Every aspect of this is unbelievably tragic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm wondering what the hell they expected to happen at the clinic.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Good grief. That is absolutely horrifying.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I was wondering that too. I mean, they'd have to realize that bringing someone in bound and gagged would trigger some suspicion.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's terrible.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
God, maybe they hoped the people at the clinic would understand, or just want the money . . .
O God, what kind of people do this?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have no words. How could they have thought they were doing anything besides ruining the lives of everyone involved?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
How horrible. I wonder why they thought it so important that she not go through with the pregnancy?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
That's awful. I'm wondering if they tested the parents' sobriety.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are several federal crimes that could be tacked on, too, possibly enough to get to a life sentence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is disgusting. What the devil is the point of a right to choose, if your parents are making the choice?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Unbelievable. And horridly awful. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've never seen pro choice taken to such extremes, I never even imagined something like this being likely.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've never seen pro choice taken to such extremes, I never even imagined something like this being likely.
There was no choice involved here.
I honestly don't know what the hell the parents were thinking. It would have been easier, although no less deceptive and evil, to let her have the child and force her to give it up for adoption.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've never seen pro choice taken to such extremes, I never even imagined something like this being likely.
...you have clearly missed the point of pro-CHOICE.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Holy crap.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I've never seen pro choice taken to such extremes, I never even imagined something like this being likely.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same. Now, don't get me wrong, this is by far the worst case I've ever heard of, but I've heard many a story of young women being forced into abortions by parents and/or boyfriends. Part of the price of working in a post-abortion counseling ministry and one of the reasons I no longer volunteer in that part of the ministry - too emotionally draining for me. Bless the people who still do it.
One girl talked about how she begged the doctor not to do it, but he told her to shut her eyes and be quiet, her parents knew what was best for her. She stayed on the table praying the whole time for God to forgive her, but she was 14 and her parents told her if she didn't they'd throw her out on the street - she certainly didn't feel like she had a choice. I've heard many stories of being physically threatened by boyfriends and such, a lot of girls that were beaten prior to going for the abortion and told if they didn't get one they'd be killed. It's heartbreaking.
This is the first time I've heard of someone actually being tied up and held at gunpoint, though. How horrid for her. Not only did she undergo a traumatic kidnapping, but there is some serious betrayal of trust when it's your own parents who do it to you. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm a little annoyed that this is being regarded as a "pro-choicer" action. The whole idea of pro-choice is that one has a CHOICE in the matter. A forced abortion is clearly not a choice.
-pH
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I was SO trying to just be a little fly in this thread but pH - I'm wondering if people more mean pro-choice as 'the option is available legally' than as 'this is a perfect example of why choice is wrong'? I took that you're getting the latter - sorry if I'm wrong.
*transforms back into a fly and perches on the nearest wall*
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
This is such a small thing in comparison to the real crime, but it seems like an added offence that she wasn't even a minor when they did it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by cmc: I was SO trying to just be a little fly in this thread but pH - I'm wondering if people more mean pro-choice as 'the option is available legally' than as 'this is a perfect example of why choice is wrong'? I took that you're getting the latter - sorry if I'm wrong.
*transforms back into a fly and perches on the nearest wall*
Saying "pro-choice taken to extremes" sounds much closer to the latter to me. Sometimes I wonder if not everyone understands that pro-choice is not the same as ABORTION IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE. YOU HAVE ONE NOW.
-pH
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Yes, exactly. Call those people anti-fetus or anti-baby or something, but the whole point of pro-choice is for the WOMAN regardless of age, intelligence, religion, parental, peer, or significant other pressure to make the decision. She's the one who has to live with her choice, either way, so she gets to make it.
I find it morally repugnant to try to force or influence someone to have or not to have an abortion. Providing opinions couched in "Well, if I were in your position, which I'm not, here's what I think I would, and here's why" if REQUESTED is appropriate.
Also she was 19 . . . and apparently fairly far along . . . so I really dunno what they were thinking. Not a minor, and possibly not a safe abortion candidate.
But hey - this raises an interesting point. A lot of anti-choice people seem to want parents to be able to keep their children from having abortions. So if that's ok, why couldn't another set or parents force their minor to have one?
Ah yes, back to that whole CHOICE thing . . . let the kiddo who's going to have the kiddo decide . . .
