Abortion: What's your opinion?

[machievelli]

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.

 

Never said the left was right. Just that we do not have a moral right to force someone to bear a child and as a man who doesn't have that problem it is doubly so.

[Achilles]

Never said the left was right.

...and I never said that you said that

 

Just that we do not have a moral right to force someone to bear a child <snip>

I don't think I've said anything here that would contradict that. Hence, why I'm unclear how I got looped into post #172.

[Jae Onasi]

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.

 

I'd agree on that point in general (both extremes are rather flakey), though I disagree that the Right's agenda is more sinister--at least the Right is up front about it. You won't ever hear the Left talking, for instance, about the profit they make providing this 'service to women', or the emotional and physical pain it can cause. They didn't even want to see a law passed that would inform women that they could order pain medication for the fetus they were aborting because 'oh, that might convince women not to go through with it.' So now not only are we allowing barbaric procedures on not-yet born babies, but people aren't even allowed to tell a woman what she could do to minimize the pain to the baby. Heaven forbid we cut into profits. Animals get better treatment than that when they're put to sleep.

[Achilles]

Per your own forum rule, would you mind linking to some additional information on that?

 

Without knowing more about that particular claim, I can only hypothesize, however I suppose one could also assume that The Left opposed the measure because they viewed it as a play from The Right. Considering that embryos don't have even a rudimentary nervous system until the latter part of the first trimester, pushing for pre-natal pain killers seems a little manipulative.

 

Also, I don't think being straight-forward about their agenda makes the far-right any more squeaky clean. Some of the methods discussed in this article don't seem any more honorable than those you described above. Their agenda is entirely faith-based and they are bound and determined to see it approved whether it's ethical or not (no concession for rape, incest, women's health, etc).

[machievelli]

Their agenda is entirely faith-based and they are bound and determined to see it approved whether it's ethical or not (no concession for rape, incest, women's health, etc).

 

The problem with using faith based morality is it only works acceptably if it is your faith. As a Pagan, I am sick unto death of being told 'god' or 'allah' says when they are not part of my religion. If the only way to explain why it must occur is your god, it is like Johnny Cochrane playing the race card in the OJ trial. It is not germaine, but plays to the groundlings well.

 

Like being condemned to a hell I do not believe in, or worshiping their 'bad guy' because I am not part of their faith. To tell someone who has made a moral decision of their own, and will face their god when that time comes, I do not condemn those using rational reasoned arguments. Only those who think their 'god' wants them to use force or violence to promote it.

 

As I said, if their God is so weak that he cannptstop them himself, or will handle it when they stand in judgement, we have no right to interfere with their choice. After all, every religion teaches that we have free will... As long as we are willing to pay the piper after the last dance.

[Jae Onasi]

Actually, the forum rule says quotes are not required, but if they are used, to give a citation.

 

I heard it on a radio program some months ago--the speaker was a nurse who had worked in an abortion clinic for a long time, and then got out of the system at some point. The pain killer option was for 2nd/3rd trimester babies. I'll have to search for the link, but have to finish my story for Tales from Javyar's Cantina contest first.

 

I certainly don't consider bombing abortion clinics and harassing people honorable, however, informing women that the baby is alive and not 'just a little mass of cells' is not dishonorable--it's honest. No one is forcing those women to go into those pregnancy crisis centers, either--the women choose to go there. If they were dead-set on abortions, they wouldn't darken the doors of those centers, they'd go straight to Planned Parenthood or their doctor instead. I see nothing wrong with making sure women have _all_ the information they need to make this very important decision, including what is going to happen to them potentially physically and psychologically and what is going to happen with their babies.

[Achilles]

I heard it on a radio program some months ago--the speaker was a nurse who had worked in an abortion clinic for a long time, and then got out of the system at some point. The pain killer option was for 2nd/3rd trimester babies.

Did the radio piece mention that the use of pain-relieving drugs may increase the level of risk in some cases? Also, the scientific evidence that is offered to show that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks is not uncontested (doctors in the UK recommend medication after 26 weeks).

 

I certainly don't consider bombing abortion clinics and harassing people honorable, however, informing women that the baby is alive and not 'just a little mass of cells' is not dishonorable--it's honest.

