Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Teenage Pregnancy and Abortion

Abortion

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 01:54 AM

Uncle Sid, while I agree with some of your points, they don't nearly get the help they need, some people just don't want kids, or feel they aren't at the age to decide that if they are teenagers. Single mothers of all ages are marginalized. The older they are, they are more likely to have some life already set up and able to handle some of the problems.

The most common reasons I'd think people would have an abortion is the child is unwanted and/or seen as a possible burden on the family.

And for those that feel pressures (low income, their parent's values, knowing they'll most likely be marginalized) and would want to have a child then and there, yes, they do need support. But until society is either ready to help support them well in some/various ways, or ready to help prevent it from happening in the first place, we are going to get no where.

I was wondering where some other people who might be inclined to agree with me were ;) maybe I just made too many of the possible points in my initial posts to leave little for you guys to say?  :D Or you don't want to possibly blow up at someone...

Yes the fact that abortion is something thats always been around doesn't make it right, same with war, poverty, etc. Not trying to bring war into this topic, but almost all agree, while they are against war on principle they acknowlegde sometimes war is neccesary. And I'm not talking about any particular war :p :) Don't get any ideas ;) :) Sometimes abortion, people feel, is neccesary. People will,  with the information they have and without that which they don't, usually make the best decission they can at the time. Doesn't mean its wrong, or right. I should be doing chores, say, but I'm tired, or feel like sitting down and watching a show first.... its called procrastination ;) I might even not get any of my chores done and have to do it at a more incovient time, but I don't know all the possible outcomes, I figure out, on the information I have, which is the best decision for me. It might be a crummy example, but I'm trying to show one that would be a questionable decision in some people's eyes ;) And nearly everyone procrastinates to relax a little longer, or do something else.

By talking about God, it seems to try to put everything in black and white, but we got reality, and its all gray. My friend, a catholic, is like me IIRC, pro-life for herself, but pro choice for everyone else. What is different about her and other catholics/christains? Is her god different (either in her eyes or by most people in her sect)? Or does she just see the world around her different? Or something else?
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#22 Avalon

Avalon
  • Islander
  • 1,730 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 01:59 AM

Qwerty, on Mar 22 2003, 10:14 PM, said:

I'm Pro-choice, and I believe that if a person is old enough to understand the risks of having sex and the effects it can have on your life, then you're old enough to make the decision of whether you want ot have a baby or not.
Er...but isn't that generally why a teenager ends up with an unintentional pregnancy -- because they didn't really appreciate the risks and future effects of having sex?

#23 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 02:11 AM

^ if that is the case (and it isn't a failure of whichever birth control method they used) should she have to pay for that mistake the rest of her life? And some adults have the same problem ;) Whether she gets an abortion or keeps it, or gives it up for adoption she'll always be dealing with the repercussions. Let her deal with her mistake in her own way - best most can hope for is that she gets educated on all the facts and uses birth control in the future, regardless of what she does with her current pregnancy. Most people are always saying society is going down the tubes, people need to be held accountable for their actions, and/or give them second chances after dealing with their mistakes. Some people say we shouldn't depend on the state for everything, but wouldn't that be where the teenagers would be getting some of their support from? They are only really three ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Abort, keep, or put up for adoption.

As bad as this sound - I'd rather send that fetus' soul back to heaven to live there forever or be reincarnated, before s/he had a chance to live, then have a whole bunch more of unwanted and/or marginilized children in the world. This is a societal issue that can't be solved by either just having abortions available or not having them available.

Edited by sierraleone, 23 March 2003 - 02:29 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#24 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 02:35 AM

I just wanted to say thank you to all of you for being civil so far in this thread, despite issues that divides many people and causes high feelings all around  :blush:

Keep it up :)

Edited by sierraleone, 23 March 2003 - 02:36 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#25 Techfreak Ziana

Techfreak Ziana

    Mistress Matrix, Technophiliac

  • Islander
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 04:08 AM

Okay, I am totally staying out of this except for making this one point...

sierraleone, on Mar 22 2003, 04:45 PM, said:

My friend, a catholic, is like me IIRC, pro-life for herself, but pro choice for everyone else. What is different about her and other catholics/christains? Is her god different (either in her eyes or by most people in her sect)? Or does she just see the world around her different? Or something else?
The terms are often misused and/or misinterpreted.

