This is topic Sorry, I Need Some Opinions. in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020762

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
It's an abortion thread--the most beaten dead horse at Hatrack. If it makes everyone feel better, it's more of a specific question that a broad discussion.

I was discussing the subject with a friend the other day, and a good point she made frequently is that we need to become more educated when it comes to sex. This point, in fact, seemed to be a big foundation of her argument.

What I'm looking for opinions on is this: For those of you who are pro-choice, could there ever be a point in our education where abortion would become unacceptable, or is it all about the choice?

If we, hypothetically, became so knowledgeable about sex and its risks that there could be no claim of ignorance of the consequences, do you think we could we say "You've made your bed, now lie in it."?

I'm as liberal as they come, and it's depressing to me that it's become almost a knee-jerk reaction for a liberal female to attack a pro-life male for being, to quote my acquaintance, "a right-wing Christian conservative" (I'm closer to the radical end of the spectrum and an atheist).

I know it's referred to as "Pro-Choice", but I always thought the doors for abortion needed to be kept open only for women out there who got caught in mistakes they didn't know they were making (or had no control over) rather than as a form of birth control.

I agree that abortion is needed in some cases, but I can never see where the pro-choice crowd is coming from. [opinion]It seems to me that taking the risk of bringing a child into the world is a chioce in and of itself, and it seems wrong to me to make a different choice at a later point and say, "Just kidding, I'm going to kill you."[/opinion]

I'm sorry if this post is upsetting or inflammatory. I just look around at the world and find the fact that so many people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions deplorable and depressing.

Anyway, to get back on track with my real question: What's with our obsession with choice? Why can't we kill an 8-year-old if it gets to be too much trouble? Why do we place so little virtue in responsibility?

If I seem like a pro-life fanatic now, just think how bad I'd be if I believed in God.

Anyway...pro-choicers, sound-off. I'm really frustrated trying to understand your points of view. Help a poor guy out.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Frisco, by the way, my "troll" thread was not about you. Let me take a second to come up with an answer.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I was wondering. I've been called many names in my Hatrack days, but "troll" isn't one of them. Yet.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Yeah, I was just about to stand up for Frisco. He may be stupid, ugly, obnoxious, and useless to the greater scheme of life, but I will not tolerate disrespect directed toward him.

It is a him, right? The pictures are kinda ambiguous on that point.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Well, Frisco, I bet I could describe myself as a pro-choice (I'm in favor of the right to abort). But I find this horrible if you say some people choose to have a baby and then abort ! I'm in favor of abortion in cases of rapes or quasi-rapes, and for girls too young to understand what happened to them. I don't know about the women who have a "contraception accident", and about the ones who discover their children will have a grave disease. I guess it's their choice but I wouldn't know what to do in these cases. But deciding to abort when you chose to be pregnant, I don't have words strong enough to say how shoking and unfair and horrible it is.
Did I get your point ?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

If we, hypothetically, became so knowledgeable about sex and its risks that there could be no claim of ignorance of the consequences, do you think we could we say "You've made your bed, now lie in it."?

---

Rationality isn't always what drives our actions, unfortunately. I'm no trying to wiggle here (really, I'm not), but I can think of cases where all the pre-knowledge in the world still wouldn't force me to say "You've made your bed, now lie in it."

For example, suppose a college student works as a peer counselor about rape. She knows thoroughly the consequences of sex, as well as the risks of alcohol use, all the statistics about date rape, tactics to defend herself, what have you. Then, suppose she gets raped. Or suppose her brother dies when she is driving the car that gets hit, or maybe she finds out that she is a carrier for the Huntington's disease that runs in her family (progressive fatal dementia, usually natural death in the 30s or 40s, but high high high suicide rate).

Suppose then she goes through a period of time when she is grieving, when care for herself is at a very low point in her life. This is not uncommon after rape, by the way -- the body belongs to others, there can be a strong sense of disconnect. Maybe she goes through a major depressive episode, maybe it's just grief.

Were she to get pregnant at this time, something in me would recoil at saying "You've made your bed, now lie in it." Mind you, I would encourage this woman to consider all options, including adoption and the full support of her family and community, which is often underrated and unaccessed in such times. We tend to think we are alone when we are in pain.

Are such cases few and far between? I'm sure that they don't make up all the cases of abortion, probably not many, but I always wonder what the full story is when I see someone behaving in an unhealthy or self-destructive manner.

I wouldn't make policy based on this counter-example, Frisco, but the knowledge that lives are often this complex makes me wary of indulging in the frustrated satisfaction of saying "You've made your bed, now lie in it."

[ January 13, 2004, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
No, Frisco just happened to post when I was still writing. I'm always up for a good abortion/Boy Scout/homosexuality thread. *grin

I just ran across something else while skimming which became, in the reading, so outrageously offensive that all the cleverness in the world wouldn't save it.

It took a little reminding of myself to keep from inadvertantly bumping it to the top with a scathing rejoinder, that's all.

