What's your position on abortion? And why?

[t4488]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

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.

I would even say most. But not all.

[t4488]

Originally Posted by ssandra

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.

But it has it's own unique human DNA. It is not a growth that is part of the mom.

[James81]

Originally Posted by t4488

I would even say most. But not all.

These are copout arguements. (I've used them myself, so I'm not wagging a finger at you guys or anything.)

Work with what is in front of you. That is, I've mentioned that I take a pro-life stance in this thread. Rather than assume that "most pro-lifer's" interwine religious zealotry and their views on abortion, why not take the time to address those of us who are in the thread and find out what fuels those motivations, rather than just assume that "a lot" or "most" or "often" pro-lifers take that stance because of religion?

Generalizations like that are dismissive.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think babies should have the rights of a person, and that an embryo is not a baby. A woman's right to choose whether to carry it to term trumps the embryo's and anyone else's. I'm glad that every state in the US agrees. Period.

How 'bout if the father wants the baby?
He'll pay all medical bills plus $20,000.
Would you be in favor of a law requiring the birth of the baby in that case?
.

[t4488]

Originally Posted by James81

These are copout arguements. (I've used them myself, so I'm not wagging a finger at you guys or anything.)

Work with what is in front of you. That is, I've mentioned that I take a pro-life stance in this thread. Rather than assume that "most pro-lifer's" interwine religious zealotry and their views on abortion, why not take the time to address those of us who are in the thread and find out what fuels those motivations, rather than just assume that "a lot" or "most" or "often" pro-lifers take that stance because of religion?

Generalizations like that are dismissive.

Yeah you are right. I have no statistics (and would question the validity of those stats) on how many pro-lifers are religious and since I'm ONE of the not particularily religious pro-lifers I shouldn't assume about the motivations of others.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by t4488

But it has it's own unique human DNA. It is not a growth that is part of the mom.

I disagree.

I don't think that just because it has unique human DNA, it should be considered a person already. I believe that comes later.

[ssandra]

Thanks everyone! This discussion has helped me see how much I am pro-abortion in the early stages and pro-choice in the early stages (until 3 months) and how much I am against abortion for "convenience"* in later stages.

Convenience meaning that there aren't medical circumstances for either the baby or the mom.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by James81

Work with what is in front of you. That is, I've mentioned that I take a pro-life stance in this thread.

In real life, what are your views on abortion? And why?

And in real life, what are your views on the laws of abortion? And why? (meaning: should the government regulate? And if yes, what exactly do you feel those rules should be?)

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

Generalizations like that are dismissive.

Don't you consider telling people their point of view is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is dismissive, too?

Originally Posted by sorter

How 'bout if the father wants the baby?
He'll pay all medical bills plus $20,000.
Would you be in favor of a law requiring the birth of the baby in that case?
.

I would not be in favor of such a law. I've heard of guys trying to get injunctions -- to force women to carry their babies to term -- but as far as I know, they've all crashed and burned. I would hope that the mama would consider the papa's feelings, though, when making her choice.

[Mounds]

TBH, I don't see any reason to argue over it. If you are pro-life, then do not consider abortion an option. If you are pro-choice, then keep it as an option.
There will always be circumstances where an abortion is the appropriate choice and there will be instances where it would seem morally wrong. An example of each:

Woman is raped and carrying rapist's baby.

A woman who is irresponsible and is on her fifth abortion.

For me, it's an open-and-shut case.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mounds

TBH, I don't see any reason to argue over it. If you are pro-life, then do not consider abortion an option.

Well, for many people, it's not a live-and-let-live issue like that -- if you believe that people are being murdered, your feelings might tend to be interventionist in the matter -- you might want to either argue people out of killing babies (or supporting killing babies) or even forcefully intervene.

And the folks who are forcefully intervened upon might want to either argue people out of forcefully intervening (voting for laws against abortion, or violently or manipulatively preventing abortions) or forcefully resist.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Mounds

TBH, I don't see any reason to argue over it. If you are pro-life, then do not consider abortion an option. If you are pro-choice, then keep it as an option.
There will always be circumstances where an abortion is the appropriate choice and there will be instances where it would seem morally wrong. An example of each:

Woman is raped and carrying rapist's baby.

A woman who is irresponsible and is on her fifth abortion.

For me, it's an open-and-shut case.

So, in the second case you would say that that woman and the baby are better off if she has the baby? Or that she shouldn't have an abortion?

The problem is that it isn't an open and shut case as long as there are people who want to make this moral distinction for you. Who say "it is morally wrong to have an abortion, period!" and want to create laws that support their moral point of view.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Mounds

TBH, I don't see any reason to argue over it. If you are pro-life, then do not consider abortion an option. If you are pro-choice, then keep it as an option.
There will always be circumstances where an abortion is the appropriate choice and there will be instances where it would seem morally wrong. An example of each:

Woman is raped and carrying rapist's baby.

