Abortion: What's your opinion?

[machievelli]

All of the negatives about prostitutes are moral complaints, usually not even medical onee. I thought the way they handled 'the Girl Next store' with the nice girl who just ha[ppened to make money that way, sounded good.

[Jae Onasi]

Ultra-conservatives don't want safe sex taught in school (and I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching it at home either). I don't think it's reasonable to expect young women that are intentionally left in the dark to accept consequences that they can't foresee.

 

Jae goes off on a soap-boxy kind of rant....

 

Actually, ultra-conservatives do talk about it with their kids, but the emphasis is on abstinence, which is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. We feel how it's currently taught in school is actually encouraging promiscuity to some degree because there's little or no discussion of abstinence. I don't understand why it's so difficult to say in sex ed class "You know, if you don't do it at all, you're not going to get pregnant and you're not going to get a nasty disease." It almost looks like the curriculum is saying "Oh, we know you're all hormonal teenagers who are going to screw anything that's not nailed down, have at it, just do it with a condom and here's how to apply it. Oh, and if you get pregnant, here's the nice lady from the local abortion clinic (who's waiting to take your dollars and/or state funding) who will take care of your 'little oops'. She'll tell you all about how it's not that big of a deal, and here's how to get help so you don't even have to tell your parents!!!" Yes, I did have public school sex ed, before you all howl at me that it doesn't work that way....

 

We don't like the casual attitude towards sex that permeates our culture--it's something special, not a romp with whoever you feel like 'hooking up' with this week. It has important emotional and potential physical effects that shouldn't be taken lightly. We want it couched within the context of marriage, and we do talk about birth control since it's important for family planning. We talk about STDs because it happens and the topic needs to get addressed so we have good info. We also talk about abortion, especially since it's a hot topic, but we don't gloss over the realities--it comes with some health risks and emotional/guilt risks. We want our kids to know just what the procedure does to both mother and baby, and that's something played way down if it's even taught at all in the public setting. We discuss right and wrong approaches on this topic (bombing clinics is bad, helping women in crisis pregnancies or who have had abortions in the past and are having trouble dealing with it is good)

 

We're not idiots on sex--we know that kids (and adults ) can and do have their hormones/emotions get the better of them, and they're not always going to be abstinent. However, we want them to know that they can be abstinent, and they have support for that philosophy from some of the people around them.

[Allronix]

Warning: This is the rant of a Socialist and Pagan, raised by a mom who did the paperwork for an OB/GYN clinic. My brother in law is a school teacher in a low-income district with many "at risk" families, and my spirit-sister is a widow on disability trying to raise a kid alone. Therefore, the opinions below are blunt and more than a little insulting in places.

 

First of all, a lot of the arguments against abortion are based in religion. Now, seeing as I am a non-Christian in the US, I'm already worried about the enroachment of a church I don't worship getting to call the shots on laws I have to follow. This is also my quibble regarding gay rights as well. My faith does not have a problem with it, but the politicians in the US almost always have to give lip-service to the Christian faith to get votes. Your church can say all it likes about the topic. If your faith forbids it, then by all means follow your conscience. However, not everyone to goes to your church/mosque/temple and you should not expect them to follow your faith's strictures.

 

And tied into the religious argument is a VERY crass observation I made some years ago. Most of the "pro-lifers" I've run across don't appear to care about the woman in question, and once the baby's born, they don't care about the baby either. Therefore, I concluded a while back that they aren't really in to to "save kids." It's all about turning a "bad" (read: sexually active) woman and turn her into a "good wife/mommy," since their religion views sex - even within marriage - as shameful unless it's for the express purpose of baby-building. (And here's where I express annoyance at St. Augustine for popularizing the notion). Catholic dogma is STILL expressing this view.

 

And you notice that the people who are screaming loudest against abortion are also the ones picketing the school, wanting to reduce sex ed to "cross your legs until your wedding night?" They're also that pharmacist who won't do his job and stock birth control pills and the "health insurance" companies that will pay out the nose for Viagra but not birth control pills, depo shots, or the IUD. Study after study has proven that the "abstinence only" approach DOES NOT WORK! They postpone sex for anywhere to 6-18 months, on average, but it will not stop them from having sex. Hell, going back 60 years or more, 9 out of 10 Americans still have sex outside of marriage. Yet, the young people who need birth control the most either doesn't know that it's effective (since they've only been told an exaggerated failure rate) or can't get it. If you don't want abortion, then why the hell aren't you screaming with us "baby killing" pro-choicers about getting COMPREHENSIVE sex-ed and readily availible birth control?