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Samarkand, you bring up a very important point about the parental abortion control issue, one that I find interesting myself.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Samarkand, even parental notification or consent laws wouldn't apply here, if I'm not mistaken they are for minors under the age of 18? Perhaps I'm wrong and it's 21, but I'm pretty sure it's 18.
And the purpose of notification laws is to prevent a minor child from getting a medical procedure without the knowledge of the parents, and if I'm not mistaken there are in all parental notification laws protections for the minor to petition the court to allow for an abortion if the parents refuse consent.
quote:A lot of anti-choice people...
I have been asked in the past to refrain from calling people on the other side of me "anti-abortion" and acceded to that request out of respect for them. Thus, I am going to ask for the same courtesy. Please refer to my belief system as "pro-life", even "anti-abortion" is okay by me (I don't want to speak for everyone). Anti-choice has a negative overtone, and honestly this thread is not the place for contention. I think all of us, pro-choice and pro-life agree this is a terrible incident and not something any of us would endorse.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: But hey - this raises an interesting point. A lot of anti-choice people seem to want parents to be able to keep their children from having abortions. So if that's ok, why couldn't another set or parents force their minor to have one?
If you're going to get pissed off about people using the name of your position incorrectly, at least have the common decency to use the title the other side has chosen to describe themselves. If you're not going to at least afford them that respect, then I don't think you have any right to demand similar respect from them.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
This isn't about people using the NAME of the position incorrectly. This is about people misconstruing the entire purpose of the position.
-pH
Posted by HegemonsAcolyte (Member # 1468) on :
Personally I always liked it with a pro-lifer called my position pro-death.
Any idea why the parents wanted to do this to the kid? I skimmed the article, but i don't recall there being mention of it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Apparently they weren't happy that she was pregnant by a guy who's in jail. That's all the article mentioned.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
There's also speculation that it was racially motivated... making the whole 'thing' that much more horrible. For God's sake - your kids are going to grow up and make choices on their own. You love, respect, be there for them anyway. Tough love means a lot more that being hard on your kids when they're little.
I really don't like this story even a little. It's horrible to me that anyone would put a person through something like that, let alone the parents of that someone.
*tries to resume fly status but aggravation is impeding transformation*
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Absolutely, Belle, I did not mean to imply that parental notification would be an issue in this particular instance. Except perhaps for a judge informing them that they're psychotic. I mentioned that in the line above ("Also she was 19 . . . and apparently fairly far along . . . so I really dunno what they were thinking. Not a minor, and possibly not a safe abortion candidate."), but perhaps should have reiterated it for clarity.
I am aware of the laws in place to allow minors to request a judge's review in the case of parental opposition - again, this was not what I was trying to get at, but thank you for mentioning it so I could clarify.
What I was trying to say, is that pregnancy is a medical condition. Going through pregancy and labor seems like a fairly substantial health issue to me. It causes changes in physiology and carries with it certain inherent risks. If parents should be allowed to actively oppose their MINOR child from getting an abortion, what is to prevent them from seeking an abortion for said minor? Parents make the call every day on whether or not to move forward with other surgeries, or to continue or stop chemo - so how is opting for or against an abortion different? From my pro-choice standpoint, I find the restriction of choice to be a slippery slope, regardless of what quarter it is coming from.
Thank you for bringing up the point that terms can be misleading and hurtful. I completely agree with you that sometimes terms are inaccurate. This is why I chose not to use the term "pro-life". It suggests that the other side is "anti-life" which has always conjured up images of pale people in dark clothes staggering about Gothic cities where the gutters run with blood for me, which really isn't where I'm coming from at all.
I will be happy to refer to your position as anti-abortion if that makes you more comfortable. However, I'm curious as to why "anti-choice" would upset you - it's been my understanding that most people who oppose abortion truly wish that no one had the option, or the choice, to get one. Is this incorrect in your case?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
The boyfriend was black and in jail. Just imaine the shame of having a black grandchild.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That's an important point, parents choosing with medical procedures. I mean, I'm sure it's very unlikely that a parent would FORCE a child of the appropriate age to have a surgery unless it was absolutely necessary, but it is technically possible as far as I know (by appropriate age, I mean nobody asks an infant if he wants a circumcision). And to deny parents that ability also denies them the ability to keep minors from having surgeries that the parents don't think they should be having. I guess all I'm trying to say is, it really does work both ways.