Being "pro-choice" does not mean someone thinks "everybody should have abortions". It means the person thinks "each woman should have the right to make an individual choice whether or not to have an abortion". If someone thinks it's morally wrong, they can personally choose to not do it themselves.

Being "pro-life", however, means someone thinks "nobody should be allowed to have abortions". This is an attempt to impose one's moral strictures onto everyone-- "I don't like it so nobody should be allowed to do it".

What you are describing is entirely "pro-choice"-- and the choice the person in question made for their own individual self is to not have abortions. But it was an individual choice, not a "I'm not doing it *and* nobody else should", so it's not "pro-life". :)
<table border="0"><tr><td valign="top">Posted Image<td align="center"><font face="Verdana">-=-=-=-=-= Techfreak Ziana =-=-=-=-=-
<font size="1">3.12 GCS/MC/IT/L/O d- s-:- a? C++++ UL
P+ L+ W+++ N+ w+ M-- PS+++ PE Y+ D+
PGP-- t+@ 5++ X R tv+ b+++ DI++++ UF++</font>
"Exciting things are coming!" -Nikola Tesla</font></td><td valign="top">Posted Image</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="3">Posted Image</td></tr></table>

#26 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 05:20 AM

The biggest thing that is at issue here is frankly, does a person regard the unborn child as a person.  I don't mean legally, because I'll be damned if I let the government, even a democracy, tell me what my definition of a person is.  I mean in whatever way that you regard as important, such as morally or ethically or whatever.

To understand the situation, you have to understand that to a totally pro-life individual, a fetus or embryo or whatever name you want to give it is a person, a baby in fact.  If you terminate an otherwise healthy pregnancy, you're killing a person, just the same as if you take a gun and put it to someone's head and pull the trigger.  

Now, for that reason, I have to regard an abortion with the same ethical and moral criteria that I would consider the killing of anyone, 8 months unborn or 80 years old.  If the other person is doing physical harm to you which they cannot help, then yes, I think you have the right to decide if you want to allow that situation to continue.  In the case of a bad pregnancy, its a no-brainer that the mother should get the right to decide.

On the other hand, I hear that most of abortions are to maintain a standard of living or opportunity.  Now, I have to be honest here and tell you that makes me extremely upset.  Remember, to me a fetus is a human, just like you or my grandmother.  Would anyone condone the killing of someone else because that person got in the way of  your aspirations for college or middle-class living standards?  I would hope not.  To those of us who regard fetuses as real people, who are just like you or I, it's precisely the same thing.  It's not even a metaphor.  

Let's look at the realities here.  Yes, a girl can have her opportunity to go to college and have certain careers if she gets pregnant as a teen.  However, a girl can also have that opportunity ruined if she doesn't study for her tests or decides to be a shoplifter and gets a criminal record.  Having sex with a boy is exactly the same as any of these.  Its a set of bad decisions.  Last time I checked, you don't just slip and find yourself accidentially having sex.  It does take some effort.  In fact, actually getting pregnant is not even all that easy when it cones down to it.  For the most part, this is not rape or cohersion into having sex, its a girl who decides that she wants to have sex.  While having sex seems to be some incredibly adult thing for most of us, bear in mind that teenage girls have been having sex and babies since the beginning of Time.  In many places on the planet, you can still be married in your mid teens and go off and have children.  This is not new, and humans have been coping for it for tens of thousands of years.  So why are girls suddenly unable to think for themselves now in this age of enlightenment?

Do we absolve girls from the need to take tests or be good citizens because the consequences get in the way of their success?  I would hope not.  And keep in mind, pregnancy is not actually a punishment, we only make it out to be one today because of the incredible pressure that it put on women to go out and "make something of themselves" instead of being a housewife.  It's a lot of work, especially for a teen, but there are benefits as well.  Many people want to have kids.  In fact many who have abortions either have had some already or go on later to have more.  So, there must be something good to it.  It's certainly not a death sentence....

Of course, notice how everyone goes on and on about "the poor girl".  What of the other person, or if you prefer, the other"thing" in the equation?   Sure, we've got safe and legal sex for girls who have sex and get pregnant, but abortion isn't very safe for the aborted, now is it?  But I guess that doesn't matter because personhood isn't endowed until the government says so.  So, it doesn't matter that the little girl, err...I apologize, I mean... the little "thing" never gets its chance to go to college.  And why should it, eh?  Things don't go to college and have birthdays, people do, and we people need to stick together lest the Things get in and get that stuff too.  

