Wait On That Abortion

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Wrong. It is not "controlling" other people to outlaw murdering someone in utero.

What about this point? Is it controlling to no longer allow a murder of this sort to take place?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

What about this point? Is it controlling to no longer allow a murder of this sort to take place?

I think the classification of first weeks abortions as "murder" is beyond absurd, and purely inflammatory.

And yes, our government forcing women to bear babies is beyond controlling - it's illegal under our system of constitutional law.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the classification of first weeks abortions as "murder" is beyond absurd, and purely inflammatory.

And yes, our government forcing women to bear babies is beyond controlling - it's illegal under our system of constitutional law.

Not to split hairs -- if the government decides that abortion is no longer to be legal, that's seems to be different than actively "forcing" someone to have a baby. Abortion is the active termination and disposal of what is (or would be, depending on your point of view) another person. But since abortion, which is relatively new in terms of human history (less than 100 years as an officially defined procedure), is the active measure, the disallowment of it is not an active measure.

The fact that pregnancy starts with fertilization of an egg and then is on "autopilot", for lack of a better term, until the child is ready for delivery is nature's (or God's) design. It is an illusion to think that there are all these "decision points" during that interval. There aren't. There isn't anything close to a daily question, "Good morning, would you like to remain pregnant?" If you don't like God's design, take it up with him. Or lament the short sightedness of our Darwinian evolution. But it is what it is.

I'd be curious to know how many people are pro-abortion and against capital punishment. In other words, the most innocent among us get executed without due process of law, in utero, but some sadistic serial killer shouldn't be executed even if he kills 100 people. I would find that the exact opposite of what should happen.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

But since abortion, which is relatively new in terms of human history (less than 100 years as an officially defined procedure), is the active measure, the disallowment of it is not an active measure.

This is incorrect, joey; abortion has been around for almost as long as pregnancy has been around. What the term "abortion" encompasses has evolved, but what you think of as abortion (a woman's conscious action to end a pregnancy) is older than recorded history.

The fact that pregnancy starts with fertilization of an egg and then is on "autopilot", for lack of a better term, until the child is ready for delivery is nature's (or God's) design.

Technically, the WHO defines pregnancy as beginning when a fertilized egg implants into the uterine lining. So no, pregnancy starting with fertilization of an egg is not a fact; that's false. The debate about when life begins can continue, as that's a matter of opinion, but pregnancy is a medically defined term and it starts on implantation.

I'd be curious to know how many people are pro-abortion and against capital punishment. In other words, the most innocent among us get executed without due process of law, in utero, but some sadistic serial killer shouldn't be executed even if he kills 100 people. I would find that the exact opposite of what should happen.

Those who oppose capital punishment, as I understand it, oppose it on the grounds that it is not applied fairly and that there is always the risk of an innocent person being executed (there was a pretty devastating New York article on that very thing happening a few years back). So your question is a straw man.

This has been a very interested thread to read. I want to post two links, for those interested. The first is an excerpt from a very excellent book, When Abortion Was a Crime which explores the roughly 100 years in the US when abortion was more or less illegal (1867-1970). It's out of print now, but you can still find used copies on Amazon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...ay/abortex.htm

Chock full of interesting facts, like that even the Catholic Church tacitly allowed abortion until the 1860s and it wasn't until the 1890s that they removed the "life of the mother" exception.

The other is a piece entitled "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose" and it's a collection of anecdotes from abortion providers who have had anti-choice people come to them for abortion:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Joey, I wouldn't endeavor to argue with you about when life begins, as none of us know. Even the Bible is wishy-washy on it, with some references to God knitting people together in the womb and others to God breathing life in only as the baby leaves the mother's body. But understand, that no law will stop a desperate woman from attempting to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy. And the majority of abortions are performed on women who have already had a baby. So outlawing abortion will lead to the deaths of desperate women who are already mothers. If you are truly, truly against abortion, then you need to work towards a nation that financially supports childrearing, through state-supported daycare, accommodating work schedules for parents (or subsidies so parents can take time off to care for babies, as they do in Europe). And to push for comprehensive sex education and birth control to be free to anyone who needs it. If we want more potential lives brought into the nation we need to be willing to man and woman up with our own tax dollars and support them. Because having a kid is f*cking expensive, but that's not going to stop people from having sex.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Because having a kid is f*cking expensive, but that's not going to stop people from having sex.

