What's your position on abortion? And why?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

It comes down to a woman's choice, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Although I think men should also have some kind of rights as well, that is not the case today. Either way, it's not up to me to decide.

How and to what extent should the father's opinion influence the (legal) decision, in your opinion?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

It could be murder, but not really. The unborn is exactly that, unborn. Most of the time, abortions are performed when the fetus is very, very small. Or even microscopic. It's hard to draw the line, and many of us would rather just say that life begins at conception, mostly because they hate grey areas. How come when somebody has a miscarriage there's no funeral? How come when you ask a pregnant lady how many children she has, it's something like two and one on the way instead of three children?

There are actually funeral rites held for stillborn babies in many places. Women do mourn their miscarriages in many cases. Japan cemetaries are full of faceless buddha statues that are a sign of mourning the loss of a pregnancy - whether through miscarriage or abortion. And at times, people generally considered that if a child died young, he didn't count. You'd give the next sibling the same name and pretend that child hadn't really existed.

My mother gave birth to 4 live babies, but then lost one. She says she has 3 children, because these are the ones that she raised and that make up her family. This is what matters today. Of course my dead brother counts, but to a different extend than my live, adult siblings.

Real life is full of grey areas. It's perfectly fine to consider and discuss these gray areas. They make bad slogans, though.

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

I thought it prevented conception and implantation, if it was already conceived?

Obviously interventional clinical trials cannot be conducted for ethical reasons, but the statistical success rate indicate that if ovulation and/or conception has already occured, the pregnancy will continue unharmed.

This is for PlanB/Norlevo (1.5 mg of levonorgestrel). I'm not certain about the newer EllaOne.

[Cado]

As a man, I don't think I have a right to a strong opinion. I wouldn't and couldn't carry a baby to term. I have no idea what it's like to be pregnant or how hard it is to wrestle with a decision like that. Even if I were part of a couple where abortion was being considered I believe it would be a thousand times harder on my significant other than it would be on me.

The only thing I can comment on is benchmarks. I cannot support late-term abortions for anything aside from health reasons. Aborting pregnancy prior to or right after conception, say with the morning after pill, is a-okay in my book. A clump of cells isn't a person even if it will become one in time.

I agree that sentience is where the line should be drawn, but I admit my ignorance-when does a fetus become sentient? That's the tricky part. Do we have a solid answer? If we don't then I think a three-month cutoff point is probably for the best.

Personally, I'd rather see people focus on taking care of the children we already have than debate endlessly over whether abortion is morally justifiable. There's a billion starving mouths to feed and the birth or death of one child in a first world country is insignificant by comparison. This is all the more true if the child would come into a home where they're unwanted and/or abused. Yeah, a lot of kids grow up to make good on bad situations, but there's no reason to thrust them into that knowing what they're up against.

It reminds me of something the late George Carlin said- "Before you're born your okay, afterward you're ****ed." That's definitely not an exact quote but it's nonetheless true. What sickens me about the pro-life end of the debate is that they don't care about kids, they care about upholding their (often religiously inspired) ideals. People can go **** themselves, they just want to stop abortions. That's the exact wrong way to go about it. What we need is a world where there's no valid reason to ever get an abortion and that's a long way off. For now we live with it.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

What's your position on abortion? And why?

I am a moderate on this. Ideally I would like to see a world where abortion is no longer necessary. But as for today, sometimes it is the best solution, depending on an individual's situation.

[t4488]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

What sickens me about the pro-life end of the debate is that they don't care about kids, they care about upholding their (religiously inspired) ideals. .

It isn't necessarily religiously inspired. If you see an unborn child as a person then it is seen as murdering a person. I'm sure most people whether religious or not see murder as wrong.

I would consider myself anti-abortion. If it is a baby at 7 months then it is just splitting hairs to say it isn't a baby at 2 months. It is alive and human. The brain dead argument is flawed I would say. If someone has no brain activity but you can say with certainty they will have brain activity in 3 months, do you still kill them? Of course if the mother's life in in danger that is a different matter.