Speaking of "pro-choice" Catholics, I know of what I speak because I happen to be married to one.  No, there's no steel cage matches at home, it generally does not really come up in everyday conversation.  I also know more than one person who has had an abortion, and I have dated at least one (not my wife).  I really do understand and sympathize with their positions.  I won't tell you in a glib fashion that abortion is wrong and therefore all your arguments about teen age pregnancy and poor people are moot.  The problems are very real.  I feel that abortion has become the nightmare it has become because some of the people who who oppose it so strongly now had parents who simply avoided dealing with the hard problems that resulted in abortions when they were illegal.  But all that being said, abortion is wrong and needs to be outlawed because humans are at no point in their lives "things".  The day that everyone accepts that the government gets to decide who is a person based on an arbitrary ruling is the day that we realize that Hell is real, because we are living in it.  

And yes, everything is really is black and white, its just that people seldom look closely enough at either the problems or at sheets of paper to realize that grey, in the end, is nothing more than an optical illusion.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#27 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 07:31 AM

^Amen, Uncle Sid.

#28 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 09:09 AM

Uncle Sid, on Mar 23 2003, 01:11 AM, said:

The biggest thing that is at issue here is frankly, does a person regard the unborn child as a person.  I don't mean legally, because I'll be damned if I let the government, even a democracy, tell me what my definition of a person is.  I mean in whatever way that you regard as important, such as morally or ethically or whatever.
The government decides 'people' become adults at a certain age (it depends on where it is), when they become elderly, among other things. Don't let the government tell you is fine. But thats where part of this problem started for the person who brought this up to me. they said, that a teenager isn't legally an adult, and that is why the parents *must* give consent to a medical procedure like an abortion. From what you say on teenagers today not being much different from teenagers in the past, getting pregnant and having children, etc. Are you saying that teenagers, if the adults do, should have the right of having an abortion, or if there parents don't want them to to go on with the pregnancy? Or do you just mean that it should not be a problem, the problems with teenagers getting pregnant is not only very much a relatively 'new' problem, but a Western Civilization problem as well? And the reasons it is a problem is because of a longer and mandatory education, the little responsiblity placed on the fathers (as in the past women would be married at a young age, and if not married when found out pregnant married usually very quickly). Not saying we should shackle the father ;) but should be made to take on some of the burden themselves. (if this is what you mean I understand more about your thinking about abortion being a bad thing for feminism). Along with other issues of course. Low/minimum wage is not something to be lived on now-a-days (at least according to family and friends older than myself they could live on wages at the lower end of the spectrum... they may have not been rich, but they'd get by).

Uncle Sid said:

To understand the situation, you have to understand that to a totally pro-life individual, a fetus or embryo or whatever name you want to give it is a person, a baby in fact.  If you terminate an otherwise healthy pregnancy, you're killing a person, just the same as if you take a gun and put it to someone's head and pull the trigger.

I understand  :( That is part of the reason why I'm pro-life for myself. Maybe I'm just able to seperate myself from it more, or I'm not that mindset completely, I don't know. Basically you are: (and tell if I'm wrong)
1. Not against someone doing what they want with their body but
2. Against people forcing death on a embryo/person. Especially considering they wouldn't have any voice/be able to defend themselves even.
The main cunondrum being they share a body.

Uncle Sid said:

Now, for that reason, I have to regard an abortion with the same ethical and moral criteria that I would consider the killing of anyone, 8 months unborn or 80 years old.  If the other person is doing physical harm to you which they cannot help, then yes, I think you have the right to decide if you want to allow that situation to continue.  In the case of a bad pregnancy, its a no-brainer that the mother should get the right to decide.

If you're pro-life, you must be used to it, so please don't be offended ;)
What about rape? Do you believe that since it was not only forced on the mother, but the child as well (since it didn't ask to come into being, as in all cases) that it should go forward, albeit with help for the mother, and if she wants to let it be adopted? Or because of the special circumstances she should be allowed to abort, even a healthy pregnancy brought about in a unhealthy way? Or something else. I don't mind either way, just curious.

Uncle Sid said:

On the other hand, I hear that most of abortions are to maintain a standard of living or opportunity.  Now, I have to be honest here and tell you that makes me extremely upset.  Remember, to me a fetus is a human, just like you or my grandmother.  Would anyone condone the killing of someone else because that person got in the way of  your aspirations for college or middle-class living standards?  I would hope not.  To those of us who regard fetuses as real people, who are just like you or I, it's precisely the same thing.  It's not even a metaphor.

