What's your position on abortion? And why?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

It's kind of funny because the reason he kicked her out of the bar was because they did not want to "be held liable" for her if she got hurt while in the bar. They were trying to avoid being sued, and wound up getting sued.

I think we need to invent a pithy word for that phenomenon of powerfully generating exactly what you don't want.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by James81

It's kind of funny because the reason he kicked her out of the bar was because they did not want to "be held liable" for her if she got hurt while in the bar. They were trying to avoid being sued, and wound up getting sued.

Private businesses have the right to refuse anyone. So long as they weren't yelling racist or age/gender based remarks as they kicked her out she can waste her time in court all she wants. What judge would have any sympathy for her anyway in that situation.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Private businesses have the right to refuse anyone.

You might want to bone up on the Civil Rights Act, Chris.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by James81

It's kind of funny because the reason he kicked her out of the bar was because they did not want to "be held liable" for her if she got hurt while in the bar. They were trying to avoid being sued, and wound up getting sued.

That's what I thought too. They have every right to cover their asses in case the woman has an accident and loses the baby and then the husband or parents decide to sue the bar, for what was the woman's responsability.

I didn't see that as discrimination at all...just common sense.

[beast]

I think she has a solid case, and I hope that most judges do their best to uphold the law, not to just decide in favor of whomever may garner their sympathy.

[AndrewCothran]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Inspired by a few conversations with James.

I am against abortion in every case except for when the presence of the fetus would most likely mean imminent death for the mother ..
I personally do not know if life begins at conception but i also don't know when life really begins .. So i would rather err on the side of safety than not .
I believe that every human being has a right to life but i also understand that in some extreme circumstances that right cannot be honored and that is always a tragedy ..

[inri]

[QUOTE=AndrewCothran;802949]

I am against abortion in every case except for when the presence of the fetus would most likely mean imminent death for the mother ..

So it would seem that you do acknowledge a certain 'edge' the mother has in terms of rights?

I personally do not know if life begins at conception but i also don't know when life really begins .. So i would rather err on the side of safety than not .

Would you use YOUR preference to 'err on the side of safety' to take away this option for women?

I believe that every human being has a right to life but i also understand that in some extreme circumstances that right cannot be honored and that is always a tragedy .

If both are lives of equal value...why then would you agree that termination of pregnancy is okay IF the mother's life is in danger? Would it ever be okay to take the life of one fully developed human if it meant saving another? Seems to me there's a bit of a contradiction here.

It's kind of like the "it's okay to abort in cases of rape and incest" line of thinking. It makes it evident that those who hold this believe that 'innocence' on the part of the woman in terms of whether or not she consented to sex, is everything. The right to life of the fetus in this case is not really the point...the belief that a woman should 'pay for her actions' is.

In the case of a woman's life being threatened....I don't see how that diminishes the right to life for the fetus if you truly believe that the fetus holds rights completely equal to the woman.



Self-induced abortion often led to death in the days before legalization. Perhaps then you could say, Pregnancy in a society where abortion is illegal IS an imminent threat to the lives of many women.

[AndrewCothran]

Perhaps you had a bad day at work at school or at home ..Perhaps you simply don't like the idea that i can hold such a position as i have stated above . Or perhaps you are just one of those people who like to provoke fights with strangers over very sensitive and difficult subjects .
I really dont know nor do i care .. I am not going to respond to any of your questions .. I think i made my position adequately clear and you can respect my position or choose not to . If it was not so abundantly clear that you were looking for a fight i would respond ..You will have to look else where ..

[inri]

Originally Posted by AndrewCothran

Perhaps you had a bad day at work at school or at home ..Perhaps you simply don't like the idea that i can hold such a position as i have stated above . Or perhaps you are just one of those people who like to provoke fights with strangers over very sensitive and difficult subjects .
I really dont know nor do i care .. I am not going to respond to any of your questions .. I think i made my position adequately clear and you can respect my position or choose not to . If it was not so abundantly clear that you were looking for a fight i would respond ..You will have to look else where ..

On the contrary, I've actually had quite a wonderful Day!

How strange that you should think that simply because I'm asking for clarity re: your position and attempting to engage you in dialogue on this issue that I'm operating from a position of anger or any other negative emotion.

did you really expect to come here, lay your very strong opinion out and then have everyone simply agree wholeheartedly with your position?