[elucidate]

I am pro-choice, but anti-♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. As James says, the being is alive, so if you choose to have an abortion , at least be honest with yourself about that.

I also don't recommend having a termination after 3 months, for health and mental health reasons...but again, it is up to the woman.

[James81]

Originally Posted by t4488

It isn't necessarily religiously inspired. If you see an unborn child as a person then it is seen as murdering a person. I'm sure most people whether religious or not see murder as wrong.

But how can someone dismiss the prolife viewpoint unless they paint us all as antiwoman religious zealots?

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Inspired by a few conversations with James.

I can't read this thread, so I'll post my opinion and come back to it later. I understand the point of view of the pro-lifers. Human life is profoundly valuable. What I do not get is that the pro-lifers are often the very people who are against very real, practical policies that would reduce the rate of unexpected pregnancies and self-induced abortions (which lead to a greater rate of maternal mortality). The facts are these: people will have sex even if you teach them through out high school that they ought to abstain from it. People will self-induce an abortion even if it risks death if they feel unprepared to care for the baby. For people who claim to 'value life', I think it is hypocritical to be against contraception, sex education, universal access to health care and policies that will alleviate poverty.

There are better solutions to preserve the sanctity of human life without imposing all of the responsibility onto the woman. Imposing all of the responsibility onto the woman simply does not work. Yet all of the pro-lifers I meet refuse to accept this. Ignorance and self-righteousness does not preserve human life. Good, practical policies do.

I'm pro-choice BTW.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by t4488

I would consider myself anti-abortion. If it is a baby at 7 months then it is just splitting hairs to say it isn't a baby at 2 months. It is alive and human. The brain dead argument is flawed I would say. If someone has no brain activity but you can say with certainty they will have brain activity in 3 months, do you still kill them? Of course if the mother's life in in danger that is a different matter.

I see it differently. I see it that before the 3 months the baby isn't a separate being yet. It is like a growth that is part of the mom. Like as if an extra finger would grow on the woman. Basically like a wild grow of cells.

After 3 months, when it is (in my opinion) sentient to a higher degree, it starts to form it's separate person.

That is why before 3 months I don't see it as murder, but I see it as removal of an excess of unwanted cells.

[rei]

I believe in choice. I am not sure I could actually have an abortion myself, even if I felt that the essence or spirit of the would-be child would be better off. I believe that the right to do so was hard won, and women are allowed that right. I think some folks don't get just how nasty such a decision usually is. And how there is often a lot of grief, and how women usually find out that even if it is done in a sterile facility their reproductive health can be at risk after, and it's just not something anybody tends to take lightly. I'm not sure the pro-life crowd has quite seen that bit. I think many of them believe it is taken lightly.

Unfortunately, the adoption system isn't nearly as streamlined as it could be. If it were possible to have low/no hassle and swift adoption, that would be more viable. Even so, I don't know if I could realistically set up an adoption and then birth a child myself and still be able to go through with said adoption.

This issue gets to me a little bit. My state at one time had the highest child poverty rate, highest teen pregnancy rate, and one of the lowest numbers of abortive facilities of the whole U.S. Add to that a lot of ridiculous rules about getting it done, with fundamentalist political roots, so that the state makes it exceedingly difficult for a girl or woman to exercise her federally-afforded power of choice. (And yet... highest child poverty rate... hello!!1!)

I think Illustro Cado has a point about the argument against maintaining choice seeming to be largely about ideology. Many of the people who influenced the strict regulations in my state don't seem to care much about what happens to those children once they are born to someone who felt entirely unprepared for the role. (Yeah yeah personal responsibility don't have sex unless. But then they also use abstinence-only education in most parts of the state. It's just quite f'ed up.)