I don't think of it as, oh, I don't want a kid because I want to be able to keep more of this money for myself, but as, I don't want to put the kid through proverty. Perhaps some might thing that is just selfish backward thinking, I don't know. Sometimes the mother might already be living in poverty, or near poverty. Perhaps some do have abortions simply thinking 'my life will be easier'. I'm sure some don't as well.

Uncle Sid said:

Let's look at the realities here.  Yes, a girl can have her opportunity to go to college and have certain careers if she gets pregnant as a teen.  However, a girl can also have that opportunity ruined if she doesn't study for her tests or decides to be a shoplifter and gets a criminal record.  Having sex with a boy is exactly the same as any of these.  Its a set of bad decisions.

But usually not as much opportunity as girls who don't have kids. And, one would hope at least, that a mother, no matter her age, would have different priorities from those who aren't mothers. Not to say an education might not be a priority, but for girls who aren't mothers, education is something more easily persued, and often (depending on the girl) higher on the list of priorities in their lives. As to grades, its harder to keep them up when you're up all night with a child, or trying to balance everything.

Uncle Sid said:

Do we absolve girls from the need to take tests or be good citizens because the consequences get in the way of their success?  I would hope not.  And keep in mind, pregnancy is not actually a punishment, we only make it out to be one today because of the incredible pressure that it put on women to go out and "make something of themselves" instead of being a housewife.  It's a lot of work, especially for a teen, but there are benefits as well.  Many people want to have kids.  In fact many who have abortions either have had some already or go on later to have more.  So, there must be something good to it.  It's certainly not a death sentence....

I don't think you mean pregnancy to be the punishment, but motherhood. And
1. Teenagers, by law, have to attend school until they are 16 (at least where I live). Perhaps they could do 'distance' schooling (as in by mail).
2. Teenager don't have the choice to be a housewife at that point in their life. First of all, there aren't many chances of them getting married (need permission from parents until a certain age, and they may not want to, etc), secondly, the chances of them being able to live off their husband's pay check is much in doubt. Its very hard for families to live off one pay check these days, much less one that is minimum wage or near (unless the father is much older)
More often I'm seeing, however, when they can live off one pay check, they seem to have the father at home as often as I come across people who have the mother at home....
perhaps I'm too 'progressive/liberal/modern' (whatever you want to call it), But I can't see myself being a housewife... nothing against them, but right now I'm living at home, without a job, and I can't stand these four walls anymore sometimes.... I'd think that a house wife might need as much support as a working mother ;) :) Perhaps my dreams were put there by society, but I have dreams of doing jobs/careers I think I'd thoroughly enjoy. If I've been 'brainwashed' so had previous generations about a woman's place. Some of them have kids already or have kids in the future. Yes. But not all. Most people want kids. Yes. But not all. Right now I'm in that category. It might change, and I admit that (maybe I'm just tired of helping taking care of siblings at home ;) ), but personally, right now, I look into what I want in the future and its not children. Raising children can be a joy but its not for everyone. And some teens aren't quite sure whether they want to raise a child now, later, or ever. Maybe some of those that had had kids already realized it either wasn't for them, or they couldn't handle another child as much as they loved the one(s) they already had. As I mentioned in my first post I think, about that man that ran over his daughter because she was dating a guy of a different race.... Her being pregnant and unwed and her family finding out, would be a death sentence for her. And theres more people that think like that than I'd like. For others, they just can't handle (emotionally, mentally) raising a kid. They might be horrible mothers.

Uncle Sid said:

Of course, notice how everyone goes on and on about "the poor girl".  What of the other person, or if you prefer, the other"thing" in the equation?

When you started "the poor girl" I thought you were going to go onto the guy/father :D As to the other things, I've already spoken about more or less all of them, at least in brief I think. I suppose its easier for some of the motherd having never had the kids in her arms, or go through childbirth, as they would in an adoption senerio  :(

Uncle Sid said:

Speaking of "pro-choice" Catholics, I know of what I speak because I happen to be married to one.  No, there's no steel cage matches at home, it generally does not really come up in everyday conversation.  I also know more than one person who has had an abortion, and I have dated at least one (not my wife).  I really do understand and sympathize with their positions.  I won't tell you in a glib fashion that abortion is wrong and therefore all your arguments about teen age pregnancy and poor people are moot.  The problems are very real.  I feel that abortion has become the nightmare it has become because some of the people who who oppose it so strongly now had parents who simply avoided dealing with the hard problems that resulted in abortions when they were illegal.  But all that being said, abortion is wrong and needs to be outlawed because humans are at no point in their lives "things".  The day that everyone accepts that the government gets to decide who is a person based on an arbitrary ruling is the day that we realize that Hell is real, because we are living in it.