Which is why they should exercise better judgment. They, not the taxpayers, should bear the responsibility for events stemming from their own actions. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There is no right to responsibility-free sex. The "Free Love" thing from the sixties and seventies was the result of the collective drug-induced stupors of the hippies and disco freaks. It never existed.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Which is why they should exercise better judgment. They, not the taxpayers, should bear the responsibility for events stemming from their own actions. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There is no right to responsibility-free sex. The "Free Love" thing from the sixties and seventies was the result of the collective drug-induced stupors of the hippies and disco freaks. It never existed.

And if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle. Yes, people should exercise better judgment about sex. They should also eat more fruits and veggies, not smoke, exercise at least 30 minutes five times a week and always wear their seatbelts. But they don't. However, all of those situations that don't involve sex mostly affect the individual. Sex affect the possible birth of a baby, that, as you have pointed out, is an individual. If you're going to insist that women not have a choice about whether to bear a child, then you need to be willing to support the brand-new life that has come into the world. Babies have NO control over the circumstances of their conception or the economic status of their parents. None. By saying "well, the parents should have exercised better judgment" you're electing to punish babies because you disagree with the parents' sexual habits.

And that's the part about the anti-abortion side's view of the pro-choice side that makes me so sad. The pro-choice side is very aware that we are talking about real babies and real lives coming into the world and is trying to create a place where every one of those babies is desired, as pro-choicers are also fierce advocates of sex-ed and pre-natal care for women who choose to have kids. The anti-abortion side doesn't seem, to this pro-choicer, to be offering any solutions other than, "Well, the woman should have kept her legs crossed." I really feel if these alleged pro-lifers actually cared about babies that if they and the pro-choicers united on a move to reduce the number of abortions actually performed, as opposed to fights over the legality of them, that huge strides could be made to creating a support system for both babies and parents.

But I don't think it's about babies for anti-abortionists.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle. Yes, people should exercise better judgment about sex. They should also eat more fruits and veggies, not smoke, exercise at least 30 minutes five times a week and always wear their seatbelts. But they don't. However, all of those situations that don't involve sex mostly affect the individual. Sex affect the possible birth of a baby, that, as you have pointed out, is an individual. If you're going to insist that women not have a choice about whether to bear a child, then you need to be willing to support the brand-new life that has come into the world. Babies have NO control over the circumstances of their conception or the economic status of their parents. None. By saying "well, the parents should have exercised better judgment" you're electing to punish babies because you disagree with the parents' sexual habits.

And that's the part about the anti-abortion side's view of the pro-choice side that makes me so sad. The pro-choice side is very aware that we are talking about real babies and real lives coming into the world and is trying to create a place where every one of those babies is desired, as pro-choicers are also fierce advocates of sex-ed and pre-natal care for women who choose to have kids. The anti-abortion side doesn't seem, to this pro-choicer, to be offering any solutions other than, "Well, the woman should have kept her legs crossed." I really feel if these alleged pro-lifers actually cared about babies that if they and the pro-choicers united on a move to reduce the number of abortions actually performed, as opposed to fights over the legality of them, that huge strides could be made to creating a support system for both babies and parents.

But I don't think it's about babies for anti-abortionists.