 

Oh, and as for personal experience? The young ones who were told up-front about sex and knew they could get contraception were not the ones who wound up being pregnant at 16. The kids who were never told anything about sex other than "don't do it" were the ones who were searching for a pregnancy test. This is why Mom gave my twin and I "the talk" when we were 5, and made sure we were well-read. The early and blunt education was one of the main reasons I held off on sex until I could afford contraception...as in, my early 20's. My nieces are 20 and 17 and they STILL hold off because they were told the facts early and often.

 

Adoption? Child Protection services are overloaded and overbooked as is. The caseworkers get paid as much as a drugstore clerk and are treated with less respect. Plus, IVF and other reproductive technologies pretty much kill the demand. Why take in someone else's kid when you can have a little bundle of joy with YOUR genetics? Sad to say, the "It's MY genetics" is the primary reason most people want a kid in the first place. Plus, if the kid is the "wrong" race, has a birth defect, etc. then it's pretty much condemned to Foster Care Hell. So, we can pretty much write off that "feel good" option.

 

Now, in the US, we have overcrowded and poor-quality schools coupled with a health system that can't find its rump with a GPS. We work more hours than the Japanese at jobs that are much less stable and pay much less than our parents' jobs. Over 2/3 of the people showing up at soup kitchens and food banks are parents with full-time jobs. How are you expecting those kids to be fed, housed, educated, get access to a physician, and have a good job waiting for them when they come of age?

 

There's also the matter that human overpopulation is a problem. We're killing ourselves over lack of clean water, food, and shelter. We're using up and wearing out Nature at a faster rate than she can replenish. We need contraception. We need to slow our birth rate and find methods other than that Ponzi scheme (social security or elder pensions) to sustain our aged. Bottom line is that fewer humans will relax the burden we place on our resources.

 

So, bottom line. Keep it safe, keep it legal, but work harder on making it the LAST resort.

 

References:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16287113/?GT1=8816&print=1&displaymode=1098 - Even Grandma had premarital sex

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/ - Doctors denounce abstinence-only education

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm - Impact of abstinence-only education, state by state

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/STDs/tb/2443 - Abstinence-Only Programs May Withhold Valuable Health Information

http://www.foodbankmoc.org/Hunger.htm - Stats on the working poor

[lukeiamyourdad]

This is an old sex survey done by durex, a condom making company.

 

http://www.durex.com/CA/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=391&intMenuOpen=9

 

Interesting data and I haven't detected a "use durex condoms" message.

 

An interesting correlation is between the age of sex ed in Germany and their percentage of safe sex. They do have sex earlier, but the difference between most developed country is relatively small.

 

On the opposite side, India and Vietnam who give sex ed at a later time seem more prone to unprotected sex. It actually makes sense, as having been in Vietnam, I've seen 25 years old guy who still act like retarded teenagers when it comes to sex, while here in Canada, I've noticed much more maturity.

[Achilles]

Hmmm, I'm torn biblicly I shouldnt agree with abortion however I'm definatly in favour of any woman who is the victim of rape, incest or child abuse HAVING THE CHOICE of if she wants an abortion. I also agree that if people are going to have them its better to have abortion legalised than backstreet. And I would rather it was legalised and safe than illegal and highly risky.

Then it sounds like we're in agreement.

 

No my Greek Friend. What i am saying is that if you play russian roulette, it is not mine or societies fault if you blow your brains out. A lot of those who use abortion as a cure end up having the state (As in you or I) paying for it.

I think your analogy is slightly off-topic. Usually those playing russian roulette understand the potential consequence of their actions. In other words, it seems you're basing your argument about abortion on the assumption that all women have been properly educated about sex and/or specifically safe sex. Many religions (and surveys show that most of the world is religious) admonish sex education in favor of an "abstience only" approach. I'm all for abstinence only but only when you're offering it as an alternative. Otherwise it's a form of bait-and-switch.

 

I do not at any time suggest this is a woman's fault. If you have a woman rip the condim off and throw it away as I had happen once, it is her fault. If the guy refuses to wear one it is her fault only in that she allowed him to procced. I blame the guy for being such a wuss

And I'm familiar with situations in which the condom broke, resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. Do you want to compare anecdotes or do you want to debate the issue?