A woman who is irresponsible and is on her fifth abortion.

For me, it's an open-and-shut case.

So it's morally right to force the irresponsible woman, who clearly shows no want or need for a baby, to actually have a baby? Sure doesn't seem morally right for that baby, once it's born into such an environment.

" not only were you unwanted and a mistake, but the government FORCED me to have you, even tho I was not ready for you. But I still love you.

[James81]

Originally Posted by ssandra

In real life, what are your views on abortion? And why?

And in real life, what are your views on the laws of abortion? And why? (meaning: should the government regulate? And if yes, what exactly do you feel those rules should be?)

Haha, that question made me laugh because I didn't think my statement would be perceived that way.

My real life views are the same as the views I laid out in here. I just used "in this thread" as a "Hey, look at what is in front of you" kind of statement.

In any case, my views are this:

I am pro-life. That is, I err on the side of not aborting babies. And when I say "err," I mean that it's kind of like weighing everything in the balance and realizing that at the end of the day, I'd rather see the babies live than die.

However, I'm not anti-abortion. I don't think that the government should regulate a womans choice in this matter. And no, I do not see the baby as part of her body. I think the choice is about whether the baby lives or dies, not a matter of "what a woman does with her body."

I think abortion is "gruesome" (i.e. a "bad" thing), but I think it's necessary in our society. I think that as we evolve, and if we evolve, it'll eventually become not necessary and that future generations of humans will look back on it as "barbaric" in nature.

I don't believe in sugar-coating that. It is what it is, and it's a horrible thing, but it's something that we gotta live with for now. Might as well make it safe. I wouldn't say "make it legal." I would say that the government just stay out of the matter and not condone it one way or the other.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by Angela

I would not be in favor of such a law. I've heard of guys trying to get injunctions -- to force women to carry their babies to term -- but as far as I know, they've all crashed and burned. I would hope that the mama would consider the papa's feelings, though, when making her choice.

But why?
How 'bout if the father wants the baby?
He'll pay all medical bills plus $20,000.
A years membership to a gym.
Two years tuition to college if she wants.

How could a "woman's right" trump all that over a new life?
.

[rei]

It would create a horrible environment if we legalized the ability to get compensated for bearing a child.

That is why already, women who choose to give up the child to adoptive parents can only be compensated for medical care or the cost of the pregnancy.

If we allowed such compensation people would find ways to work the system and the unborn life would be devalued in the process, as just a paycheck, by some.

Hmm. So pregnant women can't be compensated for carrying to term, but somehow compensation occurs when it comes to surrogacy and selling your eggs and all of that. I'm honestly not sure I understand that quasi-contradiction.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by sorter

But why?
How 'bout if the father wants the baby?
He'll pay all medical bills plus $20,000.
A years membership to a gym.
Two years tuition to college if she wants.

How could a "woman's right" trump all that over a new life?
.

Throw in a new wardrobe and I'll have your baby, sorter!

Why and how, you ask? I feel that the person who carries the pregnancy also carries the right of choice about the pregnancy. The daddy doesn't have the right of first refusal to buy that choice from her, in my view -- and I'm glad that the courts have agreed with me on that.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by James81

Haha, that question made me laugh because I didn't think my statement would be perceived that way.

Like I said in another thread: I tend to take some things to literal

In any case, my views are this:

Originally Posted by James81

I am pro-life. That is, I err on the side of not aborting babies. And when I say "err," I mean that it's kind of like weighing everything in the balance and realizing that at the end of the day, I'd rather see the babies live than die.

Thank you for your point of view.

Wouldn't you say that a non-government regulated abortion might cause more problems though?

For example: Not all centers might have the same standards when it comes to counseling (which I consider a very important part of the abortion process) or when it comes to rules such as the 5 day wait period (at least in the Netherlands when you have your first appointment with a counselor you have to wait at least 5 or 7 days before you have your medical appointment, to make sure you really think things through).

if that is not regulated, by government or any other institution that can have influence over abortion centers, I would consider that a bigger danger....?

What is your opinion?

[sorter]

Originally Posted by rei

It would create a horrible environment if we legalized the ability to get compensated for bearing a child.

More horrible that abortion?

Originally Posted by rei

That is why already, women who choose to give up the child to adoptive parents can only be compensated for medical care or the cost of the pregnancy.

If we allowed such compensation people would find ways to work the system and the unborn life would be devalued in the process, as just a paycheck, by some.

I'm only talking about if the father wants to do all that.
How many women would risk needing and paying for an abortion if the
father didn't come through?
.

[James81]

Originally Posted by James81

Haha, that question made me laugh because I didn't think my statement would be perceived that way.