I only insist that there is no destructive intervention once the woman is actually pregnant. That's not the same as saying "women not have a choice about whether to bear a child". Are we not in agreement that there are choices to be made and risks consciously taken PRIOR to getting pregnant? For those with good judgement and discipline, and yes, sometimes luck, this is a moot point because the pregnancy simply does not occur. The pro-lifers are not, to my knowledge, insisting that we have a baby boom or rallying against birth control. At least that's not my position.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Which is why they should exercise better judgment. They, not the taxpayers, should bear the responsibility for events stemming from their own actions. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There is no right to responsibility-free sex. The "Free Love" thing from the sixties and seventies was the result of the collective drug-induced stupors of the hippies and disco freaks. It never existed.

I really cannot comprehend why so many women have unplanned pregnancies. I live in a overall poor bible belt area where I have seen more pregnant teenagers in the past 2-3 year than I have in the rest of my life combined.

My good friend is now pregnant with her 3rd child at age 22, not any of them are planned. I constantly ask her how she can possibly have 3 unplanned pregnancies. She has no answer for that.

And I'm sorry, but women who are "on the pill" but forget to take it, or dont take it at the same time every day... those women are NOT on birth control.

Having children is such a huge decision to make and a lifetime of responsibility. It is much more difficult to get pregnant than to not get pregnant, considering how many different birth control methods are out there.

Its pretty sad that there are so many women out there that have unwanted pregnancies when it would have been so easy not to get pregnant in the first place. If you are not responsible enough to do that, you should not be having sex. I think it boils down to someone not respecting themself or their body.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I really cannot comprehend why so many women have unplanned pregnancies. I live in a overall poor bible belt area where I have seen more pregnant teenagers in the past 2-3 year than I have in the rest of my life combined.

My good friend is now pregnant with her 3rd child at age 22, not any of them are planned. I constantly ask her how she can possibly have 3 unplanned pregnancies. She has no answer for that.

And I'm sorry, but women who are "on the pill" but forget to take it, or dont take it at the same time every day... those women are NOT on birth control.

Having children is such a huge decision to make and a lifetime of responsibility. It is much more difficult to get pregnant than to not get pregnant, considering how many different birth control methods are out there.

Its pretty sad that there are so many women out there that have unwanted pregnancies when it would have been so easy not to get pregnant in the first place. If you are not responsible enough to do that, you should not be having sex. I think it boils down to someone not respecting themself or their body.

I agree with one point, it certainly does seem that more and more young women are having babies today, when I lived in Ohio it seemed every girl I met had at least one child (I was managing a convenience store so the population I can speak to were employees and customers). Upon returning to Pa., I saw much the same thing...don't know whether my limited observations are in line with national statistics or not. It should be noted that these are young girls with babies or pregnant, not young girls who had an abortion. To me, this is an indicator that despite the increase in effective birth control methods, young women and girls are not taking them. Is that because they don't care, are irresponsible, or simply don't have access to them? I don't know and neither does anyone else. That's why I believe that we have a long way to go to provide necessary services to women. Just as obvious is the male attitude of complete disregard for the ramifications of having unprotected sex. Some things haven't changed from when I was young....boys are still admired by their peers for being "playas" or "studs" and tremendous pressure is placed on young girls to "put out" to remain popular or to keep a demanding boy friend who tells her, "if you love me, you'll do it". I maintain that this is a culture that needs to change, boys must be taught respect for girls and must stop using them for sexual gratification disguised as "love".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not to split hairs -- if the government decides that abortion is no longer to be legal, that's seems to be different than actively "forcing" someone to have a baby.

No. The government will exactly be forcing a woman to have a baby.

Do some google, about current cases in the last year or so: read about women who have developed problems with their pregnancies, and could not have abortions per certain conservative state laws (they had to wait for the baby to die in utero, or be delivered then die)

But since abortion, which is relatively new in terms of human history (less than 100 years as an officially defined procedure), is the active measure, the disallowment of it is not an active measure.

Women have been inducing abortions for centuries, Joey. Physically and chemically.

The point of your sentence is not agreed to by me: of course the government interfering in a woman's life, in the medical decisions she and her doctor makes, is active, aggressive, communist, ridiculous government takeover and control. Appalling overreach.