I apologise for the catholic pro-life thing. I only know of two catholics in my life and they are pro-life. I probably know more Hindus than catholics (when I know of their religion). Besides the fact the government is often deciding certain things from arbitrary rulings and such. Nothing for certain makes a person mature at the age of 18. Nothing makes a person for certain handicapped in any way when they legally become 'elderly'. People in these groups are given special protection and treatment, in some cases justified. Perhapsthe law on abortion will be changed in the future, but if it is, I hope that their are exceptions (they are always exceptions needed) and that we deal with the issues on why some many abortions are sought.

Uncle Sid said:

And yes, everything is really is black and white, its just that people seldom look closely enough at either the problems or at sheets of paper to realize that grey, in the end, is nothing more than an optical illusion.

You said that if the baby could harm the mother, the mother should be allowed to have an abortion. Probably has more to do with why do we need two deaths on our hands. People are allowed to murder in self defense. Murder is wrong. While people may tell me morality is black and white, I find even most people will make morality situational in 'exceptional' situations, like someone else is going to kill you. Of course, if you can stop them somehow (incompassitate or other means) other than killing them, by all means do so, but no one will blame you for killing that person. I could think of other senarios, perhaps more 'gray' in my opinion (but unlikely in yours perhaps) but I've got to go.... I think I've been here an hour  :D At least you can't say I haven't given this lots of thought ;) :)

Edited by sierraleone, 23 March 2003 - 09:11 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#29 Julie

Julie
  • Islander
  • 777 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 09:59 AM

Techfreak Ziana, on Mar 22 2003, 07:59 PM, said:

Being "pro-choice" does not mean someone thinks "everybody should have abortions". It means the person thinks "each woman should have the right to make an individual choice whether or not to have an abortion". If someone thinks it's morally wrong, they can personally choose to not do it themselves.

Being "pro-life", however, means someone thinks "nobody should be allowed to have abortions". This is an attempt to impose one's moral strictures onto everyone-- "I don't like it so nobody should be allowed to do it".
The way I see it, the fundamental question in abortion is not "Should we be allowed to impose our moral structures on everyone else?"

The question is rather, "Is an embryo a living human being or nothing more than a group of cells?"  If it is a human being, then abortion is murder, and murder should not be allowed.  On the other hand, if the embryo is nothing more than a group of cells, then abortion is merely a mother's rightful option.

Thus, all POVs on abortion should stem from what one decides is that question's answer-- that's why pro-lifers usually say it's a baby while pro-choicers tend to call it a fetus.

So where do we draw the line between "developing" and "alive"?  My biggest problem with the pro-choice point of view is that this question never seems to be answered.  The distinction is, as Uncle Sid said, completely arbitrary.

In the law's current state, it's legal to abort any baby which has not yet been born.  Based on that, I assume that those who are pro-choice must believe a developed, although still unborn, baby is not alive.  Meanwhile, a baby which is just as developed as the first, but has already been born, is alive.

The first can be disposed of at the mother's wish, and the second is entitled to all the rights of a human being.  The only difference between the two is that one is inside the womb and one is not.

That's not much of a difference.

#30 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 10:30 AM

^ say the government agreed. A fetus, an embryo, or even earlier in developement is a human deserving of the same rights as us all. But, don't let the government tell you what is a person or not, as I think Uncle Sid said. There would then be people disagreeing with *that* government decision, but it would be in line with many pro-lifers beliefs. Then pro-choicers would be saying that it is not a person yet, for whatever reason (or might come up with completely different arguments) and then say that the government has no right to dictate to them when a not-born human being becomes a person, and then forcing mothers to go through pregnancies.

As for me...
I'll be honest, I haven't really thought of when life starts. Personally, as I've said, I'm pro-life for myself, but I'll not impose my view (discuss it perhaps ;) ) on other people, nor force them to live by my standards. 'Unjust' Murder is throughly condemned by all cultures (I have yet to hear about one that is the opposite) so I suppose your question is just. But I expect people to disagree with me. Tenatively (as I have yet to give this over much thought, because I wouldn't likely consider abortion) I would probably consider it -at the latest- an individual thats worthy of the rights of all at the time when it can generally survive on its own. I believe, with medical technology right now, thats near the end of the second trimester? Or perhaps in the start of the third. Edit: And my definition is just as arbitary as the governments, and in some eyes, yours.