If you read back a bit in this thread, you will see that many of us hold differing opinions, yet have still managed to discuss this subject in depth with a certain amount of civility...I've actually been really impressed with the overall ability to 'not take things personally' that's been previously demonstrated in this thread....despite the fact that many of us see this issue through very different eyes.

If you hold an opinion on such a contentious subject that's strong enough that you choose to share it on a public forum....you should be prepared to be questioned....I'm sorry you detected 'attack' in my post...none was intended.

[beast]

Originally Posted by AndrewCothran

Perhaps you had a bad day at work at school or at home ..Perhaps you simply don't like the idea that i can hold such a position as i have stated above . Or perhaps you are just one of those people who like to provoke fights with strangers over very sensitive and difficult subjects .
I really dont know nor do i care .. I am not going to respond to any of your questions .. I think i made my position adequately clear and you can respect my position or choose not to . If it was not so abundantly clear that you were looking for a fight i would respond ..You will have to look else where ..

Her response to you was quite civil. However, I can understand that abortion can be a touchy subject for many people. May I suggest that, in the future, you may want to refrain from entering threads in which people are debating that very issue?

[inri]

Originally Posted by beast

Her response to you was quite civil. However, I can understand that abortion can be a touchy subject for many people. May I suggest that, in the future, you may want to refrain from entering threads in which people are debating that very issue?

Thank you for that Beast... I was sitting here scratching my head over that one...

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by inri

Thank you for that Beast... I was sitting here scratching my head over that one...

You handled it really well I thought.

It's weird when people interpret your posts as being an attack, when that isn't your intention. I have had this happen a lot here, so I know what that's like.

Sometimes people can't bring themselves to admit that they may have misread or misinterpreted your words and your intention. There's not a lot you can do when someone has made up their mind about you...even though they don't really know you at all.

[inri]

Originally Posted by elucidate

You handled it really well I thought.

It's weird when people interpret your posts as being an attack, when that isn't your intention. I have had this happen a lot here, so I know what that's like.

Sometimes people can't bring themselves to admit that they may have misread or misinterpreted your words and your intention. There's not a lot you can do when someone has made up their mind about you...even though they don't really know you at all.

Thanks elucidate.

Particularly with written communication it seems that misunderstandings of tone run rampant....I suspect it's because such things as inflection and facial expressions aren't involved and it leaves the person reading to often fill in the blanks with his/her own perceptions (which often include their own issues and baggage).

[t4488]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I asked a question of the anti-abortion people a few pages ago, which none have answered yet, so I'll ask you 2, if you don't mind answering...

You think that the rights of the unborn fetus are more important then the rights of the woman over her body right? therefor, the fetus living is more important then the woman not dying?

How do you feel about forced blood or bone marrow donation? Liver transplantation? Kidney transplantation?

And for example for innocent children, a 1 or 2 year old (they cannot be evil yet or have destroyed their own body with bad food or alcohol...)

Do you feel that is different from not being allowed to have an abortion? If so, why?

Sorry, this thread is moving too fast for me. I wouldn't be against an abortion in the case where the child would destroy the mother's kidneys or liver. That would be putting the mother's life at risk. And I wouldn't force anyone into the risk of donating kidneys or livers. I don't know much about blood or bone marrow donation. I never said I thought the rights of the unborn baby were more important than the mother's life.

It certainly isn't unprecedented though.

Sister must donate kidney to get out of U.S. jail

[t4488]

I have a question about the "punishment for having sex" thing. If the man doesn't want a child and the woman does, wouldn't child support from the man count as "punishment for having sex"? Would you be ethically opposed to men paying child support?

[beast]

Originally Posted by t4488

Sorry, this thread is moving too fast for me. I wouldn't be against an abortion in the case where the child would destroy the mother's kidneys or liver. That would be putting the mother's life at risk. And I wouldn't force anyone into the risk of donating kidneys or livers. I don't know much about blood or bone marrow donation. I never said I thought the rights of the unborn baby were more important than the mother's life.

It certainly isn't unprecedented though.