I don't take well to mockery of other persons for sport and pleasure.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Ah!!! The old "you ought to have known better, so you're stuck with it..." argument.

I don't have a theoretical answer for you. I have a practical one. Education DOES reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy. Yes, even if all the education amounts to is "wait until you are ready and able to support and take care of a child."

But I think the more education the bigger the impact on reducing unwanted pregnancy.

So, the pro-life and the pro-choice sides should be be strongly united on the point that we should always invest in educating our young people about sex and its consequences.

Do I think there's a point at which we say "you're too stupid or undisciplined and therefore you must now go through with your unwanted pregnancy?"

No.

Those aren't the people I think should be having children. And God forbid they shouldn't be the ones raising them. If you could truly demonstrate (theoretically, of course) that someone had all the knowledge and still went off and got pregnant...wouldn't you be saying the above?

Truth is, people make mistakes. They will always make mistakes. And while I may not agree with their decision to abort or to keep the child, or to give it up for adoption...the point is that it is their decision. They DO have to live with the consequences of whatever decision they make.

Abortion is a terrible choice. So is raising a child when you are lacking in resources and life skills. So is giving away a child for adoption.

They are all hard, difficult, etc.

I might hope that the pregnant woman and the guy who got her pregnant would choose to do the best thing for the child -- and think unselfishly. But I don't count on it. And I don't really expect it. Not of teenagers "in trouble" anyway.

And not of their parents who still want their own child to have a shot at life without being encumbered too soon, etc....

So, back to the practical side of things, I don't think I would ever support a law that coupled education with criminalizing abortion.

I would would, however, support a law that made sex education compulsory and I would expect it to continue to work as well as it has so far...

<see teen pregnancy rate -- the news is pretty good>
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
^ and what he said

By the way, I'd support aerosolized birth control in all public places. Also in the drinking water. You should have to pass a rudimentary test to get the antidote (like getting a driver's license), plus there should be a short cool-off waiting period for that decision to sink in (as when buying a gun).

[ January 13, 2004, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I think you got my point, Anna.

And, CT, rape is included in those instances in which I think abortion is justified, as is fatal disease.

And I really wouldn't use the phrase "You've made your bed, now lie in it." I didn't mean to make it sound like I got any sort of personal satisfaction from something like that--I'm not the judgemental type. It just seemed the most fitting cliché.

Your example of the brother dying in a car accident was a good one. I'm much more rational than sensitive, and it almost had me convinced that it was the right thing. I understand how people would side with abortion in that case.

[TMI ]I'm in a similar situation right now. I'm in love with (and in the process of moving in with) a woman. She's currently separated from and in the process of divorcing her husband (not my doing, I promise).

She found out last night that she's two months pregnant (his, not mine--not possible). She's unhappy, for both the obvious reason that she's leaving him and because she does not want children. We'd never approached the subject, but it turns out that we share the same opinion and she's not getting an abortion because she was fully aware that this was a possible result, even with birth control.[/TMI ]

But I agree that not all people could handle this sort of emotional stress. I'll have to do a bit of thinking on that point.

*waits for Lalo's frantic IM demanding to know why he wasn't the first to know about this latest development in the Eddie&Brooke saga*
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 

quote:

---

By the way, I'd support aerosolized birth control in all public places. Also in the drinking water. You should have to pass a rudimentary test to get the antidote (like getting a driver's license), plus there should be a short cool-off waiting period for that decision to sink in (as when buying a gun).

---

I agree wholeheartedly. I thought Slash and I were the only ones bold and crass enough to suggest that sort of thing.

Bob, I totally agree with your practical answers, too. It's just not very comforting to me. I don't think these "...stupid...undisciplined..."
people should be having children. But I think the child should have some chance--some say for its life. Hell, a coin flip. Loser is terminated.

Wow. Did I type that?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I know, Frisco. (and I'm sorry about the difficulties of your relationship, right now -- sounds very painful all around ) I appreciate your thoughtful question, and I appreciate the dialogue. You are a good person to have difficult discussions with, and I love having my brain tweaked about its assumptions.

My interactions with others are highly, highly flavored by having read literally tens of thousands of novels. From when I started reading until I was twenty-five, I read an average of about three books a day (and more on weekends). Having been immersed in someone else's shoes for so much of my awake thinking time makes for a wealth of imagination in interpreting others' motives and actions. It may well not be a good thing overall ( ), but it does make it difficult to see things in black and white.

By the way, as one of my examples, I meant for the woman to get pregnant not because of rape, but because of later (voluntary) sexual activity -- sexual activity engaged in voluntarily, but not an action she would have engaged in before. For some women, being raped leads to not caring about what may happen after.