 

 

Jae goes off on a soap-boxy kind of rant....

 

Actually, ultra-conservatives do talk about it with their kids, but the emphasis is on abstinence, which is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. We feel how it's currently taught in school is actually encouraging promiscuity to some degree because there's little or no discussion of abstinence. I don't understand why it's so difficult to say in sex ed class "You know, if you don't do it at all, you're not going to get pregnant and you're not going to get a nasty disease." It almost looks like the curriculum is saying "Oh, we know you're all hormonal teenagers who are going to screw anything that's not nailed down, have at it, just do it with a condom and here's how to apply it. Oh, and if you get pregnant, here's the nice lady from the local abortion clinic (who's waiting to take your dollars and/or state funding) who will take care of your 'little oops'. She'll tell you all about how it's not that big of a deal, and here's how to get help so you don't even have to tell your parents!!!" Yes, I did have public school sex ed, before you all howl at me that it doesn't work that way....

 

Really? Do you have examples? Let's try a little logic exercise:

 

Public schools should not teach safe sex because:

 

A) It promotes promiscuity

B) It is not the school's place to do so

C) It reenforces the message promoted by parents at home

 

Which of these do you think is The Right's documented argument for opposing safe sex ed in public schools? If you do it differently in your home, then great, however realize that you seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

PS: Just so I'm not accused of using the begging the question fallacy, I submit that the answer is A.

 

We don't like the casual attitude towards sex that permeates our culture--it's something special, not a romp with whoever you feel like 'hooking up' with this week. It has important emotional and potential physical effects that shouldn't be taken lightly. We want it couched within the context of marriage, and we do talk about birth control since it's important for family planning. We talk about STDs because it happens and the topic needs to get addressed so we have good info. We also talk about abortion, especially since it's a hot topic, but we don't gloss over the realities--it comes with some health risks and emotional/guilt risks. We want our kids to know just what the procedure does to both mother and baby, and that's something played way down if it's even taught at all in the public setting. We discuss right and wrong approaches on this topic (bombing clinics is bad, helping women in crisis pregnancies or who have had abortions in the past and are having trouble dealing with it is good)

Just so I'm clear is this the same culture that glorifies violence while vilifying sex? FWIW, I submit that one of these things is a natural process while the other is not. My 2 cents. I also submit that I can find many more examples of how our culture supports casual violence than it does casual sex.

 

I agree that sex is a emotional, physical, and spiritual experience that should be taken seriously and context should be provided by parents. The unfortunate reality is that this does not always happen. Problem? Yes. Is abortion the answer? Not always. My argument is simply that if no one has provided the context than the woman should not be held responsible for a "bad" decision. She was not given the prerequisites necessary to make a responsible decision. Kill all the embryos? No, but give the women a choice without the unnecessary stigma provided by the right.

[machievelli]

Then it sounds like we're in agreement.

 

I think your analogy is slightly off-topic. Usually those playing russian roulette understand the potential consequence of their actions. In other words, it seems you're basing your argument about abortion on the assumption that all women have been properly educated about sex and/or specifically safe sex. Many religions (and surveys show that most of the world is religious) admonish sex education in favor of an "abstience only" approach. I'm all for abstinence only but only when you're offering it as an alternative. Otherwise it's a form of bait-and-switch.

 

And I'm familiar with situations in which the condom broke, resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. Do you want to compare anecdotes or do you want to debate the issue?

 

 

 

a "bad" decision. She was not given the prerequisites necessary to make a responsible decision. Kill all the embryos? No, but give the women a choice without the unnecessary stigma provided by the right.

 

Actually, that was I who said that not Jonathon. But Iused that analogy because the condom can break (It has happened to me before) the girl can decide not to use it, or the guy will refuse to. So what they have done is loaded that one round and pulled the trigger. They know as that player does that the bullet might be next in the chamber and they do it anyway. Instead of dying, they get a chance to name a baby. Forcing the woman to have the child in most cases is dead wrong, but the right to lifers keep creating more restrictions.

 

If it is an oops, I concede that allowing them an abortion would help them try to not make the same mistake again but as a taxpayerI see no reason why i should have to pay for it. I just had to deal with a welfare mother I knew in Long Beach CA who got an abortion about as often as she had to pay her rent. All of it on the State dime.