-pH
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Yeah, exactly, pH. That's why I feel it's pretty sketchy for parents to lean on their kids either way. If your daughter is looking at the possibility of becoming a parent herself, she needs to be able to make a tough decisions, whatever it might be.
Poor girl. I hope she's doing ok. If anyone sees subsequent articles about her, please post them. I can't believe she had to lock herself in a bathroom in KMart to escape her parents . . .
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I hope someone finds out more information about the parents like their religion or political affiliation, so we can make gross generalizations and point fingers Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A truly awful thing. I hope the parents have an entire set of encyclopedias thrown at them for this garbage.
----
Incidentally, since those opposed to abortion are more often painted as the more extreme of the two parties, and get labeled 'pro-choicers' while doing so frequently, I really don't see what's so wrong in labeling those on the opposition who do so by their most common name as well.
Obviously the parents were not 'pro-choice', what they were was 'pro-abortion'. Which is what, I believe, many pro-choicers are. Please note I did not say 'most'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I find it morally repugnant to try to force or influence someone to have or not to have an abortion.
You find it morally repugnant to try to influence someone to not have an abortion. Yikes. I find the whole idea that someone shouldn't attempt to influence someone else about a decision they believe has serious moral consequences to be morally repugnant.
quote:This is why I chose not to use the term "pro-life". It suggests that the other side is "anti-life" which has always conjured up images of pale people in dark clothes staggering about Gothic cities where the gutters run with blood for me, which really isn't where I'm coming from at all.
Then please do not demand or even ask for any consideration from others concerning how your position will be labeled.
"Pro-choice" is at least as manipulative a term. It's not like pro-choice people are, in general, pro-choice about every possible choice. Leaving out the word "abortion" is incomplete at best and inaccurate at worst.
We could certainly have that full discussion if you like. However, it might be a lot simpler to show a little common courtesy with respect to labels.
If you insist on not using someone's own label for the their position, then use a neutral one. "In favor of abortion being legal" and "against abortion being legal" are accurate, if unwieldy.
quote:I guess all I'm trying to say is, it really does work both ways.
No, it really doesn't. There are many situations in which a parent can prevent a child from doing something but can't force the child to do it. Underage marriage comes to mind immediately.
It's a common pattern: many people can stop an action from occurring, but consent of all involved in the decision chain is required to have it occur.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Thanks, Dag. Sometimes when I read your posts I feel I should be taking notes.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Where one might say pro-choice had an influence on this case is the absolute demonization of parenthood-- the state of parenthood, not parents per se-- in our society. It's very common for a pro-choice person to say something along the lines of "why should someone have to give up their entire life over one little mistake." Without getting into the refutation of that statement, there is a constant and consistent message from the pro-choice side (to be fair, it comes from fear-oriented birth control advocation on both sides) that a pregnancy before graduating high school, graduating college, getting a master's degree, going to Europe, getting married (all this depending on the person speaking) means the end of the world as you know it.
Of course, in a very real sense, it *is*, but the pro-choice camp, in particular, likes to completely ignore the positive aspect of the whole new world of parenthood which is simultaneously beginning.
In most discussion, pregnancy is treated, by and large, as an illness. Even as a married Catholic, I found my news of another child was often greeted with the question "is this a good thing?" I have written extensively on my answer to that... as has the Catholic Church. One of the things I really like about the Catholic Church is that it is one of the few organizations that has had the courage to stand up in this "modern" world and peg this attitude towards children and childbirth as unhealthy and philosophically a bad idea-- which I think Dag is going to write on extensively in another thread.
Edit: to be clear, I am not trying to establish a causal relationship, but more particularly explaining to pH why people might associate this behavior with an "extreme pro-choice" position.
[ September 20, 2006, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I hope the parents have an entire set of encyclopedias thrown at them for this garbage.
Not me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't understand if you're joking as though I were speaking literally, or that you mean you would be opposed to the 'parents' having the book thrown at them, Storm Saxon.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Folks, this has as much to do with "Pro-Choice" as it has to do with "Parental Notification Laws"
Its stupid tragic people making stupid tragic mistakes.
