be a little slow, that cannot be an acceptable excuse to kill it. and you cannot possibly say to me that every woman wanting to abort has a baby with any health problems. perfectly healthy babies are killed everyday. i am not actually saying here that abortion should be made illegal. not at all. im just saying htat i think it is completely wrong, and that (i'm not trying to be noble here or anything) i know that i could never abort a healthy fetus that was growing inside me. I made htat decision a long time ago, that however young i was, however much it was not my fault, however it would screw up my education, i would give birth to it. and have a hard time giving it up, as well. it just doesnt seem possible to me.
i think that from the moment of conception, a baby is a baby. not from the moment the sperm or eggs are produced, but the time that they meet and create a fetus. anything you want to do to keep them apart, go ahead, but they get together and make a baby, you are stuck with it, unless oyu can legitimately say that you are saving the baby from a life of agony etc etc.

 

[jimshort19]

Hathor, "if your baby is going to be dependent on others for the restof its life, if it is going to be unable to function as a member of society, then i cannot say that the mother is doing something wrong..."

What you say fundies do decry as moral relativism, but morality is sensitive to circumstance and especially to the comparative dilemma of two evils. You'd tell a lie to the Gestappo to save Anne Frank. Did you really lie, or did your actions tell the truth well enough? And the one who turned Anne over, who but a Pharisee would approve, who but a rabid fundamentalist?

But an important line has been crossed, and you have abstained from the jury, and this is not allowed in the court. It is thumbs up or thumbs down when you enter into this matter of life. Nobody can stay clean. You are trying to duck the Lord, bury your talents, be neither hot nor cold - but you must do, and do the lesser of evils. You have willingly put yourself to the test.

Therefore make no haste to judge another, because you will be judging yourself. You are not wrong to abstain from error when you abstain from judgement of the mother. Only then may you sit on the fence and be judged as moderate. And wise.