Depending on the stage of development, the embryo might be nothing more than "a little mass of cells".

 

I think if these tactics are being used in an attempt to "guilt" an already emotionally distraught woman out of an abortion, then it is dishonorable. Manipulating someone for your agenda is deceitful.

 

No one is forcing those women to go into those pregnancy crisis centers, either--the women choose to go there. If they were dead-set on abortions, they wouldn't darken the doors of those centers, they'd go straight to Planned Parenthood or their doctor instead.

Let's think this one through: If the only sex education they are being exposed to is abstience only, then how in the heck would they know the difference between a Focus on the Family funded clinic and Planned Parenthood? If Clinic A is being funded by conservatives and backed by faith-based legislation and Clinic B is privately funded, which do you think is going to be able to do more "out reach" (marketing)?

 

I see nothing wrong with making sure women have _all_ the information they need to make this very important decision, including what is going to happen to them potentially physically and psychologically and what is going to happen with their babies.

I agree. I think counseling is a great idea. You and I probably disagree on who should do it and what their agenda should be though.

[Allronix]

First off, Planned Parenthood is a hell of a lot more than the "abortion factory" and "promiscuity promoter" its critics have smeared it with. When I was young, uninsured, and flat broke, it was the only place I could get a check-up. Fortunately, as Seattle is a liberal enclave, I wasn't having to run the gauntlet to get a freaking Pap smear.

 

As for "profit?" Well, they're apparantly working for a clinic I haven't run across. Most of them are barely making the rent and end up passing the hat since most of their clientele is low-income, uninsured, working-poor, or all of the above. Again, the folks who can least afford another mouth to feed.

[Jae Onasi]

First off, Planned Parenthood is a hell of a lot more than the "abortion factory" and "promiscuity promoter" its critics have smeared it with. When I was young, uninsured, and flat broke, it was the only place I could get a check-up. Fortunately, as Seattle is a liberal enclave, I wasn't having to run the gauntlet to get a freaking Pap smear.

I agree with you on that--they're incredibly helpful in that regard and for a newly-married broke college student, I needed the help and (surprise!) I utilized their health and bc services. It would have been very amusing if I had to run a gauntlet given the fact that I could never have an abortion myself (though I can live with other women deciding to do so). However, even the very conservative Missouri Ozarks region understands the idea of birth control, even if they don't agree with all the services Planned Parenthood provides.

As for "profit?" Well, they're apparantly working for a clinic I haven't run across. Most of them are barely making the rent and end up passing the hat since most of their clientele is low-income, uninsured, working-poor, or all of the above. Again, the folks who can least afford another mouth to feed.

There are a number of non-profit and private organizations that support Planned Parenthood (among other similar organizations), and they receive about a quarter of their annual revenues from that. For the fiscal year ending June 2005, over a quarter of Planned Parenthood's total revenue of $882,000,000 came from the government. PPFA made a profit of almost $60 million that year, and that's pretty darn good for a 501©(3) not-for-profit corporation.

 

I'm not saying eliminate Planned Parenthood at all--they have some great services and some great education programs, and I wish some of my evangelical brothers and sisters could appreciate that. I'm just saying that the fact that they make money is very carefully kept as quiet as possible. They're not going to survive as a corporation if they're not fiscally responsible, and making money is even better. It does present somewhat of a conflict of interest, however--an organization that makes money off of abortion services is of course going to promote that option as part of their services. They're not going to say much, if anything, that detracts from providing that service. With that in mind, there would be a financial disincentive to completely disclose the full ramifications of abortion if that resulted in a woman choosing to keep the baby and not have an abortion.

 

@Jonathan7--no, I'm not saying we should be teaching abstinence-only exclusively and then have a cow when a woman doesn't understand how she got pregnant and now wants an abortion. Teaching abstinence exclusively and solely while being anti-abortion is kind of weird to me. I just think abstinence should get appropriate attention, not be taught exclusively (as some of the ultra-conservative pro-life groups suggest), but not poo-pooed out of hand by the ultra-liberal pro-choice/abortion camps, either. I do think we have an over-promiscuous society and a little sex-crazy (the debate over public breastfeeding being just one example of the nutsoid attitude towards female anatomy in the US), but teens are eventually going to grow up and many will get married and have families, and they need to know how to handle family planning.