 

Condom manufacturers have themselves added the disclaimer that the only truly safe sex is abstinence because their lawyers tell them that it stops them from being sued.

 

YOu are right though that it is absurd to think someone will automatically 'grow up' if they suddenly are forced to raise a child. Robert Asprin in the book little Myth Marker pointed out that society automatically assumes you are competent to raise a child, even if you are not competent enough to manage your own life. Having a parent talk to the child about sex is much better than a school doing it for the reason Jae pointyed out, but most parents seem to feel it's like any other distasteful subject. If you don't mention it, the child won't consider it. This as we all know, doesn't work.

[Achilles]

Actually, that was I who said that not Jonathon. But Iused that analogy because the condom can break (It has happened to me before) the girl can decide not to use it, or the guy will refuse to. So what they have done is loaded that one round and pulled the trigger. They know as that player does that the bullet might be next in the chamber and they do it anyway. Instead of dying, they get a chance to name a baby. Forcing the woman to have the child in most cases is dead wrong, but the right to lifers keep creating more restrictions.

These aren't the same thing. Sitting down to play russian roulette knowing that the gun is loaded and could potentially kill you is not the same thing as sitting down thinking that the gun is loaded with blanks or not knowing about the game and thinking that you're sitting down to tea. Poor analogy, but I'm trying to keep with your theme.

 

If you're aware of the risks and choose not to heed them, that's completely different from not being aware of the risks at all. In either case a woman should have a right to an abortion (because you cannot currently regulate one without the other). Some form of counseling should be required, but that option hasn't been brought into the dialog yet.

 

If it is an oops, I concede that allowing them an abortion would help them try to not make the same mistake again but as a taxpayerI see no reason why i should have to pay for it. I just had to deal with a welfare mother I knew in Long Beach CA who got an abortion about as often as she had to pay her rent. All of it on the State dime.

I could be wrong, but I believe that Planned Parenthood is privately funded. The only case I can think of where taxpayers would have to foot the bill is when the mother carries the child to term and then turns it over to the state or if she's on welfare and uses state-funded health-care to pay for the procedure. In the second case, which costs the taxpayers more: Supporting a child to the age of 18 or a one-time medical procedure in the first trimester?

 

Condom manufacturers have themselves added the disclaimer that the only truly safe sex is abstinence because their lawyers tell them that it stops them from being sued.

Because condoms sometime fail making them less than 100% effective? Your point is....?

 

YOu are right though that it is absurd to think someone will automatically 'grow up' if they suddenly are forced to raise a child. Robert Asprin in the book little Myth Marker pointed out that society automatically assumes you are competent to raise a child, even if you are not competent enough to manage your own life.

I don't think I raised that point, however I absolutely agree with it.

 

Having a parent talk to the child about sex is much better than a school doing it for the reason Jae pointyed out, but most parents seem to feel it's like any other distasteful subject. If you don't mention it, the child won't consider it. This as we all know, doesn't work.

Having the school mention it is better than having no one mention it at all. If all parents were willing to step up, then it wouldn't be necessary for the schools to mention it at all. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. It also doesn't stand to reason that parents oppose sex education in schools because it reinforces what they teach at home. All of the arguments that I've heard (which, admittedly, probably do not accurately comprise all arguments) state that safe sex promote promiscuity, while abstinence only is preferred.

[jonathan7]

Then it sounds like we're in agreement.

 

Yeh shocking as it is I think we are;). But then I take a slightly different line from alot of Christians/Religious people. I'm British, but heres how I think laws in a country should work; Freedom of speach should be upheld unless it is talking about hurting another group (e.g. Islamist Terrorists preaching hate), I also think law and religion should be kept quite seperate and that freedom of religious rights should be kept. I believe Religion should be kept seperate as although as a Christian I believe my take on morality is correct I'm sure alot of the worlds Jews, Muslims and Athiests would argue the same. And even if you do have Christian laws in a country people are still going to sin regardless of laws; and where do you want to go with that? So for example I think Civil Partnerships between Gay people should be allowed; I don't agree with it, but its there lives and I will try to talk to them to persuade them that I am right, I won't force them to adhere to what I believe... Which is what I think certain people in this thread think should happen. Have I explained myself well there?