Edited by sierraleone, 23 March 2003 - 11:35 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#31 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 23 March 2003 - 11:35 AM

[quote name='sierraleone' date='Mar 23 2003, 01:00 AM'] [quote name='Uncle Sid' date='Mar 23 2003, 01:11 AM']
You said that if the baby could harm the mother, the mother should be allowed to have an abortion. Probably has more to do with why do we need two deaths on our hands. People are allowed to murder in self defense. Murder is wrong. While people may tell me morality is black and white, I find even most people will make morality situational in 'exceptional' situations, like someone else is going to kill you. Of course, if you can stop them somehow (incompassitate or other means) other than killing them, by all means do so, but no one will blame you for killing that person. I could think of other senarios, perhaps more 'gray' in my opinion (but unlikely in yours perhaps) but I've got to go.... I think I've been here an hour  :D At least you can't say I haven't given this lots of thought ;) :) [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The government decides 'people' become adults at a certain age (it depends on where it is), when they become elderly, among other things. Don't let the government tell you is fine.[/QUOTE]

One hundred percent true, but keep in mind, the government is setting arbitrary age limits for something that is also arbitrary and well within the expertise of government, ie. voting and scocial security benefits.  The government has a right to make decisions for those things because voting and regulation of welfare systems is what government is there for.  (Actually, the government isn't there for welfare in my opinion, but I'll concede the point in this case to keep my point clear).  The government can set limits for what it creates.

The government, however, didn't create life and cannot legislate when a human becomes a human and when a female is capable of being a mother.  The government has no competency to draw that line.  In fact, since so many of our basic rights are based on our "personhood" the ability of the government to re-draw that line can allow for abuses in the future.  After all, governments in the past have done this and used it as an excuse for atrocities.  Our own country altered the definition in order to allow slavery to exist where it would otherwise would have been banned by basic human rights.  In their time, Jews, Blacks and the unborn have been considered to be sub-human non-persons by the government.

As for parents making decisions for their children in terms of abortion, the fact is that parents are responsible for their children, legally and morally really.  However, since abortion should be outlawed, then neither parents nor their children should have to make that decision.  In the cases where there are laws for parental notification involved, I'll be honest with you and tell you I only support them because they hinder the easy practice of abortion.  I couldn't care less about the parent's rights as opposed to the children's rights in those cases.  Most importantly, I'd hope that once notified, the parents would assure the child of their support in carrying though with the pregnancy and that the girl will not feel as isolated into making the decision to abort based on fear.  If they don't make that assurance, though, I'd hope that they would at least forbid the abortion.  

Economically, I suppose, I have to say that pregnancy is a hardship.  Raising a child is also a hardship as well when you are a teen.  I won't dispute that fact at all.  The problem is that aborting to "save the child from having a poor life" is bogus.  Until there is a child, then a mother can decide if she wants to bring a child into her poor economic situation, but once she goes and has sex and gets pregnant, *she has made the decision by having sex*.  As I said before, sex doesn't happen automatically and you don't catch pregnancy from an airborne virus.  Except in cases of rape, which I will discuss later, a mother controls when she gets pregnant.  That said, once the child is concieved, it is the right of the child to decide if they he or she is having a bad life or not.  There have been many, many poor children who have grown up to be very successful adults.  In a democracy like the US, with free education, that chance is evern greater than most places.  Abortion to "save" the kids from poverty is like that mother in Texas who killed her kids to "save them from Hell".  In both cases, it probably works at least technically, but in both cases, the children are dead and never had a choice.  So why is the one woman crazy and the aborting mother having pro-choice rallies in her name?