My real life views are the same as the views I laid out in here. I just used "in this thread" as a "Hey, look at what is in front of you" kind of statement.

In any case, my views are this:

I am pro-life. That is, I err on the side of not aborting babies. And when I say "err," I mean that it's kind of like weighing everything in the balance and realizing that at the end of the day, I'd rather see the babies live than die.

However, I'm not anti-abortion. I don't think that the government should regulate a womans choice in this matter. And no, I do not see the baby as part of her body. I think the choice is about whether the baby lives or dies, not a matter of "what a woman does with her body."

I think abortion is "gruesome" (i.e. a "bad" thing), but I think it's necessary in our society. I think that as we evolve, and if we evolve, it'll eventually become not necessary and that future generations of humans will look back on it as "barbaric" in nature.

I don't believe in sugar-coating that. It is what it is, and it's a horrible thing, but it's something that we gotta live with for now. Might as well make it safe. I wouldn't say "make it legal." I would say that the government just stay out of the matter and not condone it one way or the other.

To add to this post, I might add that the reason I call it a "baby" and not a "clump of cells" (as Illustrato Casto has consistently referred to it) is because of this:



That's a picture (according to google anyway) of a 3 month old fetus. I kind of struggle to see THAT as a "clump of cells" personally.

[rei]

Originally Posted by sorter

More horrible that abortion?

You view abortion as horrible, apparently. Not everyone else does. Personally, I believe it would devalue human life to allow people to get paid to make babies. I'd rather not create a situation where someone is rewarded for having a child they didn't want to have.

Originally Posted by sorter

I'm only talking about if the father wants to do all that.
How many women would risk needing and paying for an abortion if the
father didn't come through?
.

I can't really answer your question, and something about the way you worded it leaves me unsure of what you're really asking. There are women who choose to terminate even if the would-be father seems upstanding enough. Plenty of women don't make the choice based on whether the would-be father will stick around or meet the would-be child's material needs.

[Mounds]

Maybe I'm way off in left field here but I think the reason it's considered a womans right is because of the physiological changes that go with a pregnancy. You got your sickness, your hormones, your physical appearance, emotional turmoil (both during and after the pregnancy)...
@sandra and RR - I guess I should clarify, i'm not suggesting that this woman now must have a child. I think it would be worthwhile to sit her down and say, "OK, what's going on here?". Maybe there is an underlying issue or maybe she plainly doesn't get it. I knew someone who lived that life.
Anyhow, gonna bow out of this one. An observation: it feels like there's an undertone of win-lose. Man wins, woman loses or woman wins, man loses. The fixed pie circle is on the loose. Not just in this thread but all over. What is the purpose of these discussions?

-Tim

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James81

To add to this post, I might add that the reason I call it a "baby" and not a "clump of cells" (as Illustrato Casto has consistently referred to it) is because of this:



That's a picture (according to google anyway) of a 3 month old fetus. I kind of struggle to see THAT as a "clump of cells" personally.

Well, if you wanna go that route.

[beast]

Originally Posted by James81

I think the choice is about whether the baby lives or dies, not a matter of "what a woman does with her body."

I really hope that you're able to see it in both ways?

Considering that the vast majority of abortions occur before the three month mark, when the embryo (or fetus) is not yet three inches long and still a couple months away from being viable, I don't think "clump of cells" is all that inaccurate, though it is about as loaded as the word "baby".

sorter, I am appalled by the idea of using financial incentives to force a woman to have a child against her will, but absolutely, if the woman does want to carry her child to term and is discouraged by a lack of financial resources, then I think it is wonderful for her to receive help.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Maybe I'm way off in left field here but I think the reason it's considered a womans right is because of the physiological changes that go with a pregnancy. You got your sickness, your hormones, your physical appearance, emotional turmoil (both during and after the pregnancy)...
@sandra and RR - I guess I should clarify, i'm not suggesting that this woman now must have a child. I think it would be worthwhile to sit her down and say, "OK, what's going on here?". Maybe there is an underlying issue or maybe she plainly doesn't get it. I knew someone who lived that life.
Anyhow, gonna bow out of this one. An observation: it feels like there's an undertone of win-lose. Man wins, woman loses or woman wins, man loses. The fixed pie circle is on the loose. Not just in this thread but all over. What is the purpose of these discussions?

-Tim

You are correct, and that's exactly her point in specifying that if we ban abortions, there will NOT be a sit down with her to ask " OK, what's going on here?". If it's legal, then there will be regulations, such as a waiting period, and counseling, before and after.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by Angela

Throw in a new wardrobe and I'll have your baby, sorter!

OK, but I'm not going to California.
You lose half your brain cells just stepping off the plane.