For example, I was raised to believe that the act of sexual intercourse is binding on a spiritual level; i.e., whomever one first had sex with would be (in God's eyes) one's spouse, and all other sexual relationships thereafter would be adultery. Voluntariness or involuntariness was irrelevant -- it was a spiritual law governing the spiritual/carnal creatures we were made to be. This, as you can see, gave me great agony after being raped myself. [My first thought immediately afterward was, of all things, "now I'll never be able to call a unicorn." And then the "spiritual marriage" part hit home, and then I found myself drinking coffee in the student union, having failed several finals and having completely lost at least a day from my memory.] I'm sure the time immediately [and for months] after that in my life was rife with bad choices. I think it was my first major bout with depression, and thankfully I have worked my way through it. And I didn't want this to be a confessional, but more an explication of what I think of when faced with a young woman who is making irrational decisions. (Sorry if TMI )

[ January 13, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I suppose if it has to be a case of choice for all or no choice, it has to be choice for all.

I just get irritated at the "It's her body, and her business what she does with it" mentality. I walk away from too many conversations with the pro-choice with the feeling that they'd support a woman with an abortion fetish.

Talking with more realistic pro-choicers in this thread is helpful, though.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I understand. I have the same response to those who claim that any accusation of rape must have some basis in truth. (What planet are you living on? Have you never met someone who makes horrific things up?) Mind you, a five-year-old coming up with a complaint of abuse is far different context from a twenty-five-year-old. Adults are much, much less straightforward than kids. But still, I'd wonder what sort of life history would lead someone to make up something so vile about another human being. Doesn't make it okay, certainly doesn't make it right, but does make it probably pretty complicated.

Nice thread, Frisco.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 

quote:

---

By the way, I'd support aerosolized birth control in all public places. Also in the drinking water

---

quote:

---

It's her body, and her business what she does with it

---

quote:

---

But birth control in all places when I was THAT age would probably have turned me into a shameless hussy

---

*places large red check in the "pro" column of aerosolized birth control*
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Frisco, the whole framework of what you are allowed to do and what you are required to do for just punishment and so on is totally foreign to the way I look at this.

First of all, legally speaking, I am pro choice, for the woman, no questions asked. I don't consider it a matter that the law is properly concerned with at all.

But to get my perspective on it, let's pretend we aren't talking about someone's baby, but pretend it is you inside your own mother's womb that we are discussing. Once we have that first person perspective we can see things from the point of view from which I tend to see abortion issues.

1. All babies deserve loving parents, who are prepared to give them some sort of chance in life.

2. All babies want to live and not be snuffed out, just like anyone.

3. When you are completely innocent, and more helpless than you'll ever be your whole life, then the very people who brought you into being by an act of love, the two people in the world from whom you ought to be able to count on love and protection, if they decide for their own personal reasons you have to die, well, that's very very very very harsh and sad.

So I myself would never abort a healthy fetus. I've seen my friend raise her severely disabled Downs baby, and I don't know what I would do if I had a Downs fetus. Probably abort it. I am not sure. I know for sure that I would never question such a decision made by others. The toll on her family has been quite high. There are circumstances that make it possible and others in which it really isn't possible to raise a baby like that. Her son had to have multiple major surgeries before he was 1 year old, and he nearly died many times. Now (16 years later) she has had an episode of cancer and the extreme stress she was under for so many years has to have been a factor in that. Will she recover? We hope and pray she will.

Also in medical situations where there is some not completely defined risk to the mother versus the not completely defined chances of whether the baby could survive or not. Again the mother should be legally the sole chooser, though of course by all moral right she should consult the father as well. But it's her body so she is the one who makes the ultimate choice of whether the risk is worth it, under the advice of her doctor.

I believe the state has no business whatsoever in dictating things so essential and so personal, upon which everyone feels extremely strongly, and upon which there is simply no consensus. So I am strongly in favor of reproductive rights. The mother, as far as the law is concerned, ought to have total say.

But all that said, we are talking about someone's LIFE. Whether it's legally categorized as a person or not, remember it's YOUR LIFE we are talking about. What is the right thing to do? That's a whole different question, about which I feel very very strongly.

I believe sex is NOT to be undertaken for purely recreational reasons, mainly for this reason among others. When you do so, you are playing russian roulette with someone's life. In other words, be prepared to make a good stable home and a good start in life for the person you are potentially making, before you decide to have sex with someone, and this includes choosing the baby's other parent as someone you'd want to be married to. In other words, wait until you are married. Period. That's the only moral option.

Little baby Frisco deserves a chance. He does NOT deserve for his own mother and father, who by all that's right in the universe ought to be his protectors and nurterers, to plan and carry out his demise. That is just too too sad for words.

Real life is harsh. Sometimes the choice is between evils. I can't judge or even examine someone else's choices. But I know what I would choose. I love babies. I want my own very badly. But my children deserve to have both parents, at least to the extent that I can choose the life they are born into, and they deserve to be wanted and loved. So I chose not to have kids out of wedlock, because a husband is something that I never have found. But I feel very sad for the children I did not have, even. I wish I could have kids. What's doubly triply sad is for people who have a healthy fetus to be unwilling even to undergo the few months inconvenience it would be to continue the pregnancy full term and put the baby up for adoption.