I mean really, if someone has the foresight to know they will be too hooked on crack/heroine or too impoverished or too immature to raise a child so that child can thrive, isn't it in some sense BETTER for the would-be sentient being to not have to go through that neglect or abuse or complications of being born to a drug addict (like being born hooked on the drug of choice)? *Especially* since adoption has become, for whatever reason, a bit cumbersome and lengthy and difficult?

My personal opinion is that it is more humane to terminate the life that would be, rather than carry it to term if that woman or girl knows she will not give it all it deserves as a human.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by rei

My personal opinion is that it is more humane to terminate the life that would be, rather than carry it to term if that woman or girl knows she will not give it all it deserves as a human.

I feel the same on this point. I've met some people who knew they were never wanted, and they were treated terribly as children, and had to live with the knowledge that they were neither loved nor wanted...which must be just awful.

[rei]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I feel the same on this point. I've met some people who knew they were never wanted, and they were treated terribly as children, and had to live with the knowledge that they were neither loved nor wanted...which must be just awful.

Sure, that would be unpleasant I think.

I have heard pro-lifers use adoption as the reason termination of pregnancy is still inhumane but I'm not sure how many of them have actually looked at the adoption process, as either the biological mother or the folks who would be receiving the child. It's quite messy and lengthy and doesn't really strike me as viable for a young pregnant woman in crisis.

I would love it if there were a more user-friendly and swift alternative to adoption as it exists today.

-----

Oh, and I would also say, I think in certain situations it might be nice if there were regulations related to the would-be father. However that's also a sticky line. What if he raped his wife and she's gearing up to leave him after years of abuse (but he's also been skilled at the abuse so no evidence exists, making it invisible as a crime to law enforcement)? What if he is a misogynist who doesn't believe she is fully human so she is incapable of making such a decision?

I mean, can we argue that as he ejaculated he also "gave away" the absolute right to know what happens to the sperm? That it is no longer his property as it's now inside the woman?

I dunno. I can think of some situations where it would be nice if the woman were encouraged in a supportive environment to make the guy aware, and if said woman were offered some kind of complementary service to do that for her if she were feeling bashful.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by rei

Add to that a lot of ridiculous rules about getting it done, with fundamentalist political roots, so that the state makes it exceedingly difficult for a girl or woman to exercise her federally-afforded power of choice. (And yet... highest child poverty rate... hello!!1!).

I have heard that the US will not fund abortion for low income people (via medicare or whatever). But they will fund sterilization? Is this true? Or is it an unfounded 'horror' story invented by Canadians?

[rei]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I have heard that the US will not fund abortion for low income people (via medicare or whatever). But they will fund sterilization? Is this true? Or is it an unfounded 'horror' story invented by Canadians?

??

I know there is one facility in my state, where you can go. I don't know about the cost. I want to say it is based on income but I'm not sure if the funding is private or public.

(There used to be two facilities in my state. One shut down because of all the death threats on the physicians, and bomb threats on the structure itself. Gah I need to get it together and get out of this state man.)

I haven't heard anything at all about the government funding sterilization I know there are quiet eugenicists all over the place. In fact, Planned Parenthood (they provide a lot of birth control and such to low income folks) was started by a proponent of eugenics. And Planned Parenthood doesn't actually sterilize anybody. I've heard that would be expensive!

Except for maybe whatever all the hormone-infused chickens are doing to young women. So far it seems they are getting their reproductive systems running sooner though, rather than not at all.

Honestly, I haven't heard what you're talking about before over here. Maybe those folks are discussing the link between Planned Parenthood and eugenics? If so, that's not actual sterilization.

[James81]

As a guy, if I got a woman pregnant and she wanted to abort it and I wanted to keep it and she chose to abort it anyway id probably have trouble with that and I ll be honest, it would probably end whatever relationship I had with her.