If there were no clean, safe, abortion clinics available for them to go to, they would have taken the woman to some hack in an alley who would not have cared if the girl was tied, chained, or beaten.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, judging from the fact the guy's in jail, while I certainly don't agree with what they did,Rakeesh, I can understand why they were distraught about their daughter giving birth to some dork's kid.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Or they would have attempted to do it themselves. Attempting to induce a miscarriage is the age-old refuge of desperate mothers, fathers and parents.
EDIT:
quote:I can understand why they were distraught about their daughter giving birth to some dork's kid.
There's a long, long gap between 'distraught' and 'murderous'. Although I am pro-choice, I think that forcibly attempting to take a baby's life against the will of the mother is pretty much the same thing as murderous.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But they were in a state of mind that isn't likely to be repeated. It does nothing to put them in jail.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It does nothing to put them in jail.
Except send a message that this behavior is not okay.
I'm kind of shocked and appalled that anyone has even tried to associate the actions of the parents with the pro-choice movement.
Good gravy. Another abortion thread. Oops.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: But they were in a state of mind that isn't likely to be repeated.
What state of mind would that be, distraught about their daughter's choices? Because I'm willing to bet good money that IS a state of mind that IS likely to be repeated.
It interests me that the girl's mom has a separate lawyer from her husband. I wonder what that means.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Saxon: I understand what you mean, but the law doesn't work like that. If you commit a crime, regardless of whether you're going to do it ever again, it's still a crime. The crime isn't nullified from being a one-off thing. A murder is still a murder, even if you're never going to do it again- same goes for kidnapping.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I understand. I'm just stating my personal opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think a rule like would create a "the first one is free" rule. The first kidnapping, the first assault, the first embezzling, the first robbery, the first murder. I don't think that's a good idea.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm not looking to create a rule.
I guess all I'm saying is that I understand why the parents are going crazy over this and I feel for them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it's possible to feel for them and understand why they went crazy, and still want them punished for doing so.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There's a whole raft of ethics that deals with appropriate punishment and the nature of punishment. I'm not really equipped to address that very well. All I can say is that I think that putting the parents away for some period of years in prison for doing what they did isn't really going to do anything productive for the parents or the daughter.
Then again, I think jail/prison should only be used to protect society from people, and I just don't think the parents are a threat.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm interested in hearing what people think an appropriate punishment for the parents would be and why, though.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think there's a big difference between being upset that your daughter is pregnant with a loser's child, and kidnapping for to force her to have an abortion.
Personally, I think the ability to violently kidnap your own child shows that you are a threat to society.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
quote: Its stupid tragic people making stupid tragic mistakes.
If there were no clean, safe, abortion clinics available for them to go to, they would have taken the woman to some hack in an alley who would not have cared if the girl was tied, chained, or beaten.
I'm inclined to agree with this.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I have so many things to say on this.. forgive me if this comes off as more disjointed than usual...
- They should be in the same prison as the baby's father. I'm sure he has some opinions on the people who tried to murder his child.
- Yes, this is kidnapping and attempted murder. I'm pro-choice but the choice belongs to the 19 yr old mother, not the racist parents.
- Pro-life is not anti choice. Pro-choice is not pro-death. We have two wonderful things, Life and Choice. Everyone loves both of them. But in the case of abortion we have to choose which we hold higher, Life or Choice.
Don't answer too quickly.
- Part of the purpose of prisons is deterent from people in similar situations. This is unfortunate, but it's the way it is. If someone hears about these two getting off because it's understandable, they might be quicker to do the same to their own daughter.
- It would be nice, in the case of healthy minor pregnant girls, if it required both the child and the parents consent before they could have an abortion. The thought of a 14 yr old girl begging the doctor not to kill her baby breaks my heart
Pix
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:They should be in the same prison as the baby's father. I'm sure he has some opinions on the people who tried to murder his child.
Purposely putting somebody into a situation so that they will be mistreated by the other prisonsers is, IMO, cruel and unusual, unconstitutional, and wrong.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
all the stuff I posted and you respond to the one thing I said in anger?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. I didn't have anything useful to say about the other parts of your post.
It's common practice here to respond to only part of a post. There is no expectation that if you respond to one thing said, you will reply to it all.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think when they get out of wherever they go the girl is justified in never seeing her parents again if they don't understand why what they did was wrong.