Sister must donate kidney to get out of U.S. jail

Obviously kidney and liver donation comes with some inherent risks, but you do realize that pregnancy does, too?

[inri]

Originally Posted by t4488

I have a question about the "punishment for having sex" thing. If the man doesn't want a child and the woman does, wouldn't child support from the man count as "punishment for having sex"? Would you be ethically opposed to men paying child support?

I've always thought that men should have an option to waive their parental rights in the case of a woman insisting upon bearing a child that they have no interest in supporting.

[beast]

I actually agree. Would that quell the "well, men don't have a choice!!!" arguments?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by t4488

And I wouldn't force anyone into the risk of donating kidneys or livers. I don't know much about blood or bone marrow donation. I never said I thought the rights of the unborn baby were more important than the mother's life.

If you wouldn't force anyone into the risk of donating kidneys or livers why would you force anyone into the risk of pregnancy and giving birth?

It is extremely rare to die of the surgery that is needed to donate a kidney. There are no long term down sides on health level or life expectancy.

It is less rare to die in childbirth or from pregnancy complications.

In both cases you save someone's life. Why would you say No in the first case and Yes in the second case? What is the difference for you?

(I'm not trying to argue with you btw. I am genuinely curious on how you see this being different)

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by inri

Thanks elucidate.

Particularly with written communication it seems that misunderstandings of tone run rampant....I suspect it's because such things as inflection and facial expressions aren't involved and it leaves the person reading to often fill in the blanks with his/her own perceptions (which often include their own issues and baggage).

Absolutely! People get an impression of what they THINK is the tone of the poster, and react to that, without really knowing what the persons intent or tone actually is. Then from there they get self-righteous and won't even consider the possibility that they could be way off the mark.

It sucks, but hey...that's life. It happens quite a lot in real life too, even when people can see your body language and facial expressions and hear your tone of voice...they can still take things the wrong way.

It's bloody annoying!

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by inri

I've always thought that men should have an option to waive their parental rights in the case of a woman insisting upon bearing a child that they have no interest in supporting.

That option is in full effect, and currently exists. If either parent - mother OR father, does not want to be financially obligated towards the child they have the option of signing away their parental rights, and opting out of any involvement in the child's life or any support payments. My son's older brother has a mother who lives in Canada and pays no support towards her son.

It's a for ♥♥♥♥♥ thing to do, because the kid is an independent human being and IMO it's sour grapes to say "I didn't want a kid" ... because if you bust a nut, you run the risk of reproducing, so it's just the adult thing to do to deal with the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a person.

I mean...if I am hammering a nail, and I miss the nail and hit my thumb, I don't have the option of opting out of the pain of having a smooshed thumb. In the same token I find it funny that people think they "should" have "the right" to opt out of consequences and out of life.

By the way I have a close friend who has a daughter who was the product of a rape. The little girl is 11 years old now, and very sweet. The world is a better place for her having been born, and I applaud her mother's very difficult decision. Thing is, it's not like her mom is especially strong and anything like that. In fact she is pretty fragile, emotionally speaking.

I'm not saying that everyone "should" make a similar choice, but it is heartening to know her, and know that from such devastation, growth, love, and beauty can come. I say this as a multiple rape survivor, myself.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

That option is in full effect, and currently exists. If either parent - mother OR father, does not want to be financially obligated towards the child they have the option of signing away their parental rights, and opting out of any involvement in the child's life or any support payments.

I didn't now this...a bit embarassed..as I do live in Canada myself.

My son's older brother has a mother who lives in Canada and pays no support towards her son.

...and I must admit to read about a 'real life situation' causes me to feel sad for the child...and the parent who obviously doesn't know what they're missing out on.

I'm not saying that everyone "should" make a similar choice, but it is heartening to know her, and know that from such devastation, growth, love, and beauty can come. I say this as a multiple rape survivor, myself.

That's a heartening and touching story you've realayed and one that does definitely demonstrate that incredible things can come from less than desirable circumstances.

I personally see a very grey area that exists in the period between conception and viability....this is a time imo where decision regarding the 'potential life' in question can be made as there is no 'person' yet developed enough to 'suffer' in the sense that we recognize suffering...just my opinion.