So the whole idea of making beds and lying in them is not in the picture at all. The way I think of things, this is someone's life you are playing with. Your choices have serious consequences. So please, I beg of you, by all that's holy, choose well.

Edit to clarify: Not meant to be directed at Frisco, but just in general an explanation of what sort of pro-choicer I am.

[ January 13, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I am pro-choice for just one reason. I can not see how I, a man, can legislate what a woman must do to her body.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
psst ak, it isn't really Frisco's baby.

And it isn't any of my business, but I can't help being nosy and wondering what your girlfriend decided, after you shared so much. It sounded like she ruled out abortion, but you still said she doesn't want children. Is she putting it up for adoption?

(feel free to not answer)

AJ

(and if she just found out last night, it is possible she hasn't made a decision yet because she needs time to think on it!)

[ January 13, 2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
*hugs CT*
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I may be the first pro-lifer to post on this thread.

"Do I think there's a point at which we say 'you're too stupid or undisciplined and therefore you must now go through with your unwanted pregnancy?'"

I think there is. Why? Because it's not "you're too stupid, and therefore must be punished," but because it's "you don't get to kill your child."

It has nothing to do with a woman's choice. It has nothing to do with whether I, a man, can tell her what to do with her body. It has nothing, in fact, to do with her body at all.

No one -- not me, not a woman, not anyone -- should have the right to kill someone else because that life has become inconvenient, for whatever reason it happens to be inconvenient.

I recognize that compromise is necessary here, as a component of human mercy. For this reason, I think it's logical to permit things like the morning-after pill and first-trimester abortion; I can think of few excuses, however, for late-term abortion.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Aeriolized birth control. *shudder* While I agree that many people would be best served to never have and raise children, I would be tremendously opposed to giving anyone the right to dictate whether or not I (or anyone else) could have children. Just like so many are adamant that church and state be well separated, I don't want someone else literally forcing me to comply with their political/ideological agenda. It's like swatting a fly with a Buick--some people won't be very good parents, so let's force everyone, good parents and bad parents, to meet our own subjective, politically charged standards to qualify for the right to reproduce. What happened to the much-vaunted education approach that seems to work so well for teaching kids about sex?
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
pssst, Anna Jo, I was asking Frisco to pretend it was HIM as an unborn fetus we were talking about. It was hypothetical.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
ok, ak, I was confused then!

AJ
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Thanks, I realized my post was confusing, and tried to make it clearer.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I thinik it's fair to ask that you label this an abortion thread in the subject line.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Why?
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
My biggest problem with abortions is that (I _think_...but I'm not sure) the grand majority of women who have them are married. At least in some upper-class circles, women will use abortion as a form of birth control in and of itself, since they don't want to deal with the hassle of the pill/condoms/patch/whatever.

But like others, I do think that there are many cases in which it should be permitted, and I think all of those have already been stated (rape, fourteen-year-olds, etc).

-pH
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Where on earth did you hear that, pH? I'm not questioning you, I just find it stunning that someone would consider a procedure at a hospital to be less of a hassle than using a condom or taking a pill.

Crikey.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
TomD, you are not the only pro-lifer on this thread.

FG
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

What happened to the much-vaunted education approach that seems to work so well for teaching kids about sex?

---

I'm both impatient and not nice, and that drives my opinions on this. Plus, I'm entirely too emotional to be data-driven, as I am taking care of yet another brain-damaged child in the ICU. Less than a month old and most of his brain is mush, still seizing despite being put down in a phenobarbital coma.

Luckily, I am not making public policy on this matter. I would not be in a good position to do so.

I am, however, pretty much fully aware of the possible consequences. I'm also pretty much opposed to such draconian measures. Would you believe, then, that I have come to be willing to advocate such a drastic measure? That this is the sixteenth case of child abuse I have been involved with this year?

Yes, I mean 2004.

*wince

[ January 13, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Bob: I'm not sure. I know it was a fairly common practice at my high school; girls didn't want to go on the pill because it might make them fat.

I have no idea what goes on in their minds.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Um...a girl unwilling to go on the pill because it makes them fat...unless these girls were then committed to abstinence or their partners and they were practicing effective alternative means of contraception (which I assume was NOT the case from your post), I just have to say that you are proving my point about these being just the sort of people who shouldn't be having children in the first place.

While I too get worked up about the thought of abortion as taking a life (it is), I also get worked up about the horrid things that people do to their unwanted children. And I get worked up about what happens to those same kids if they manage not to die in childhood and later try to become parents themselves.

It's all horrid. And abortion is not the worst part of it, frankly. The kids in body bags or lying in ICUs. That's the worst of it. That's the sin America really should be damned for...

We don't even talk about it.

Anyway, I'll get off my high horse now.

I really do believe that people should have to pass a test before being allowed to have children. But that's not practical either.