And getting a restraining order if they try to force the relationship.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: - Pro-life is not anti choice. Pro-choice is not pro-death. We have two wonderful things, Life and Choice. Everyone loves both of them. But in the case of abortion we have to choose which we hold higher, Life or Choice.
Don't answer too quickly.
Well put.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I guess all I'm saying is that I understand why the parents are going crazy over this and I feel for them.
If your own child was in a similar situation, you would react similarly?
I understand what you're trying to say, but it reads as "I understand and sympathize with why the parents violently abducted their daughter and almost forced her to abort a child she wanted to keep."
If that IS what you're saying, well, that's a whole 'nother story.
quote:There's a whole raft of ethics that deals with appropriate punishment and the nature of punishment. I'm not really equipped to address that very well. All I can say is that I think that putting the parents away for some period of years in prison for doing what they did isn't really going to do anything productive for the parents or the daughter.
Were I in the girl's position, I would want both of them in prison to ensure that 1) they felt punished for the wrongs they had committed and 2) to ensure that they were unable to reach myself or my child, even if only for a period of time.
That's pretty darn productive, if you ask me.
It also ensures (as inprisonment is designed to) that two people, who have demonstrated themselves to be mentally unstable and a threat to society by any reasonable measure, will be kept away from society. I wholeheartedly agree with blacwolve here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I understand that they love their daughter and feel like the guy who is the father is a creep, and they don't want their daughter's life to be tied to the creep's. I think this would make anyone quite distraught. To answer your question, I would be similiaryly distraught.
Does it excuse what they did? No.
Would I do what they did? No.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I understand that they love their daughter and feel like the guy who is the father is a creep, and they don't want their daughter's life to be tied to the creep's. I think this would make anyone quite distraught. To answer your question, I would be similiaryly distraught.
Does it excuse what they did? No.
Would I do what they did? No.
Thank you for clarifying.
I think every human being can, if they think about it, understand the urges that would drive a person to theft, murder, abuse, kidnapping and any number of horrible crimes. We all have some of these thoughts. What seperates us from the criminals we lock away (or the patients we lock in the mental hospital) is the ability to recognize our own destructive impulses and curb them.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:- It would be nice, in the case of healthy minor pregnant girls, if it required both the child and the parents consent before they could have an abortion. The thought of a 14 yr old girl begging the doctor not to kill her baby breaks my heart
This makes a lot of sense. It never occurred to me that a doctor would perform an abortion over the minor's objections.
Or at the very least, the minor's consent and the parents' notification, even if they don't consent.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: But they were in a state of mind that isn't likely to be repeated. It does nothing to put them in jail.
It might not be *likely* to be repeated, but it did happen, and it is possible that it would happen again.
These parents have a problem, and that problem needs to be dealt with, either through jail time or psychiatric help. I don't know what the deeper story is about how they love their daughter and want the best for her, but I don't think you do either, and assuming this action was done out of a misguided sense of love seems to be jumping to conclusions.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, kittens certainly are cute...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's just my way of saying that I have nothing more to say, Jebus. Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
As for the girl's parents having different lawyers, it may simply be a matter of conflict of interest issues. I know this is a totally different situation, but when one of the attorneys here does estate plan work for a husband and wife, we're required to get written authorization and waiver of conflict. Perhaps because this is a criminal matter, that's not an option?
We were discussing this on another of my fora, and our general consensus is that these two need to be convicted and jailed for kidnapping, transporting across state lines and attempted murder. And we like the idea of putting them in the same cellblock as the baby's father. Yes, it's vindictive and cruel, but so is what the parents attempted to do. And as eros said, jailtime would ensure that her parents can't get anywhere near her for a while, which would give her time to have her baby, get re-settled and move on with their lives.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My apologies pH if I came across as oversimplifying the entire situation.
I was thinking in my head when I wrote it that "Pro Choice" attempts to make SURE a choice can even be made, whereas some pro lifers attempt to remove that option all together.
I fully understand that you can be pro choice but still favor adoption, and pro life yet still favor limited access to abortion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: These parents have a problem, and that problem needs to be dealt with, either through jail time or psychiatric help. I don't know what the deeper story is about how they love their daughter and want the best for her, but I don't think you do either, and assuming this action was done out of a misguided sense of love seems to be jumping to conclusions.