Like I've said before,while I may very well never personally choose the abortion option for myself, I do not believe that my sentiments on this subject should ever affect the body, mind or experience of another woman.

The intensely personal nature of pregnancy and childbirth are such that each and every woman who finds herself pregnant should have the right to search within for her own answers to this difficult question.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

That option is in full effect, and currently exists. If either parent - mother OR father, does not want to be financially obligated towards the child they have the option of signing away their parental rights, and opting out of any involvement in the child's life or any support payments. My son's older brother has a mother who lives in Canada and pays no support towards her son.

They still have to pay child support unless the other parent consents or a judge allows them to not pay child support.

Losing your parental rights doesn't mean you don't have to pay child support.

Basically, something odd is happening in that case, and it probably has to do with a judge approving the process (which is unusual) or her fleeing the country or the dad consenting.

Also if the child is adopted then the bio parent doesn't have to pay. So that's another possibility. Sometimes step-parents will adopt the child and then the bio parent is off the hook - although usually the bio parent is a crackhead with no money anyway in these cases.

[t4488]

Originally Posted by ssandra

If you wouldn't force anyone into the risk of donating kidneys or livers why would you force anyone into the risk of pregnancy and giving birth?

It is extremely rare to die of the surgery that is needed to donate a kidney. There are no long term down sides on health level or life expectancy.

It is less rare to die in childbirth or from pregnancy complications.

In both cases you save someone's life. Why would you say No in the first case and Yes in the second case? What is the difference for you?

(I'm not trying to argue with you btw. I am genuinely curious on how you see this being different)

I will admit I know nothing of the statistics, but I don't know anyone who has died from childbirth, or even had any major problems. That might be different in less developed counties. Donating a kidney leaves you with only one, if something happens to that one you are screwed, unless you can get the one you donated back. ".15% of the people who donate a kidney will develop kidney failure after donation" (from the quote below). I wouldn't expect anyone to sacrifice their health or unduly risk their life for another. But if it is just the rather large inconvienience of a nine month pregnancy to save a life you are partially responsible for creating, then I believe abortion is wrong. If the child is killing or harming the mother then the child should be stopped from doing that.

For example the mortality rate of mothers in chilbirth is something like 13 in 100 000. That is .013% if my math is correct. The mortality rates of kidney donations are:http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/507126

"2] From United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data, the overall mortality rate for live donors between October 1999 and October 2004 (n = 30,716) was approximately .04% at 3 days and .18% at 5 years. Deaths were reported in 21 cases.

As expected, older live donors have higher mortality rates, but a significant number are 18-24 years old, a puzzling reality of mortality among live donors. According to Davis, although the data have not been rigorously analyzed, whereas the rate of accidental deaths of young live donors is comparable to the death rates in the United States at large, the percentage of suicides and homicides among young live donors is higher than the national average. Additional research is needed to explain this phenomenon.

Since 1995, 104 UNOS registrants for transplantation have previously been live donors. Dr. Davis believes that in a worst-case scenario, approximately .15% of the people who donate a kidney will develop kidney failure after donation with a significant portion resulting from diabetes and hypertension."


Furthermore, I see a difference between not saving someone's life and actually taking a person's life. For example, to watch a person drown is not the same as causing a person to drown (holding them under water for example).

[beast]

Originally Posted by t4488

Furthermore, I see a difference between not saving someone's life and actually taking a person's life. For example, to watch a person drown is not the same as causing a person to drown (holding them under water for example).

Is it alright, then, for a pregnant woman to induce a miscarriage by starving herself, continuing to eat soft cheese, consuming large doses of vitamin C, and otherwise carrying on as she normally would?

[OneEyedKing]

OK. I read the OP and then skipped the rest.

I think for abortion to be illegal is immoral. History shows that many women will have them regardless of whether they are legal. If one of my family members were to have her mind set on getting an abortion and it were illegal, then she would be exposed to many more dangers. It being legal and regulated makes it a much safer practice.

I also think educating women about sex is a huge key in eliminating unwanted pregnancies, so that would be a better focus than changing the law. Of course many people do not want to educate, but tell people what to do.

There is my opinion. You are all welcome.