 

 

Really? Do you have examples? Let's try a little logic exercise:

 

Public schools should not teach safe sex because:

 

A) It promotes promiscuity

B) It is not the school's place to do so

C) It reenforces the message promoted by parents at home

 

Which of these do you think is The Right's documented argument for opposing safe sex ed in public schools? If you do it differently in your home, then great, however realize that you seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

PS: Just so I'm not accused of using the begging the question fallacy, I submit that the answer is A.

 

Jae are you seriously saying that sex ed shouldn't be taught in schools? Kids will do whatever they want to regardless of what you do or don't teach them. I'm from Britian and have been taught Sex Ed since I was 10 years old... I'm now 22 and still a virgin because of my faith. People will choose to do what they want regardless of what parents/church leaders etc teach. Lots of teenagers rebel its part of growing up. My parents are both Christians but had a very hands off apprach to me growing up, dad especially was like 'your old enough to make your own decisions now'. This in actual fact meant I didnt rebel nearly as much as other kids of Christian homes because I didn't have reason too, where as others lost their virginity and did other things such as drugs. Teenagers make mistakes regardless of what you teach them... sure teach abstinance as a PART of sex ed, but you must teach everything else so they are in possession of all the facts incase they decide to have sex at least it will be protected.

 

Just so I'm clear is this the same culture that glorifies violence while vilifying sex? FWIW, I submit that one of these things is a natural process while the other is not. My 2 cents. I also submit that I can find many more examples of how our culture supports casual violence than it does casual sex.

 

As a Psychologist this is why I think America has such a high percentage of Serial Killers, to me it defies belief how its quite acceptable for children to watch violence in America but anything sexual is shocking. Violence is a far more un-natural act than sex.. (infact sex is quite a natural act, seeing as everything bigger than aphids has it).

 

I agree that sex is a emotional, physical, and spiritual experience that should be taken seriously and context should be provided by parents. The unfortunate reality is that this does not always happen. Problem? Yes. Is abortion the answer? Not always. My argument is simply that if no one has provided the context than the woman should not be held responsible for a "bad" decision. She was not given the prerequisites necessary to make a responsible decision. Kill all the embryos? No, but give the women a choice without the unnecessary stigma provided by the right.

 

I would rather in this case that someone didnt have an abortion. Indeed in the U.K ny argument is our population is getting older so abortion should be made illegal (apart from rape, child abuse and incest) because we need more children to make the workforce younger! But if someone is going to have an abortion I would rather it was done legally and safely than illegally and with great risk.

[Achilles]

Inspired by Jae's earlier post, I thought I would dig around online to see if any states had their sexual education standards posted on the internet. Here is a sample of the standards as they exist in my state (Arizona):

 

1. Content of instruction: Common schools and high schools.

c. All sex education materials and instruction shall be age appropriate, recognize the needs of exceptional students, meet the needs of the district, recognize local community standards and sensitivities, shall not include the teaching of abnormal, deviate, or unusual sexual acts and practices, and shall include the following:

i. Emphasis upon the power of individuals to control their own personal behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control and ethical considerations such as respect for self and others; and

ii. Instruction on how to say "no" to unwanted sexual advances and to resist negative peer pressure. Pupils shall be taught that it is wrong to take advantage of, or to exploit, another person.

a. >All sex education materials and instruction which discuss sexual intercourse shall:

ii. stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are mature adults;

iii. Emphasize that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only method for avoiding pregnancy that is 100 percent effective;

iv. Stress that sexually transmitted diseases have severe consequences and constitute a serious and widespread public health problem;

v. Include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse and the consequences of preadolescent and adolescent pregnancy;

vi. Promote honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage; and

vii. Advise pupils of Arizona law pertaining to the financial responsibilities of parenting, and legal liabilities related to sexual intercourse with a minor.

(you can find a more readable layout about 80% down the page on this site.)

 

This seems pretty consistent with the curriculum that I was exposed to 15 years ago when I was a high school student (although we also learned about contraception which isn't explicit here). Considering that Arizona consistently ranks last in national education surveys, I imagine it's safe to bet that the sex ed standards in other states are likely to be just as good or better than these.

[CSI]

By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

 

Younger than 3 months old: it's a fetus. [biologically] That doesn't mean it doesn't have a life. [Morally].

 

Older than 3 months: It's now shifted to matured Fetus. It became to the last stage of becoming a baby. Then it's a LIFE now. If people would go abortion, they should be judged by Class 1 Felony: Murder, Degree 1.