K. I do have something more to say. This is also in response to Goody's post.
In reading about this situation, I am bringing to the table my experience dealing with screwed up teenage girls in the form of my step-sister and other people that I've known. Normally, they fall in with idiots, and their parents are the only people in the world who actually try to keep these girls from hurting themselves.
I don't think saying that what they did was done out of love is misguided. Why else would they have done it as her parents?
Taking the parents out of the picture is going to screw this girl up even more, if what I'm saying is true. It's going to break up a whole family becaue the parents did something stupid out of what was, I am betting, a sense of desperation.
I think seperating the parents from the child for some short period of time is reasonable, where people can get the parents and child to talk, help each other to come to some kind of understanding. Maybe a year.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Incidentally, since those opposed to abortion are more often painted as the more extreme of the two parties, and get labeled 'pro-choicers' while doing so frequently, I really don't see what's so wrong in labeling those on the opposition who do so by their most common name as well.
Obviously the parents were not 'pro-choice', what they were was 'pro-abortion'. Which is what, I believe, many pro-choicers are. Please note I did not say 'most'.
You know, if pro-lifers are going to claim that it's terrible for pro-choicers to bring up the "pregnancy as punishment" thing, perhaps they shouldn't assume that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion. It frustrates me that whenever there's an abortion discussion, if a pro-choicer says, "Well, abortion isn't for everyone, and I don't think it should be the first choice," someone jumps all over it with, "Hah! See? You know abortion is fundamentally wrong! If it weren't wrong, you would have no problem with willy-nilly aobrtions! Pro-life 4 lyfe!" That kind of attitude completely misses what the pro-choice stance IS.
The name pro-choice IS accurate, since the idea is giving women choices.
Crazy zealots who bomb abortion clinics are still "pro-life" in teh sense that they are trying to remove abortion as a legal option. Or, if you want me to use positive language, they are trying to protect what they think are human children. In this particular instance, the extreme action taken completely contradicts the pro-choice stance, which means that it's a lot more inaccurate. They're removing choice.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I recognize we need to have labels when we have debates, they make it easier to identify where someone comes down on the issues, but we should also recognize that some labels are intentionally inflammatory and avoid them if possible. "anti-choice" has as negative a connotation to me as "pro-abortion" seems to have to pH. Given that we would rather have constructive debate rather than mudslinging and juvenile "she called me names!" type of dialogue, we should avoid those labels that we know are going to cause objection. Like it or not, the typical labels for the positions are pro-life and pro-choice. In absence of anything better and in the interest of furthering civil discussion, I think we should continue to use those labels and avoid ones like "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion". In doing so we should recognize that we are not saying the direct opposite of the pro-life position is someone who thinks abortions are always good and should be a primary method of birth control, just as we should remember that the opposite of pro-choice is not someone who hates women and wants to subjugate them and keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Pix wrote: Pro-life is not anti choice. Pro-choice is not pro-death. We have two wonderful things, Life and Choice. Everyone loves both of them. But in the case of abortion we have to choose which we hold higher, Life or Choice.
Don't answer too quickly.
I think everyone keeping that in mind would make it a lot easier to stomach abortion debates.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Pix wrote: Pro-life is not anti choice. Pro-choice is not pro-death. We have two wonderful things, Life and Choice. Everyone loves both of them. But in the case of abortion we have to choose which we hold higher, Life or Choice.
Don't answer too quickly.
I think everyone keeping that in mind would make it a lot easier to stomach abortion debates.
Well, not exactly. It is only a very specific, much disputed "life" and only one particular "choice" we are taling about. Not the larger concepts of "Life" and "Choice".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Storm Saxon,
You don't think someone who resorts to kidnapping and attempted battery when they get desperate, to resolve personal problems, is a threat?
I certainly do. While I think we can agree that virtually everyone who becomes desperate enough would kidnap or batter, we can also agree that for these parents the bar for kidnapping is quite a bit lower than most people's bar for it.
That seems like a big threat to me.
-------------
quote:You know, if pro-lifers are going to claim that it's terrible for pro-choicers to bring up the "pregnancy as punishment" thing, perhaps they shouldn't assume that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion. It frustrates me that whenever there's an abortion discussion, if a pro-choicer says, "Well, abortion isn't for everyone, and I don't think it should be the first choice," someone jumps all over it with, "Hah! See? You know abortion is fundamentally wrong! If it weren't wrong, you would have no problem with willy-nilly aobrtions! Pro-life 4 lyfe!" That kind of attitude completely misses what the pro-choice stance IS.