[QUOTE]I understand  :( That is part of the reason why I'm pro-life for myself. Maybe I'm just able to seperate myself from it more, or I'm not that mindset completely, I don't know.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing though.  I try not to say that Abortion is Murder, but indeed, it really is if you look at it from my standpoint.  And as a person, it is my duty to prevent people from murdering my neighbors.  It is also the government's job to prevent murder.  If the government reclassifies certain humans as non-people, it then says that murder isn't murder in their case.  Just like that.  I

Now I don't know why you wouldn't have an abortion yourself, but I can pretty much say that it's not because you believe that it's killing a human being, because if you thought it was, you'd realize that millions of human beings are being killed legally every year in clinics and hospitals, of all places, *on purpose*.  Would you stand by and allow another person to be killed if you had the power to stop it?  Certainly not.  Its the same here.  Abortion has to be outlawed because I have the duty to ensure that people don't die when I have the power to protect them.  If I don't act and if I abdicate my power to prevent killing, then I become an accessory to that killing.  I become partly at fault for that killing because I allowed it without even trying to stop it.

[QUOTE]The main cunondrum being they share a body.[/QUOTE]

This is the major point, but again, a woman invites a child into herself when she has sex.  

Okay, I'll make a little detour here.  It sure seems like a little sex ends up being a lot of responsiblity, doesn't it?  It sure does.  The problem is, that in this society, sex is a pastime and is not taken seriously.  Its everywhere, and people think you have to have sex to be cool, and that it's harmless.  That why groups like the Church and many conservative groups rail against promiscuity on TV and even birth control.  Anything that makes sex too easy, also makes it harder to take seriously.  Sex isn't just getting your jollies, it is very serious.  Kids exposed to free condoms take the condoms, and think they are safe.  They're not.  Not if they have no idea how to use them.  Not if the condom breaks.  Not if the girl forgets to take the Pill on time.  Et cetera.  


[QUOTE]What about rape? [/QUOTE]

I'll try to make this short.  When you are raped, a crime is committed against you.  When a child is produced, a wrong thingis committed if the child is killed.  The child bears no responsibility for the father's actions and it is not fair for the child to be punished for the father's act.  After all, the child isn't the father, it is also partly the mother and indeed, it's a completely different person.  All I can say is that rape is really, really, awful, but its no excuse for adding one more wrong on top of another.  Its not like its even revenge, because I guaruntee that the rapist could probably care less about what you do with the child.  

I will say that strong laws should be enacted ensuring that all fatherhood rights are terminated automatically if the child is produced from rape.  Adoption should be smoothed and prenatal care provided for.  


[QUOTE]But usually not as much opportunity as girls who don't have kids.[/QUOTE]

Then frankly, it should be the goal of the feminist movement to ensure that there is that opportunity.  Honestly, it will require a shift in how places do things, but it can be done.  And, of course, girls should be made to understand that just like getting straight-A's is their ticket into the college of their choice, so to is not having sex their insurance against that.  I didn't have sex all the way though high school  (yes, I had opportunities :devil: )  and it was hard for me as a male, but it was possible to do.  Even afterwards, I knew precisely what I was doing and what I was getting into and how to prevent unfortunate mishaps like pregnancy.  Girls who are smart enough to have good prospects for their futures are also smart enough to know their own bodies and know what the consequences of sex are.  They just need to apply themselves to the problem.


[QUOTE]personally, right now, I look into what I want in the future and its not children. [/QUOTE]

The thing is that it's not even a problem.  You don't have to have kids.  You just have to know what you are doing when you have sex.  You don't have sex on certain days and/or if you do, you make damn sure you're taking multiple precautions.  Even better, you just don't have sex (if you can handle that).   Outlawing abortion by no means makes you suddenly forced to have a child, it just means that you now have to think before you get into certain situations.  You should be doing this anyway.  I've had sex hundreds, prossibly thousands of times by my age (marriage has its good points) and I have zero children, so its not even necessary to live like a monk.  


[QUOTE]Her being pregnant and unwed and her family finding out, would be a death sentence for her.[/QUOTE]

As well that might be, there are a number of instances where this could have been resolved without resorting to an abortion.  Number one, interracial relationships do not also automatically entail getting pregnant.  If she is so afraid of getting killed if she is pregnant and unwed with a person of a different race, then what the heck is she doing going and having sex with the person without having a way to escape?  People don't have to have sex to have a good relationship.  More importantly, even if they were able to have sex without children, just how long could they go in this relationship without them having to do something about getting the girl away from her psycho family?  As much as it seems like these people have a right to true love, despite prejudice, it does not absolve them from being responsible for themselves and for children.  If someone will kill you for getting pregnant with a black person or a white person, they sure as heck might get it in their heads to give you a little George Bush style "pre-emptive" beating just to make sure you don't get pregnant.  It's not the child's fault that its grandpappy is crazy or that its mom and dad weren't thinking ahead.  