[inri]

Originally Posted by t4488

I will admit I know nothing of the statistics, but I don't know anyone who has died from childbirth, or even had any major problems.

there's plenty of women who have lasting complications from childbirth who would classify them as 'major problems.' The process of vaginal and ceasarian birth can do a whole lot of damage and I don't think there's too many of us who have gone through it who haven't come out with some amount of residual damage...such things as problem scar tissue, urinary incontinence, prolapsed uterus...just to name a few. As a woman I would call any one of these a fairly 'major' problem.

childbirth is but one portion of pregnancy that holds risk. Being pregnant itself presents many potential complications, many of which are quite common...common enough that most pregnant women are regularly monitored for them. Such conditions as; excessive morning sickness, gestational diabetes, premature labour, placenta previa, preeclampia, and hemmorrage, all present very real risks to any women who experiences pregnancy.

A portion of women experience something called 'rectus-abdominal muscles' where the abdominals become permanently separated..

On top of that, risk factors escalate markedly when a pre-existing health condition exists. Such as: MS, diabetes, heart issues, auto-immune disorders, etc.

While the incidence of actual death is low, is still is possible. I think though it could be said that 'some' amount of damage to the woman's body will occur due to pregnancy and childbirth.

while i do not personally agree that potential risk to health should be the focus of the abortion debate, I absolutely see pregnancy as being a health risk to women.

[elucidate]

Don't forget the women who have to have their vaginas cut down towards the anus, to accomodate the babies head coming out, which may be too big...as with my mother. Then there's always the chance that one of the nurses will leave one or more of the surgeons tools inside the woman during a caesarian, which can lead to blood poinoning, as also happened to my mother.

All sorts of stuff can go wrong with having babies.

Originally Posted by inri

there's plenty of women who have lasting complications from childbirth who would classify them as 'major problems.' The process of vaginal and ceasarian birth can do a whole lot of damage and I don't think there's too many of us who have gone through it who haven't come out with some amount of residual damage...such things as problem scar tissue, urinary incontinence, prolapsed uterus...just to name a few. As a woman I would call any one of these a fairly 'major' problem.

childbirth is but one portion of pregnancy that holds risk. Being pregnant itself presents many potential complications, many of which are quite common...common enough that most pregnant women are regularly monitored for them. Such conditions as; excessive morning sickness, gestational diabetes, premature labour, placenta previa, preeclampia, and hemmorrage, all present very real risks to any women who experiences pregnancy.

A portion of women experience something called 'rectus-abdominal muscles' where the abdominals become permanently separated..

On top of that, risk factors escalate markedly when a pre-existing health condition exists. Such as: MS, diabetes, heart issues, auto-immune disorders, etc.

While the incidence of actual death is low, is still is possible. I think though it could be said that 'some' amount of damage to the woman's body will occur due to pregnancy and childbirth.

while i do not personally agree that potential risk to health should be the focus of the abortion debate, I absolutely see pregnancy as being a health risk to women.

[carolynggme]

When our population has now reached over 7 Billion, why be so dense? The mother should have the choice, if it comes to that. The real problem is lack of education, but that will not be solved in our lifetime!

[DerekB]

Its murder, plain and simple. It isn't a potential baby, its just a baby. If I killed a fifty-year old man, I haven't killed a "potential grandfather", I've killed a person. Killing a baby while its still in the womb is no different, they are just easier for some to kill because you're never going to have to look into one's eyes as you take their life. That baby didn't ask to be created. Whoever did that took responsibility for it and agreed, whether they like it or not, to the risk of having a baby. Having sex, even with birth control, is like gambling (albeit with incredibly good odds) that you wont have a baby. Whether you like it or not, there is an implicit acceptance of that risk when you do it. If you're not willing to accept that, than don't have sex, or have some sort of surgery done. But once you're dealt your cards, you cant look at the dealer and say "this isnt what I wanted, I want my bet back", you have to play the hand your dealt. You can always put a baby up for adoption or send it to an orphanage, abortion is NEVER the only solution, if one could even term it that. People who argue for it disgust me. A woman does have the right to choose. Its just that its the right to choose whether or not to have sex, not the right to kill a baby that she created willingly.

Only exceptions: rape, incest, danger to the mother.
Other than that: abortion = murder, abortion supporters = gullible idiots/ willing accomplices.