Originally Posted by Angela

Why and how, you ask? I feel that the person who carries the pregnancy also carries the right of choice about the pregnancy. The daddy doesn't have the right of first refusal to buy that choice from her, in my view -- and I'm glad that the courts have agreed with me on that.

Eh, you're not really saying why. Never mind the courts.
It sounds like you don't value new life over something but I'm not sure what.
Pregnancy isn't that difficult, is it?

I'm trying to get some concreteness about "women's rights".
To a degree it's always sounded irrational or even hysterical and
men tend to cower in the face of it.
I would normally but all I really have to fear here is ALL CAPS.


For the record. I think vacuuming a fetus out of a uterus is disgusting physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
I imagine advanced beings flying by in their UFOs and saying let's look somewhere else for trading partners. These people are sick.
I am pro-life in the literal sense. Legally is a tough one.
If God told me to decide one way or the other I might have to flip a coin.

I don't think we do nearly enough to ensure that all babies are wanted.
I think that is the sad commentary on humanity.

I would put much more responsibility on men (or boys probably in most cases)
No getting out of child support in terms of money and time rearing the child.
Let's face it, raging male hormones are key in this issue. If men could easily control themselves, there would be no unwanted babies.
Maybe except for the relatively rare woman who lies about being on birth control for whatever sick reason.
.

[James81]

Originally Posted by beast

I really hope that you're able to see it in both ways?

Yes, I am able to see it in both ways.

I see how the pregnancy is an effect on the woman's body as well.

In the case of abortion, though, I don't see it as a choice as to what to do with her body. I think the real decision, the real debate here, is whether a potential human life lives or dies.

That is, I see it both ways, I just think that the issue is centered more around the baby's life than it is the woman's body as it pertains to choice.

I also understand that I make that distinction because I err on the side of being pro-life.

[beast]

Originally Posted by sorter

Pregnancy isn't that difficult, is it?

It can be. I'd say yes, to varying degrees, it always is. There's a reason that the going rate for surrogate mothers is $30-40,000 dollars and it's still hard to find one.

I'm trying to get some concreteness about "women's rights".
To a degree it's always sounded irrational or even hysterical and
men tend to cower in the face of it.
I would normally but all I really have to fear here is ALL CAPS.

I can see (hope?) that your tone is light-hearted here, but I trust you realize that the only thing irrational and hysterical is for men to cower in the face of women's rights.

For the record. I think vacuuming a fetus out of a uterus is disgusting physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
I imagine advanced beings flying by in their UFOs and saying let's look somewhere else for trading partners. These people are sick.
I am pro-life in the literal sense. Legally is a tough one.
If God told me to decide one way or the other I might have to flip a coin.

I think your judgments are spiritually and emotionally disgusting.

I agree that abortion is physically disgusting, but I'm squeamish. I think that all surgical procedures are disgusting. I watched Bridalplasty the other night (guilty, guilty pleasure of which we shall speak no more) and was absolutely repulsed with how graphically they showed liposuction being done. So, yes, I think surgery is physically disgusting and I cannot fathom how doctors can do it. But, also, the fact that surgery grosses us out is not relevant to the discussion. You know what else is pretty gross? Childbirth.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by beast

I can see (hope?) that your tone is light-hearted here, but I trust you realize that the only thing irrational and hysterical is for men to cower in the face of women's rights.

Not any kind of hearted. I'm trying to understand, concretely, what is
meant by "women's rights" in terms of abortion.

Originally Posted by beast

I think your judgments are spiritually and emotionally disgusting.

I hoped to avoid that kind of vitriol. Kinda why I picked Angela.

Originally Posted by beast

I agree that abortion is physically disgusting, but I'm squeamish. I think that all surgical procedures are disgusting. I watched Bridalplasty the other night (guilty, guilty pleasure of which we shall speak no more) and was absolutely repulsed with how graphically they showed liposuction being done. So, yes, I think surgery is physically disgusting and I cannot fathom how doctors can do it. But, also, the fact that surgery grosses us out is not relevant to the discussion. You know what else is pretty gross? Childbirth.

Comparing abortion to plastic surgery?
.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by sorter

OK, but I'm not going to California.
You lose half your brain cells just stepping off the plane.

Yeah, you'd better not risk it -- hang onto the brain cells you have.

Eh, you're not really saying why. Never mind the courts.
It sounds like you don't value new life over something but I'm not sure what.

Specifically: I value the choice and the health of a life that is a fully formed human being over the life that is a fertilized egg or embryo.

The continuum shifts as the life develops into a fully formed human, so that the mama's choice in the matter becomes less important to me as the the embryo becomes a fetus, and especially as the fetus becomes viable. The mama's health is still more important to me even when the baby is a viable baby, right up to the moment of birth, at which point it equals out.

"Why"? Because that's what I value. My values are my values because they're what's important to me. That's why.