I'm not exactly sure why you're saying this to me, although I do think that when (most) people say, "Abortion isn't for me," something in their gut recognizes it's the wrong choice-but people can support movements to give people the freedom to make the wrong choices, I understand that.
I stand by my statement, though: pro-choicers routinely misrepresent the opinions and motivations of pro-lifers, and vice versa. And I believe that many pro-choicers actually are pro-abortion, just as many pro-lifers really do want to make hussies pay for loose living.
You just seem to be making an effort to distance your position from the actions of a far-flung extreme in your camp, when quite often pro-lifers-I'm not saying you do this, I'm speaking generally-are not given the same opportunity.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Since we are adding Pro-s and Anti-s to this debate:
Pro-Choice is not equal to, nor is Pro-Life the righteous opposite of Pro-Miscuous
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Pix wrote: Pro-life is not anti choice. Pro-choice is not pro-death. We have two wonderful things, Life and Choice. Everyone loves both of them. But in the case of abortion we have to choose which we hold higher, Life or Choice.
Don't answer too quickly.
I think everyone keeping that in mind would make it a lot easier to stomach abortion debates.
Well, not exactly. It is only a very specific, much disputed "life" and only one particular "choice" we are taling about. Not the larger concepts of "Life" and "Choice".
I'm fairly certain Pix meant the Life and Choice specifically relating to this particular issue, except insofar as our stances regarding the relative values of Life and Choice in this issue often reflect (or at least relate to) our stances on the relative values of Life and Choice, generally speaking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just making sure.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I don't think saying that what they did was done out of love is misguided. Why else would they have done it as her parents?
Oh, I don't see that was love. It sounds to me like embarrassment. A black baby out of wedlock in THEIR family? They'd rather assault their child then have that happen. Not love.
I remember a nurse I worked with who adopted a baby boy right after their own child was born. They thought having two kids close in age would be good for each other. By six months of age the adopted baby was looking more and more black, and the hair was coming in tightly curled. They cancelled the adoption and turned the baby back in. They just wanted the baby to look more like their own child. She told me this years later and had no shame at all over what she did. She took it for granted it was the only thing they could do.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:She told me this years later and had no shame at all over what she did. She took it for granted it was the only thing they could do.
People like that make me feel ill. I cannot imagine taking a child into my heart and my family, loving and caring for him and then getting rid of him because he didn't turn out to look quite the way I'd expected.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I remember a nurse I worked with who adopted a baby boy right after their own child was born. They thought having two kids close in age would be good for each other. By six months of age the adopted baby was looking more and more black, and the hair was coming in tightly curled. They cancelled the adoption and turned the baby back in. They just wanted the baby to look more like their own child. She told me this years later and had no shame at all over what she did. She took it for granted it was the only thing they could do.
Holy cats.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It interests me that the girl's mom has a separate lawyer from her husband. I wonder what that means.
Goody was pretty much right on. It's considered problematic to represent two defendants charged in the same offense. There are times when it happens, but the opportunities for conflict are legion.
For example, suppose there's evidence of abuse in the family - the husband abusing the wife, for example. This could be a defense for the wife, one that either excuses (if she could claim coercion) or at least mitigates at sentencing. Her lawyer pretty much MUST use that if he thinks it's the strategy with the best chance of success and she wants him to do so. However, this would seriously prejudice the father, introducing evidence of his prior bad acts into the same trial. His lawyer must oppose introduction of such evidence, either trying to suppress it or to sever the trials.
A good prosecutor would want each represented separately from the time they are first questioned, because that's when the chances of prying them apart are best.
Even in cases without such obvious conflicts, it's best to have separate counsel. A lawyer should only consider the needs of one client when deciding on strategy.
Of course, if the trials aren't severed, then the lawyers will work together. But each should be representing only one of them.
So, in short (too late, I know), it might mean they'll be finger pointing and it might just mean their lawyers are conscientious.