[QUOTE] I suppose its easier for some of the motherd having never had the kids in her arms, or go through childbirth, as they would in an adoption senerio[/QUOTE]

It sure would be easier to not have to face that, but if she was raped, she has just proved to herself and everyone else that she is a thousand times the better of the person who attacked her.  If she wasn't raped, then she gets to finally see the consequences of her decisions.  If you remove the responsibilities from the rights you lose those rights.  If you don't see the results of your mistakes, you can never learn from them.


[QUOTE]Perhapsthe law on abortion will be changed in the future, but if it is, I hope that their are exceptions (they are always exceptions needed) and that we deal with the issues on why some many abortions are sought.[/QUOTE]

Yes.  Obviously, there is a real distinction between medically necessary abortions and abortion "on demand".  In the event that the child threatens the life of the mother, she should legally have the right to decide to live.  Her own right to life balances out the child's.  That's fair.  

Rape and incest are two other common exceptions, but honestly, I don't think I could go for those unless it was positively the only way that I could get rid of abortion on demand.  In those cases, the child is still killed, but the suffering the mother must bear is incredible.  It seems heartless to make a woman go though that, but again, the child is not at fault for the situation.  It is equally heartless to kill the child simply because it is the one who you can't see to feel sorry for.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 23 March 2003 - 11:36 AM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#32 Julie

Julie
  • Islander
  • 777 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 12:47 AM

sierraleone, on Mar 23 2003, 02:21 AM, said:

^ say the government agreed. A fetus, an embryo, or even earlier in developement is a human deserving of the same rights as us all. But, don't let the government tell you what is a person or not, as I think Uncle Sid said. There would then be people disagreeing with *that* government decision, but it would be in line with many pro-lifers beliefs. Then pro-choicers would be saying that it is not a person yet, for whatever reason (or might come up with completely different arguments) and then say that the government has no right to dictate to them when a not-born human being becomes a person, and then forcing mothers to go through pregnancies.
Well, I'll certainly admit there's no way both sides will be satisfied.  My hope is enough people will eventually be persuaded to take a pro-life stand, so that a decision to reverse Roe versus Wade would be supported by a significant majority of Americans.

I don't think it's an impossible thing to wish for; most of my pro-choice friends don't really know anything about abortion, and when they do learn about it, many change their opinions.

On that note, this discussion inspired me to go hunt up some information on the subject.  I highly reccommend reading Abortion: Some Medical Facts.  It gives no more and no less than what it promises; it's mainly descriptions of different abortion techniques and of the consequences it has on the mother.  (Have to warn anyone who looks at it though, some of the techniques described there pretty sickening.  But those who support keeping all abortion legal really should know what it is they're supporting.)

Quote

Personally, as I've said, I'm pro-life for myself, but I'll not impose my view (discuss it perhaps ;) ) on other people, nor force them to live by my standards.

...

I would probably consider it -at the latest- an individual thats worthy of the rights of all at the time when it can generally survive on its own. I believe, with medical technology right now, thats near the end of the second trimester? Or perhaps in the start of the third.

So you believe a human has the right to life when s/he can survive outside the womb, and yet abortion of babies in that stage should be allowed?  

If a kid has the right to live, it doesn't matter what the parents want-- the kid still has the right to live.

Quote

Edit: And my definition is just as arbitary as the governments, and in some eyes, yours.

Really, the government's definition seems the most illogical to me, because, as I said in my previous post, the two babies can be exactly the same, just in different places.  If being alive starts at a certain stage, and they are developmentally at the same stage, why is one alive and the other not?  It just doesn't make sense.

But the question of where life begins, if not at birth, is a harder one for me to answer.  Honestly, life beginning at conception just makes the most sense to me.  Obviously, not everyone shares my logic, which is why in these discussions I usually start with examples from right before birth, and work backwards.

However, I did come across a link about that as well.  When Does Life Begin? has a bunch of scientists saying, "We know what we're talking about, and we say at conception."  Also, they give reasons, which is why I'm linking to it.  Personally, I'm inclined to take their word on this.

#33 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 12:50 AM

I can of course only speak to my own opinions,

but i believe that the mother, who already has a life, is more important than a featus that may possibly have one

for instance, say you didn't abort a child, and a month later you get in an accident and the child died.

lack of abortion, doesn't mean the child is garantueed a life or a future, which means to me, that the mother who is alive, and has a life, has got to have the right to make that choice

with input of the father optional.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Abortion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users