 

@Achilles--painkillers are risky for the whom? The baby? S/he's about to be aborted anyway. For the mother? Doubtful, since the amount of pain-killer used on the baby would not be enough to affect the mother to any degree. The dose used for the baby would be much, much smaller than an adult dose, and so would have essentially no maternal effect as a result.

 

The ultrasounds are not used to 'guilt' a distraught woman into choosing to carry her baby. Quite frankly, it they're not already, ultrasounds should be part of the care provided to every woman prior to an abortion to make sure the doc is aware of any structural anatomical anomalies that could complicate an abortion procedure.

 

Rabid pro-choicers way underplay the physical/mental/emotional risks to a mother and baby, and rabid pro-lifers way overplay those same risks. I think there needs to be a good balance of information--this is an incredibly difficult decision for the vast majority of women and they need solid information without hyperbole from either side. Abortion's not something I prefer to see done myself, but if a woman absolutely needs to go through with an abortion, I want her to have a good understanding of what's going to happen to her.

[Achilles]

PPFA made a profit of almost $60 million that year, and that's pretty darn good for a 501©(3) not-for-profit corporation.

At the risk of splitting hairs, non-profits don't make a profit. They have "surplus revenues" (preferred terms vary) that are supposed to go back into the operation for the next fiscal year.

 

I'm not saying eliminate Planned Parenthood at all--they have some great services and some great education programs, and I wish some of my evangelical brothers and sisters could appreciate that. I'm just saying that the fact that they make money is very carefully kept as quiet as possible.

I'm sorry, I'm going to need for you to explain this one to me. What do you mean by, "the fact that they make money is very carefully kept as quiet as possible."?

 

They post their balance sheets on the Internet and file all their forms when they're supposed to. So how are they very carefully hiding the fact that they are increasing revenues?

 

They're not going to survive as a corporation if they're not fiscally responsible, and making money is even better. It does present somewhat of a conflict of interest, however--an organization that makes money off of abortion services is of course going to promote that option as part of their services. They're not going to say much, if anything, that detracts from providing that service.

Hmmmmm....

 

Abortion

 

It is the policy of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to ensure that women have the right to seek and obtain medically safe, legal abortions under dignified conditions and at reasonable cost.

 

Abortion services must include information on the nature, consequences, and risks of the procedure, and counseling on the alternatives available to the woman, so as to assure an informed and responsible decision concerning the continuation or termination of pregnancy. (emphasis added by me)

 

Abortion must always be a matter of personal choice. Planned Parenthood recognizes its responsibility to guard equally against coercion or denial of services in connection with a patient's decision about continuing a pregnancy. No one should be denied abortion services solely because of age, or economic or social circumstances. Public funds should be made available to subsidize the cost of abortion services for those who choose abortion but cannot afford it.

 

Planned Parenthood has the responsibility to provide access to high quality, confidential abortion services directly through the affiliates' own medical facilities and/or indirectly through referral to other competent medical facilities in the community, especially in areas of unmet need for abortion services.

 

[Adopted 1984]

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm

 

Now to be fair, I can't prove that they actually live up to their mission. Can you prove that they don't? This really sounds like something that you believe is true but might not be.

 

With that in mind, there would be a financial disincentive to completely disclose the full ramifications of abortion if that resulted in a woman choosing to keep the baby and not have an abortion.

Again, I can't prove that you're wrong, but that doesn't mean I think you're right either. Maybe some supporting evidence?

 

@Jonathan7--no, I'm not saying we should be teaching abstinence-only exclusively and then have a cow when a woman doesn't understand how she got pregnant and now wants an abortion. Teaching abstinence exclusively and solely while being anti-abortion is kind of weird to me. I just think abstinence should get appropriate attention, not be taught exclusively (as some of the ultra-conservative pro-life groups suggest), but not poo-pooed out of hand by the ultra-liberal pro-choice/abortion camps, either. I do think we have an over-promiscuous society and a little sex-crazy (the debate over public breastfeeding being just one example of the nutsoid attitude towards female anatomy in the US), but teens are eventually going to grow up and many will get married and have families, and they need to know how to handle family planning.