The realities of the situation make me want to just yell at people. But the bottom line is that I'd rather have abortion available than not because I think there are worse things than dying before your ungrateful parents take it out on you.

And Tom, one thing you said up above did sort of concern me. You said it isn't about "her body." But it is. Without her body (or someone else's) a fetus cannot survive.

So for the fetus, it's ALL about her body.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Um, Tom? If you compromise on allowing first-trimester abortion, you're in the pro-choice camp. You're out in the far end of it, where I tend to hang around, but you're there.

I still don't understand the arguments over what type of abortion is understandable (rapes, underage, etc) and what kinds are not (inconvenience, whim). The child produced is the same. The fetus created from a rape is no different than the fetus created by loving parents. The difference is in how the mother perceives it.

And after a certain point, the fetus' life must be considered near equal to the mother's. Few here, i think, would say that a woman has the right to abort a day before birth just because she changed her mind. It should be a sliding scale where the rights of the mother are paramount at conception, the rights of the fetus are equal after viability, and there's a constantly shifting balance between them depending on conditions.

So.

First trimester abortions, no questions asked.
Second trimester abortions, only in cases of severe danger to the mother or severe danger to the child (Down's, etc).
Third trimester abortions, never unless the mother will die otherwise and the fetus cannot be taken out alive.

With this schedule, the nature of the pregnancy is utterly besides the point.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 

quote:

---

permit things like the morning-after pill and first-trimester abortion

---

quote:

---

Second trimester abortions, only in cases of severe danger to the mother or severe danger to the child (Down's, etc).

---

For the most part, I prefer to stay out of these discussions, but I really want to point out the logical inconsistency of the statement here.

Severe danger to the child??? (with Down syndrome as an example)

Let's be honest - people abort based on prenatal testing because they personally don't want a kid with a disability. To suggest it's somehow saving the kid is dishonest. Not that people don't do it. Still doesn't make it true. More palatable maybe, but not true.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. Actually, I agreed with pretty much all of ak's post.

I also agreed with sndrake. For the most part, it has become unacceptable to euthanize (or allow to die through neglect) children with serious disabilities (including those far more disabling than Down's). Why would a fetus with such a disability be fair game?

And mind, I do not consider an unborn child to have fully human status. It is certainly a life, but killing it is not, IMO, murder. Neither may it be done casually, and I consider it horribly wrong (but not something the government should be legislating) to have an abortion because the mother/parents are too young, can't afford the child, etc. Put the baby up for adoption.

However, serious risk to the mother (physical OR psychological; direct OR indirect) does seem to be a legitimate reason for abortion. And I don't think the government has any business deciding how much risk is enough.

I also have no problem with the morning-after pill or similar substances. Until 40 days post-conception, it's barely even a life.

IMO. YMMV.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I am moderately pro-choice. If a child is or will be seriously ill, or will die, or the mother will die those are cases for a third or late second trimester abortion. First trimester, I wouldn't stop someone getting an abortion, but I would definately ask questions.

I don't believe that abortion is just a form of birth-control.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
I just want to clarify - I wasn't trying to actually put out a position on whether or not a woman should have the right to have an abortion under given circumstances.

What I was reacting to was the suggestion that "termination" of pregnancies involving Down syndrome or other disabilities are motivated as acts of compassion toward the child. (I've known a lot of people with Down syndrome of varying abilities and not one seems to regret being alive)

I feel OK when people defend abortion for eugenic purposes - at least we're having an honest discussion then. The suggestion that these actions are motivated by compassion rather than perceived self-interest is - creepy and not a little revolting.

Just my 2 cents.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If you compromise on allowing first-trimester abortion, you're in the pro-choice camp."

I know a lot of pro-choicers who'd disagree.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Bob: No, I really don't think these girls should be having kids. Absolutely not. But I think it's stupid that they use it as a way to absolve themselves of any responsibility because quite frankly, if a girl gets pregnant at that particular high school, she can either have an abortion or drop out. They don't really have a middle ground.

Of course, it doesn't help that the sex-ed classes are focused almost entirely on abstinence.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I agree there. I think the abstinence message is worth teaching, in context. And the context needs to be reality. If a kid is already sexually active, teaching abstinence is probably not going to work.
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
I think I am in the Pro-Fewer-Stupid-People camp. Sadly, we do not have a method of stupid people birth control yet.

So, I am with CT. Force people to show you why they should be allowed to have kids.
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
As a rule, I agree with aka and rivka's sentiments. But if wishes were being granted, I'd definitely like to see CT's program put into effect.

A couple of the problems I see with making abortions illegal include:
*the fact that women will still seek abortions; only instead of a clean clinic, they'll use a back alley butcher or a clothes hanger. In these cases, not only do we sacrifice the fetus, but woman as well.

*with the snail's pace at which red-tape moves, who's going to approve the special needs abortions quickly enough to make sure that the pregnancy doesn't fall into week 14?