 

The Constitution granted people personal freedom to deal with personal matter--Legally. So far, no evidence that abortion is illegal...

 

Peace...

[SilentScope001]

By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

 

I hate artifical distinctions because it looks stupid.

 

Doctor: "I'm so...so sorry, Ms. Smith. You see, you came into our office about the abortion 91 days after the fetus is offically born. Now, we are able to terminate the fetus ethically if the fetus is 90 days or younger, since he is a fetus.

 

But since your fetus is 91 days old, it looks to me that we cannot kill a living being. I'm sorry, you'll have to be stuck with it. If only you came to our office a day earlier...oh well."

[machievelli]

By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

 

Younger than 3 months old: it's a fetus. [biologically] That doesn't mean it doesn't have a life. [Morally].

 

Older than 3 months: It's now shifted to matured Fetus. It became to the last stage of becoming a baby. Then it's a LIFE now. If people would go abortion, they should be judged by Class 1 Felony: Murder, Degree 1.

 

The Constitution granted people personal freedom to deal with personal matter--Legally. So far, no evidence that abortion is illegal...

 

Peace...

 

The primary arguments against abortion come from the bible where it says 'you knew me in the womb' implying that a fetus is a baby.

 

The other is that the Jews themselves under their law defined a fetus over 8 days as a baby, and a mother could be tried for infantcide if she miscarried

[machievelli]

Go back a couple of pages

 

As Jae commented, because instead of suggesting abstinance as a possible choice, they just say 'be careful.

[Achilles]

Hi there,

 

By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

 

Younger than 3 months old: it's a fetus. [biologically] That doesn't mean it doesn't have a life. [Morally].

 

Older than 3 months: It's now shifted to matured Fetus. It became to the last stage of becoming a baby. Then it's a LIFE now. If people would go abortion, they should be judged by Class 1 Felony: Murder, Degree 1.

If you don't mind me asking, why use the demarcation between embryo and fetus as a threshold? The anti-abortion camp feels that life begin at the moment of conception. Some members of the pro-abortion camp feel that third trimester abortions should be ok.

 

Also, can any woman have an abortion for any reason during the first trimester? If a mother's health is at risk should the first-degree murder charge still apply? Couldn't the mother claim that it was self-defense?

 

Thanks in advance for your response.

[Jae Onasi]

You all make sure your articles and posters and pictures and comments don't stray out of the PG-13 realm, now. This is not a sex-ed class. I'll be snipping the comments not related to abortion later after I get some sleep.

 

Mama Jae thanks you for staying on the topic of abortion.

[machievelli]

I didn't get to read the comment that prompted sanmax's which I recieved but in no longer posted.

 

However I believe it was in reply fo one of SS001's using the Canterbury tales as proof of sexual promiscuity

 

However I would add if that is the case that a lot of very risque stuff was written during the 'more straitlaced' Victorian era

 

As for the subject, both are trying to prove that the problem stems from the society it is part of.

 

That would be because I deleted all the off-topic stuff not related to abortion. You all stay on topic now, please. --Jae

[LittleRamona]

I can not believe that in this day in age, with the amount of domestic abuse, rapes and other kind of disgusting problem in this society, people are still so adamant that a woman should keep her "child" even if it were not in her nor the babies best interests. I'm female, and no one would dare tell me to keep my child if I could not provide a secure childhood, there are already too many messed up children already because of irresponsible parents. There is already enough c**p going on in the world today to grow up in and that child shouldn't have to suffer emotional stresses at home.

Pregnancy is already enough to go through(so i'm told) when you have a support system, never mind if God forbid, the woman conceived from being attacked, the emotional stress for that is enough to scar the woman for life, even with help, why should that child suffer too? As for the religious part of it...In my opinion, if God doesn't understand and forgive that the decision that woman makes is the best for the child, especially like I said in a situation where she was attacked, then He/She is not really God...

[CSI]

Hi there. If you don't mind me asking

 

No problem, Achilles. I'm glad to answer your question you have.

 

why use the demarcation between embryo and fetus as a threshold? The anti-abortion camp feels that life begin at the moment of conception. Some members of the pro-abortion camp feel that third trimester abortions should be ok.

 

That's a very good question, indeed. In my opinion, we need to set a border of legal and illegal abortions. Think about it--why do scientists seperate the different stages of insects?