Didn't you snip a bunch of my safe-sex posts on the basis of being off-topic? Is it allowed or isn't it? Thank in advance for clarifying.

 

@Achilles--painkillers are risky for the whom? The baby? S/he's about to be aborted anyway. For the mother? Doubtful, since the amount of pain-killer used on the baby would not be enough to affect the mother to any degree. The dose used for the baby would be much, much smaller than an adult dose, and so would have essentially no maternal effect as a result.

The mother. Your doubt is not sufficent cause for it to magically be untrue.

 

There is also little information on how women might be affected by the application of fetal anesthesia, perhaps in addition to their own anesthesia. What will doctors tell women about the potential hazards posed to their own health of additional anesthesia? The language specified by the bill makes only one mention, in the final sentence, that "there might be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug."

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120406hr6099.html

-Requires the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure” to state that evidence exists suggesting fetuses/unborn children 20 weeks or more into development are capable of experiencing pain, and that the woman may request pain-reducing drugs for the fetus/unborn child, and that there may be additional risks associated with the use of some pain-reducing drugs

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3927

 

Regardless, your response is dangerously close to being a red herring. My point was to find out if the piece you heard was balanced or if you were forming your opinion based on conservative propaganda.

 

The ultrasounds are not used to 'guilt' a distraught woman into choosing to carry her baby. Quite frankly, it they're not already, ultrasounds should be part of the care provided to every woman prior to an abortion to make sure the doc is aware of any structural anatomical anomalies that could complicate an abortion procedure.

You're willing to state that no conservative funded clinics are doing this? Surely you and I can agree that even if an ultrasound is deemed necessary for the reasons you state, there is a way to do it that will minimize how much the mother is exposed to (I'm thinking privacy screen and headphones, for starters). It seems to me that if the intentions were pure, these clinics would have thought of that already. Of course, I suspect that their intentions aren't pure though.

 

Abortion's not something I prefer to see done myself, but if a woman absolutely needs to go through with an abortion, I want her to have a good understanding of what's going to happen to her.

You keep coming back to this point and rather than assume that I know what you mean, could you please tell me what it is that you think women aren't being told now that they should? Also, if possible, could you state what evidence you have that supports this view?

 

Thanks again.

[SilentScope001]

Sorry for bumping this post, but here is a new prespective on the abortion debate.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

I'm not sure if their "panda translator" is bs, or creepy. if it's genuine, then that's really freaky. i guess it is rather like rape. i think that abortion (human) should only be allowed if the baby's birth would be regreted by the parents and adversly effect their lives (horribly, like the kid has no limbs and a foot on the side of it's head) and if the child, once capable of feeling such a way, wished it had never been born. of course, you can't know any of that for sure till the child is born, except for sonograms and the like.

[SilentScope001]

I'm not sure if their "panda translator" is bs, or creepy. if it's genuine, then that's really freaky.

 

A little note: That video came from The Onion website, which is a satritical newspaper that print satires that appear to be news stories. So, the video isn't real, but it is satritical, funny and has a point.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

well, that's a relief. next thing ya know, it will be fish going pro-life:)

[Gargoyle King]

Abortion is a topic that doesn't bother me. There are however certain exceptions to this:

 

(1). For selfish reasons.

(2). If the child is close to becoming a viable feotus (thus the potential to live).

(3). For any other perculiar reason such as religous practices.

 

Reasons why women should have the right to do so:

 

(1). Too young (the 13-17 age).

(2). Can't financially support - thus avoding the child growing up in an unsuitable environment.

(3). If the woman has been raped, and has became preganant because of it.

(4). Health Reasons.

(5). Forced/Pressurized into the decision of a child by a partner.

 

There are always selfish/reasonable explanantions why abortion occurs. However in my opinion the decision of having a child will always be up to a woman - as it is her body and can do as she sees fit with it.

[Achilles]

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread.

 

I had an opportunity to listen to a several people speak about the Pro-Life movement today and I thought the dialog was worth sharing with those that were interested in the topic but may have missed it.