Despite these concerns, I abhore the idea of killing a child. Like CT, I have both been witness to and experienced too much child abuse from neglectful or violent "parenting". On the other hand, I currently know at least two loving, happy couples who have been trying for 5-7 years to have a child. They've been waiting for better than 2 years for that "call" from the adoption agency. They get weepy just being around kids, their need/love is so strong.

With "parents" this willing and able available, abortion not only seems distasteful but a needless waste of love.

What I'd like to see is not only more sex education, but public education that following through with a pregnancy and giving the child to good adoptive parents is a mature and positive alternative. And for teens and others during the last 3, most obvious monthes of pregnancy, a place funded by the state adoptive agencies where the women could find safe haven away from the eyes of their peer group.

Eddie- I know that with an ex-husband in the picture, adoption becomes a bit more complicated. Yet, nothing is easy at this point.

I wish you both wisdom and strength.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
My precocious 5-year-old is again asking me sex ed. questions. She wanted to know if it hurts when the babies come out. I told her yes, it does. I explained that it was working muscles very hard. She has been upset by the idea that she hurt me when she was coming out. I told her that it was worth it, and that I was willing to experience pain to have her in the world. I also explained that it was a lot like the burn you feel when you exercise muscles that are not used to being used. That idea seemed to help.

But then she asked how a woman could make it so she WOULDN'T have a baby. And, because I want to be truthful, I had to tell her a little bit about modern medicine. We reviewed how babies get started. And then I told her that the most effective way to not have a baby is not to mate. I also mentioned "medicines" a doctor can give to make the body not let a baby get started. I skimmed over "putting something in the way", but it was mentioned. And then she asked me, "What if a baby already gets started?" And I had to tell her about abortion. I didn't go into it very deeply at all. I did tell her that some people choose to have the baby taken out, but that it kills the baby. Thank goodness she didn't have any more questions about that!

Sadly, because Abortion, Homosexuality, Sexual Abuse, and Sex itself are plastered everywhere in our world, I feel I have to educate my daughter so that she can learn to live in this world. I'll never forget her coming to me proudly in Target, holding a card, and saying, "Mommy! I can read this word. S-E-X, that says sex!" This card had been placed at her level, not mine.

I hope that by having honest dialogue now, my child will have the information she needs to make wise choices later. In fact, she started this conversation by trying out the adult phrase, "Mommy, I need your advice..." And after talking a while, she told me that she needed for me and Daddy to help her pick out a good man when the time came. I can only hope that she will still come to me when she's a teenager, but even if she doesn't, I hope I will have given her what she needs.

I'm wondering when she'll start asking about AIDS or STDs now...
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
*loves Jenny

*loves LadyDove

(and sndrake, again I thank whatever stars led you to Hatrack.)

[ January 13, 2004, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
*grooves with Slash and Bob
 

---

Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
 
This thread has some interesting discussion, and seems to be doing much better in the signal/noise ratio that most abortion threads (or even most hatrack threads, for that matter).

My question for the self-identified pro-choice believers: What objections would you have to the Supreme Court recognizing that its decision in Roe v. Wade has not only caused a considerable mess, but was constitutionally problematic when decided and all but incoherent each time it's been revisited? This would have the effect of returning the issue to the state legislatures, where it could be democratically debated.

This thread seems to indicate, to me, at least, that plenty of people subscribe to neither extreme position as they are typically potrayed in the media. It seems likely that in a legislative setting, without the poisonous rancor introduced by the all-or-nothing model forced on us by the courts, that the peoples of the various states could come up with democratic compromises that would leave a greater number of adults satisfied than the current status quo does. Some states would enact significant restrictions. Other states would enact few or no restrictions. We might even be able to compare different laws and see how well they work. Candidates could articulate a compromise position on abortion that voters who disagreed slightly could still live with, allowing the litmus test effect to fade in significance.

In contrast, the current status quo basically consists in states (or Congress) trying to enact some token restrictions (with significant majority support), and Justice O'Connor decided (by means known but to her) which ones are 'constitutional' and which ones aren't. Regardless of your position on abortion, I have a hard time seeing how anyone can defend this based on democratic principles.

So, I ask, with full recognition that democracy likely would not bring about my most ideal outcome, what would be wrong with introducing some more democracy to the process? And why are judicial nominees who indicate that Roe was bad law routinely demonized, without actually analyzing the merits of their claims or the policy outcomes of their proposals?
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
((((CT)))))

Ouch. 13 days and so many cases . . .

It's tough for parents that WANT the job, PLAN for the job . . .

The children you are referring to, CT, are those children that get the parents that didn't want the job, the responsibility, can't take care of themselves and frankly could care less about the life they bring into this world -

Bring on the aerosol -
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Who gets to judge what makes a fit parent?

What criteria will be used? How do you stop political manuvering in such a scenario?

Brian Stableford wrote a novel about this very topic-- and I wish I could remember its name. . .

EDIT: Inherit the Earth.