That's not to say that I don't understand that its her body-I do-I just wouldn't stay with someone who might not consider my own reasons and feelings on the matter. I think that fathers in our society get dismissed and invalidated in the decision making process of the child. I've experienced some of that myself and have observed a lot of it. I know that's not "the truth" its just an experience and an observation.

[ssandra]

Rei, I don't know but I always thought that abortion was easy on the mom.... just extremely difficult on those who want to adopt...??

What does a future mom has to go through?

[rei]

James, what if she was willing to say okay, I will carry it to term, and then we'll get a lawyer (you pay for it) to draw up papers so you're the sole legal guardian and you're responsible for meeting all of the would-be child's material and non-material needs. And then we may or may not make this a situation where biological-mom is still in its life. Maybe she even basically makes you choose between keeping the child or keeping her around.

Would you be down with that?

===

You know how in dating, people will tell you themselves the details that make more sense once the rose vision fades? Like they mention always having volatile relationships or they mention always being the one who ends it first when things get too deep and connected.

I tend to think the prospect of parenting is similar. People usually know how ready they are. (Aside from the fleeting anxiety that comes to someone who is ready but still just a bit anxious.)

And I'm not sure it's in the best interests of a child to be parented by someone who knows with some level of certainty that they don't have the resources for it.

[rei]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Rei, I don't know but I always thought that abortion was easy on the mom.... just extremely difficult on those who want to adopt...??

What does a future mom has to go through?

Did you mean you thought adoption was easy on the mom?

[Sarah Wilson]

I'm totally against it.

Except for extreme cases like rape, sexual assault or incest.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by rei

James, what if she was willing to say okay, I will carry it to term, and then we'll get a lawyer (you pay for it) to draw up papers so you're the sole legal guardian and you're responsible for meeting all of the would-be child's material and non-material needs. And then we may or may not make this a situation where biological-mom is still in its life. Maybe she even basically makes you choose between keeping the child or keeping her around.

That's not actually possible, because the minute a child is born s/he becomes a citizen with rights, which include a right to financial support from both parents. Even if both prospective parents agree on the contract, it becomes null as soon as the child is born.

[rei]

Originally Posted by aelle

That's not actually possible, because the minute a child is born s/he becomes a citizen with rights, which include a right to financial support from both parents. Even if both prospective parents agree on the contract, it becomes null as soon as the child is born.

Hmm.

So then how does adoption work? Somehow they set it up so even a single parent can be responsible. It's not the norm but I do know a couple people who adopted as single parents.

I am glad a child has the right to support from both parents. Somehow in practice that's often not happening though.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by rei

Did you mean you thought adoption was easy on the mom?

yes. The mom being the pregnant person.

Originally Posted by Sarah Wilson

I'm totally against it.

Except for extreme cases like rape, sexual assault or incest.

Why?

Originally Posted by aelle

That's not actually possible, because the minute a child is born s/he becomes a citizen with rights, which include a right to financial support from both parents. Even if both prospective parents agree on the contract, it becomes null as soon as the child is born.

What if the mom gives up the child for adoption to the dad? That should be possible right?

[rei]

Adoption is easier on the biological mother than it is on adoptive parents. It's still an emotionalized situation. Sometimes the biological mother is manipulated into putting the child up for adoption even if that agency is already backed up with the red tape. There's a lot of different agencies and lots of people who want to adopt. It is easier for her than it is for the parents but the process itself is rather lengthy, sometimes involves uprooting and living elsewhere like in a special hotel type facility with the adoption agency, so taking it all together it is its own form of trauma.

Not to mention giving birth and then having to give the child up when all your hormones (if they are working properly) are screaming for you to do the opposite and hold your child.

There's all these couples who waited too long to try for kids so they want to adopt. Unsuccessful fertility treatments. And somehow there's also a lot of unwanted kids in the world. And kids who sit somewhere until they are no longer squishy newborns and then their chance of being adopted plummets because so many want the "complete" child-rearing experience.

Somehow I've also heard there's a huge waiting list to adopt in many regions. Even as there's also a ton of kids without "real" parent(al figure)s.