 

Also, can any woman have an abortion for any reason during the first trimester? If a mother's health is at risk should the first-degree murder charge still apply? Couldn't the mother claim that it was self-defense?[/b]

 

Oh, that doesn't apply. Unless it's emergency and upon doctor's approve, then it's legal regardless of how old the fetus is.

 

Thanks in advance for your response.

 

No problem.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, there are different stages in embryo/fetal development, but it's a little more complex than insects....

[Emperor Devon]

That's a very good question, indeed. In my opinion, we need to set a border of legal and illegal abortions.

 

We already have ('we' being the U.S. that is). After Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, women cannot have an abortion if it involves giving birth to the infant in any event. Personally I think there's some sense in that - with abortions that late, she'd basically giving birth to a corpse over a live baby. But what the heck, it's her decision.

 

Think about it--why do scientists seperate the different stages of insects?

 

I don't quite see the relevance of that. Most of the people here have probably killed hundreds if not thousands of adult insects, which makes the whether they're larvae or mature irrelevant.

 

We already have a system for the development of a fetus, if that's what you were getting at, measured in weeks. The fetus is usually full-term at the 37th week, starts moving at 20-21 weeks, etcetera.

 

But it's an unreliable system for judging when something is alive. At the 40th week it's basically a live baby inside a woman. At the first week it's about as sentient as a rock. Since there are so many different opinions about when it's truly 'alive', the best solution would obviously be to let individuals make their own moral choices based on their own standards of morals. The government telling people what's ethical and what isn't sounds disturbingly like A Brave New World or 1984 to me - people we don't even know deciding for us what's ethical and what isn't.

 

Oh, that doesn't apply. Unless it's emergency and upon doctor's approve, then it's legal regardless of how old the fetus is.

 

Ah, but with that perspective you're already heading into a grey area. What kind of emergency, and what qualifies as one? Certain death if she has the kid? A risk of death, or possible injury in some other manner? A large financial setback? And that's not even getting into the doctor's approval part...

 

'Emergency' is quite relative - both universally and to the individual, not to mention the grey area that comes with it. Obviously some ermergencies are greater and smaller than others - being unable to work off the weight gained during pregnancy is undesirable and preferably avoided in the eyes of most women, yet it's obviously a more urgent matter if they could die during childbirth.

 

The best solution - let the individuals decide what constitutes as an emergency for such matters, like with their own moral code.

[Achilles]

That's a very good question, indeed. In my opinion, we need to set a border of legal and illegal abortions.

I would like to be able to say that I agree. As I have stated earlier, as a rule I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of contraception, however I also believe there are exceptions. Additionally, I feel that there are some cases in which abortion should be allowed, but of course, there are exceptions to that as well. The problem isn't that most people don't recognize that there's a problem. The problem is that the solution is not a simple one.

 

Think about it--why do scientists seperate the different stages of insects?

I understand that demarcation is necessary. My purpose was to better understand why you selected that particular point in development. Ultra-sounds have a certain margin of error in their ability to accurately access embryonic development. Picking an arbitrary point, such as embryo to fetus, could mean that some doctors could find themselves on trial for murder after performing (what they thought to be) a legal abortion. Would hate to see perfectly good OB/GYNs in court because of less-than-perfect technology.

 

Oh, that doesn't apply. Unless it's emergency and upon doctor's approve, then it's legal regardless of how old the fetus is.

Obviously there will be exceptions. Would it surprise you to learn that lawmakers have tried to create laws that make abortion illegal even in these circumstances? Got to the Supreme Court but they voted it down because it didn't include a clause for the mother's health.

 

I tried to find a source that was spin-free. This was the best I could do for the amount of time I was willing to invest. Clicky

 

Take care.

[machievelli]

All right I keep getting dinged for double posting or because I’m not on topic, so I’ll ask Jae to please read this thoroughly before deleting it because the examples I am going to be using are not always either medical or even related to the topic.

 

First Jae, you mentioned that a lot of people have claimed that birth control pills are abortefficients. As far as I know, only one variety was proven to be, and that brand was removed from the market. The normal form of birth control pills is to convince your body that you are already pregnant so that you will not ovulate. No egg, no baby. It doesn’t always work but what does?