[ January 14, 2004, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Tom - that's okay. I don't agree with a lot of pro-choicers either. I don't generally agree with anybody that refuses to acknowledge gray areas in subjects such as this. But if you permit the woman to have an abortion at demand at any point in the process, you're pro-choice. Kinda by definition.

Han - Pro-choice advocates fight against even the hint of abortion restriction because they feel that any restrictions, no matter how small, will make further restrictions easier and ultimately to a ban of abortions altogether.

It wasn't a democratic decision in the way you're suggesting (let the people decide) as much as a constitutional issue. The Supreme court found in Roe v. Wade that "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here... violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy..."

Right now states do have the right to limit abortions at certain times. The decision stated that:

A woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester.
State governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health.
Abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.

Apart from the first trimester, states can ban all abortions as long as they include outs for women's health emergencies. I, for one, would not want to let states have the option of banning them altogether unless crossing state lines to have one was permitted.

[ January 14, 2004, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
 
"Pro-choice advocates fight against even the hint of abortion restriction because they feel that any restrictions, no matter how small, will make further restrictions easier and ultimately to a ban of abortions altogether."

Except that this doesn't make sense. Except for the most token momentum-building restrictions, every restriction that moves policy closer to the median voter makes the next restriction that much harder to enact. Plenty of people in this thread have indicated some support for early-term abortions, but none for late-term. Once the late-term ones are banned, such people would stop voting for abortion restrictions. On the other hand, playing the game all or nothing is much more likely to lead to an extreme solution on either side. Give the Roe effect [abortion supporters not reproducing in comparable numbers to abortion foes] a few more years, and it's certainly possible that the pro-life position will accumulate a large enough majority more uncomfortable with the status quo than with a total ban to enact a total ban.

"It wasn't a democratic decision in the way you're suggesting (let the people decide) as much as a constitutional issue."

But why should it have been a constitutional issue? It has even less grounding in the Constitution than 'liberty of contract' from the Lochner era did. My main beef is that it hasn't been a democratic decision--and every time the Court invents something in the Constitution to justify its policy preferences, the process suffers.

"Right now states do have the right to limit abortions at certain times."

My understanding is that this is ridden with loopholes. Why else would we just have had a monumental flap over the democratically supported partial-birth abortion ban?

"I, for one, would not want to let states have the option of banning them altogether unless crossing state lines to have one was permitted."

I suspect something of this nature would be necessary to make my proposed solution work. The exact consequences of doing so were beyond the scope of my original question, though we can discuss them if you'd like.

It doesn't seem many people are interested in discussing this further, but I'll ask once more: Why is the pro-choice movement afraid of democracy?
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

Pro-choice advocates fight against even the hint of abortion restriction because they feel that any restrictions, no matter how small, will make further restrictions easier and ultimately to a ban of abortions altogether.

---

quote:

---

Boon, your suggestion only seems fair if you don't recognize any moral objections to early abortions.

---

quote:

---

Tthe legal argument is about the right to control your own body, and has nothing to do with men's rights because abortion has nothing to do with men's bodies.

---

:::laughing::: Men don't have wombs, but they're still required to make a baby.

Admittedly, I'm only looking at it from the standpoint of the guy who wants to keep the baby.

Though it certainly complicates things, I don't think it's fair to say that men should have no say in the process. They may not have the womb required, but I know quite a few with the heart required.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
I think if more men and women discussed from the very beginning of any partnership that includes sex what their thoughts are on abortion/child support, there'd be a lot fewer court battles over the latter and probably fewer of the former, too.

Every man realizes that having sex outside of marriage with one or multiple partners may lead to an unwanted pregnancy. A slight chance, yes, but it's still there -- it's always there. What should happen from the very beginning is a conversation about what would happen should that event occur.

she: "i don't want a child now, but i would probably have the child anyway and keep him/her as my own"

he: "i would advocate abortion, and wouldn't want the baby born at all."

she: "well, then, maybe we shouldn't have sex."

OR

he: "you should bring the child to term and then give it up for adoption, that seems the best thing to do."

she: "no, i don't want to deal with that, i would want an abortion."

he: "i'm not comfortable with that. Maybe we shouldn't have sex."

Why doesn't anybody discuss these things? It could solve so many problems!!

Then again, to play devil's advocate...i think some people just don't know what they would want/do in that situation. So for those people, the point is moot.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
There are a lot of good points throughout this thread by people with differing beliefs. I'm not completely decided on my own beliefs, so I don't want to jump right in, but I was struck by one recurring point. Pro-Choice people often comment on the evils of people who are not equipped to be parenting being forced to have children, and on abortion being more merciful to the fetus than being born into an ill-equipped, impoverished, or possible abusive home would be. Many of us were born into less than ideal families. Many of us were poor and/or abused, and I reckon virtually everybody at least knows somebody with this type of background . . .

Is the party line, then, that such people would have been better off not having been brought to term?