Someone needs to sit down and integrate all of those things so the supply and demand can actually meet.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by rei

Honestly, I haven't heard what you're talking about before over here. Maybe those folks are discussing the link between Planned Parenthood and eugenics? If so, that's not actual sterilization.

I've never heard of Planned Parenthood before, so no. I don't think this is the case. If I get around to it, I'll look it up some time.

As for the whole stream lining adoption idea, I'm not sure if it would work unless the State also provided medical funding and paid any expenses involved (ie. any time off work that is needed during the pregnancy).

[inri]

Imo, The only position or opinion that matters is that of the woman housing the pregnancy.

While many of us may hold strong opinions regarding the state or status of a fetus, the fact is, until it is viable, it lives in and off of the body of another...it is completely dependent upon the body, health and even coopertaion of an independent, fully developed woman who surely should be entitled to full ownership and rights of her own body.

The fact that I would likely not choose this for myself should in no way cause me to try to take that option away from another woman. It is a decision that is intensely personal and I have difficulty with the very idea that those on the periphery should have any say in the matter whatsoever.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by aelle

I don't know if you missed my previous post, but how can it be a person if it can become two persons?

That is an interesting question I've never considered that one before.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by t4488

It isn't necessarily religiously inspired. If you see an unborn child as a person then it is seen as murdering a person. I'm sure most people whether religious or not see murder as wrong.

I meant to put an often in there and I did with an edit, though it is true that in the states pro-life almost automatically means religious. The two are so closely interlinked, at least within the media, that if you say you're one people will assume you're the other. That's a big part of the reason I hate "debate" within this climate, but that's another topic.

[beast]

I am firmly pro-choice, and strongly against any attempts to bring rape and incest into the debate. Absolutely, rape is a horrible crime and no woman should ever be forced to carry her rapist's fetus to term - but I don't believe that women in this situation have any more or less of a right to obtain abortions as women who engaged in consensual sex. I think that, by framing the debate in this way ("pro-life except in cases of rape or incest"), all we're really doing is demonizing women for choosing to have sex. I can't get behind that - the circumstances of conception are absolutely not relevant to me.

I can sympathize with how heart-wrenching it would be for a man who felt that his partner aborted his child against his will. The only solution I can think of is to discuss these manners beforehand, wrap it up, and hope for the best. There's no easy solution here, but the decision must fall fully in the hands of the person carrying and bearing the child.

[beast]

Originally Posted by inri

Imo, The only position or opinion that matters is that of the woman housing the pregnancy.

While many of us may hold strong opinions regarding the state or status of a fetus, the fact is, until it is viable, it lives in and off of the body of another...it is completely dependent upon the body, health and even coopertaion of an independent, fully developed woman who surely should be entitled to full ownership and rights of her own body.

The fact that I would likely not choose this for myself should in no way cause me to try to take that option away from another woman. It is a decision that is intensely personal and I have difficulty with the very idea that those on the periphery should have any say in the matter whatsoever.

I just wanted to quote this for emphasis, and reiterate how important this distinction is for me. It always gets me a little when people preface their statements by saying, "well, personally I'm against abortion but..." Personally, I'm against 2 in 1 shampoo conditioners, jeggings, poodles, and skim milk, but it really doesn't matter and it really isn't relevant. Framing an argument in that manner always seems like a way of casting judgment on a woman's very personal decision.

[rei]

Originally Posted by beast

I just wanted to quote this for emphasis, and reiterate how important this distinction is for me. It always gets me a little when people preface their statements by saying, "well, personally I'm against abortion but..." Personally, I'm against 2 in 1 shampoo conditioners, jeggings, poodles, and skim milk, but it really doesn't matter and it really isn't relevant. Framing an argument in that manner always seems like a way of casting judgment on a woman's very personal decision.

Can you elaborate or explain your reasoning on this a bit?