 

Others have said the Pill is an abortifacient--I happen to disagree with that stance, but I brought it up as something some groups believe. --Jae

 

The problem is that if one is, then all are, an argument used by the Gun control lobby since before most of you were born. They especially love to use slanted statistics to ‘prove’ their contention. The AMA is not above this either. In the 80s series of the magazine penthouse (Yes I did read the articles) the commented that several drugs had been labeled as highly efficient in cancer treatment because the labs that did the tests counted everyone who died while being treated as ‘unrecoverable data’ and struck them from the records. When the Russians tried to market an anti-cancer drug here the AMA set up test cases and didn’t bother to tell the patients the dietary restrictions such as no more than 200 ML (a half pint) of alcohol a week and only 100 grams (three plus ounces) of red meat a week. So when they kept to their normal high protein high alcohol diets, it didn’t work so they could fail it.

 

The Anti-gun lobby under the Clinton Administration and Janet Reno in particular filed a study in 1999 that stated that 2300 children had been killed the previous year by hand guns. What they did not mention was that the study took everyone from birth to 20 years old and labeled them as kids (Just as I do with all of you) and didn’t break down the demographics, so that a ‘child’ who was a gang banger himself who got shot was there right along with the guy who got shot by the police robbing a store.

 

Achilles and ED, you’ve been going around the morality and safety issue but like the gun control lobby, the Anti-abortion faction doesn’t want anyone to have the right to have an abortion. Like the other argument they keep hemming it with qualifiers. While I accepted the basic premise of the recent bill here in California that would have required underage girls to get parental permission before getting an abortion, struck as one add mentioned against the brick wall of ‘if I were a child molester and my daughter is pregnant by me, maybe I want her to have it because it might be a girl I can molest later’.

 

And I do not see what moral high ground can be claimed by organizations that even if unintentionally created the men who bomb abortion clinics, literally stand in your way and even drag you from the door if they feel the need, or shoot clinic doctors and label it retroactive abortions.

 

As I commented in a segment of my recent work MOML a part only three people on this site have seen, God or the Gods do not need our help to punish the wicked, and there is nothing in the bible that says you have that right. In fact Jesus said it best;

 

Judge not lest ye be judged.

[Achilles]

Achilles and ED, you’ve been going around the morality and safety issue but like the gun control lobby, the Anti-abortion faction doesn’t want anyone to have the right to have an abortion. Like the other argument they keep hemming it with qualifiers.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.

[machievelli]

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.

 

That when it comes to a 'moral' obligation to stop someone from doing something, as with both abortion and gun control, you don't just try to put a stake in it's heart. The Gun control loby tried that back in 1971 when they took an 'either or' referendum and removed the oppsing view which was mandatory sentencing limits that punished a gun toting criminal more harshly than some one with any other weapon. They lost that vote with 75% voting against total handgun confiscation even in heavily liberal Massachussets.

 

Instead what they do is try to pass laws that limit what can be owned. Trying to have ammo banned as a hazardous substance like explosives, meaning you require a Federal permit to buy it. Trying to use a Saturday Night Special law that would have labeled a 2,000 dollar target pistol as one because of it's caliber. Banning Assault Rifles without even defining the term, then the Clinton pushed lawsuits trying tomake manufacturers to blame for the use of them

 

The abortion rights people have done the same. They decide unilaterally that someone who isn't threatened by the child's birth (Mothers who might die in the attempt) should be forced to have the child and lobby for that.

 

They try to get the age limit set so that something like 30 percent of those most likely to need it cannot get them without parental approval, or require 'counseling' before allowing it. The fact that the counseling they demand would move the girl into the second trimester, when the danger to the mother skyrockets is secondary, because the next step is to refuse abortions if 'the mother's life might be in danger' then late term abortions get added to the list.

 

Put them all together and it's saying 'we will do everything we can to make sure you can't get an abortion, but we're doing it out of worrying about your health and safety, not because of any moral or religious qualms'. Just as the anti-gun lobby wants to remove those guns to 'protect the innocent'.

[Achilles]

In that case:

 

I'm well aware of The Right's stance on this. I don't rant about it because I don't think it bears repeating. In the mean time there is a lot of gray area in this issue and I do think that deserves some discussion.

 

FWIW though, I agree with you that both extremes have it all wrong. I think The Right's (not-so) hidden agenda is slightly more sinister than The Left's, but then again I don't think either group has a firm grasp on reality 100% of the time.