 

Link

 

Synopsis:

Barack Obama's election dealt a blow to abortion opponents, who now have less hope of overturning Roe v. Wade during his term. Experts weigh in on the possibility of shifting the movement's strategy from court battles to a focus on services to reduce or eliminate abortions.

 

Guests:

 

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice

 

The Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theologiocal Center at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

 

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue

[jrrtoken]

Meh, they'll probably resort to clinic bombings again. Ho-hum.

[Achilles]

Not surprisingly, it did come up. A little bit surprisingly, I believe it was the Reverend that mentioned them.

 

Typically I only keep count of the logical fallacies used when listening to a caller or when I have it on one of the conservative stations, but today was a special exception.

[Web Rider]

Not surprisingly, it did come up. A little bit surprisingly, I believe it was the Reverend that mentioned them.

 

Really? I mean, considering the religious fundamentalism the world around I don't find it all that surprising that it's the Reverend that thought of it.

[Achilles]

I said "a little bit surprisingly". And only because I've been listening to this show for more than a decade and don't recall ever hearing a guest say anything like that.

[Jae Onasi]

Meh, they'll probably resort to clinic bombings again. Ho-hum.

 

I seriously hope not, but it's unfortunately likely to happen. I prefer to take a positive route and contribute to our church's efforts to support women who are in a crisis situation but choose to give birth to their babies. We help them through the pregnancy and after birth with basic necessities like formula, diapers, getting them hooked into local agencies (e.g. Medicaid if they don't have any health insurance, WIC, etc.). We encourage and support them in their work on their diplomas and degrees so that they can support their family better. Pro-lifers need to not be destructive, but to work on activities that are productive and help our community instead.

[Achilles]

Pro-lifers need to not be destructive, but to work on activities that are productive and help our community instead.

Well, selected activities anyway. "Productive" and "help" are relative terms.

[Jae Onasi]

OK, just to clarify, are you saying that helping women get basic health services, needed baby supplies, and furthering their educations to help support their families are neither productive nor helpful?

 

If not, what do you consider productive/helpful? If those do fall into the helpful/productive category, are there other things we could be doing to support women who choose life?

[Achilles]

Those things are all well and fine.

 

What might be more helpful and more productive would be to encourage fewer unintended pregnancies in the first place (via means that actually work in the real world rather than a narrow, ideology-based option which proves time and time again not only to not work but put young people at increased risk of other bad things).

 

That way there would be some common ground with the pro-choice community and both groups could work together instead of wasting a lot of time talking past one another. I think both groups would be perfectly happy seeing abortion rates dramatically reduced.

[Jae Onasi]

What might be more helpful and more productive would be to encourage fewer unintended pregnancies in the first place (via means that actually work in the real world rather than a narrow, ideology-based option which proves time and time again not only to not work but put young people at increased risk of other bad things).

 

That way there would be some common ground with the pro-choice community and both groups could work together instead of wasting a lot of time talking past one another. I think both groups would be perfectly happy seeing abortion rates dramatically reduced.

 

I don't disagree with you one bit on that--I prefer a more balanced approach where we're open about how people get pregnant/STDs and how to avoid getting STDs or getting pregnant before we're ready. Fundamentalists tend to forget there's no sexual desire on-off switch that we can leave off until we're married and then flip to the on position on our wedding nights.

 

Kids are going to get information from somewhere if they aren't getting it from their parents--I'd prefer they at least got correct information. We've told our son he can ask us any question about sex anytime, and he's taken us up on that. Mind you, it was a bit uncomfortable for me when he asked me instead of dad the mechanics of male gay sex and I explained the details, but I just answered it matter-of-fact like any other question he asks. I'd like to see acknowledgment that we need to wait until we're ready to handle sex emotionally and physically, and that we can't get pregnant if we're abstinent--I don't think that's emphasized enough, particularly the 'emotionally ready' part. However, in case nature prevails and we feel the call to hump like bunnies, we need to know we can use methods a, b, and c to avoid making little bunnies before we're ready to care for them appropriately. I think it's important to have this kind of information well before the wedding night if someone chooses to be abstinent until then anyway, because married people need family planning information just as much as unmarried people do and need to make necessary preparations.