-o-

Incidentally, I assumed CT was being somewhat facetious about the aeresolized birth control thing (though I'm not so sure about Slash or Frisco . . . ) I certainly sympathize with the sentiment, having had to take a parenting class to be permitted to adopt, while all sorts of lowlifes can bring children into the world with no restriction, but I wouldn't seriously act on that fanciful wish.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
As someone who was born "defective", I tend to get irate when I hear claims that people who aren't going to be born healthy shouldn't be born at all. Although my problems have been partially fixed surgically and are not the sort of ongoing difficulty someone with, say, cerebral palsy might have, they were potentially lethal and cost my parents an arm and a leg. I could have had a considerably better life if I was born healthy, but under normal circumstances I'm glad I was born.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Ic, what if the antidote for the aerosol were available over-the-counter, merely insuring that any child conceived is done so with intent?

Bam. The problem of unnecessary abortion is solved.

Toy with the price a bit, and I bet we could stop couples who can't even afford to have one child from having seven.

And maybe the pill could contain meat to keep annoying vegans and vegetarians from reproducing and coffee grinds to keep the...oh, never mind.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 


Seriously?
My knee-jerk reaction to that is that it gives the government too much power. Then I think some more about it and I say, why? I mean, the government has power over so many less important decisions we make, why don't we as a society control something as crucial as who gives birth? But there's the rub . . . government /= society. And we are told that driving is a privilege not a right, but I'm not so comfortable saying that having kids is a privilege and not a right. It seems unnatural.

The potential for abuse is overwhelming. I can see this turning into an institutionalized form of classism. I see the unfairness of people having children they don't have the resources to raise and expecting society to shoulder the burden. But preventing people from giving birth seems like a rather draconian way to prevent this. I don't think a formula for who can give birth can be developed that we can all agree on. In your example, the antidote is easily available, but your facetious idea of massaging the price to control access makes the point that this opens the door to government control of conception. (I would be slightly less uncomfortable if it were free, I suppose, but how could we be sure it would be kept free? And can you imagine the disaster if everyone were humping like bunnies, secure in the notion that they would not conceive, and something went wrong?)

Heck, if the point is to keep society from having to pay for the children of people who were too poor to have them, why not stop aiding poor families who keep on having kids. Let 'em starve rather than making society accept the burden. This may be an evil attitude, but it seems like a lesser evil than having the government control conception. The ills we currently have seem like lesser evils to me.

I think about China's ZPG laws and this seems like a far more efficient way to bring something like that about. I know some people who are strident enought to think this is a good thing, but I don't think it is. Once we put this power in either government or corporate America's hands, will we as individuals be pleased with how they decide to use it? The whole thing seems Brave New World-ish to me.

All of this is completely disregarding the fact that the idea would be abhorrent to many religious persuasions. Again, it seems like even if the majority were for it, it may be a case of the majority trodding unfairly on the minority.

It's a good topic to speculate on in its own right . . . maybe passive universal birth control would make a good thread all its own.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

The potential for abuse is overwhelming. I can see this turning into an institutionalized form of classism. I see the unfairness of people having children they don't have the resources to raise and expecting society to shoulder the burden. But preventing people from giving birth seems like a rather draconian way to prevent this.

---

The U.S. has already been there and done that. Due to the efforts of the eugenics movement, about 30 states had involuntary sterilization laws on the books - in many places they were implemented aggressively. And they were implemented in ways that were both racist and classist. That was by design. When it was all over, between 60 and 70 thousand Americans were sterilized under these laws. Unfortunately, I don't think we're teaching this in American History in public schools.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
You're right. At least, not when I was in high school. I think I'll go ask the history teacher next door if things have changed.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
As I said, I am rational enough to be glad I am not in charge of making public policy on this. I'm currently in the state of preferring that our species die out than have to examine another baby with waist-down 3rd degree burns from having been dipped into scalding water.

Of course, many people have intentionally harmed the very children which they desired to have.

Again, I remind you that I am glad that I am not in charge of public policy.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I don't think we're teaching this in American History in public schools.

---

quote:

---

And I went to public school in Virginia.

---

Dagonee, it could be that Virginia is one of those places where it is being taught. Much of the leadership of the eugenics movement was situated in the state. The Supreme Court that eugenics advocates orchestrated originated there as well. As a result, Virginia has had more public awareness about the history of involuntary sterilization than most others. It's possible that the public education efforts of some of the people involved in "rediscovering" this history led to the inclusion of this in your school curriculum.

I know it's not part of the curriculum in New York state schools. Three years ago, my niece was dissed by her history teacher in high school when she said the first victims of the Nazis were disabled people. She got dissed when she told him Hitler modeled his sterilization laws after our own. She was right. He was wrong. Didn't matter.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 

quote:

---

Almost every time I’ve heard someone say “This is isn’t taught in public schools,” it turns out to be something I learned in public school.
...
And I went to public school in Virginia.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee, it could be that Virginia is one of those places where it is being taught.

---