Edit: the problems start before the lawyer knows about any finger-pointing defenses. Anything he discovers while talking to a client is privileged. So he might have to disqualify himself from both clients if such a defense for one client came up while interviewing the other. A good lawyer investigates, and he must remain free to use the fruits of that investigation in the best interest of his client.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by sarahdipity:
quote: Its stupid tragic people making stupid tragic mistakes.
If there were no clean, safe, abortion clinics available for them to go to, they would have taken the woman to some hack in an alley who would not have cared if the girl was tied, chained, or beaten.
I'm inclined to agree with this.
This might be true in this particular case, but it would be specious to attempt to generalize from this to a broader policy point.
Any clinic that wouldn't immediately call the police in this situation isn't safe and raises serious questions of its cleanliness.
Had her parents been less stupid, they would have sought an underground provider even though abortion is legal now, and such an underground provider would carry the same risks Dan alluded to.
quote:Then again, I think jail/prison should only be used to protect society from people, and I just don't think the parents are a threat.
I think they are a tremendous threat. When highly emotional, these people resort to very serious crimes to make the thing causing the emotions go away. And they don't think of the consequences of their actions, which means they are likely to end up in a situation where they have planned poorly and need to load that gun he was carrying and start shooting.
In states with fetal murder laws, they would be guilty of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder.
Yes, this is serious. Yes, these people are threats. Yes, they need to be away - in prison or a mental hospital, but away. For a long time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just to throw this out there...
Suppose the 19 year old was kidnapped by her parents because they wanted to prevent her from having an abortion?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
it would still be bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Suppose the 19 year old was kidnapped by her parents because they wanted to prevent her from having an abortion?
Then it would be kidnapping without the conspiracy to commit homicide possibility that exists in about half the states.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: -------------
quote:You know, if pro-lifers are going to claim that it's terrible for pro-choicers to bring up the "pregnancy as punishment" thing, perhaps they shouldn't assume that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion. It frustrates me that whenever there's an abortion discussion, if a pro-choicer says, "Well, abortion isn't for everyone, and I don't think it should be the first choice," someone jumps all over it with, "Hah! See? You know abortion is fundamentally wrong! If it weren't wrong, you would have no problem with willy-nilly aobrtions! Pro-life 4 lyfe!" That kind of attitude completely misses what the pro-choice stance IS.
I'm not exactly sure why you're saying this to me, although I do think that when (most) people say, "Abortion isn't for me," something in their gut recognizes it's the wrong choice-but people can support movements to give people the freedom to make the wrong choices, I understand that.
I stand by my statement, though: pro-choicers routinely misrepresent the opinions and motivations of pro-lifers, and vice versa. And I believe that many pro-choicers actually are pro-abortion, just as many pro-lifers really do want to make hussies pay for loose living.
You just seem to be making an effort to distance your position from the actions of a far-flung extreme in your camp, when quite often pro-lifers-I'm not saying you do this, I'm speaking generally-are not given the same opportunity.
First of all, as to "distancing myself from extremists," you're missing the point. The point is that in this case, the "extremists" aren't pro-choice. At all. If you're forcing someone to have an abortion, or you think everyone should all run out and get an abortion, you're not pro-CHOICE.
Aside from that, there is a huge difference between saying, "Abortion is not the right choice for me" and "Abortion is not right for anyone." So I'm pretty certain that when people say that abortion isn't right for them, they actually MEAN that abortion isn't right FOR THEM. Not because it's fundamentally wrong, but because they personally would not make that choice at this point in time. I don't think breast implant surgery is right for me. That doesn't mean I think no one should ever get breast implants or that I think breast implants are fundamentally wrong.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not asking so much about the law as I am about our reactions.
What if she were 17?
I don't think there is a right or wrong response. I am trying to discern what part of the equation (the coersion, the violence, the motive etc.) is triggering what part of the outrage.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Since we are adding Pro-s and Anti-s to this debate:
Pro-Choice is not equal to, nor is Pro-Life the righteous opposite of Pro-Miscuous
Dan wins the thread.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not asking so much about the law as I am about our reactions.
My reaction would be that they committed an illegal, violent act against another and should be convicted of kidnapping, even though they were trying to prevent the premeditated killing of a human being.
My reaction in this case is that they should be convicted of kidnapping AND either attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder and that I wish the law recognized the latter part of that wish in all states.
quote:What if she were 17?
Depends. If you duct tape and gag someone while carrying a gun and drive them across state lines, you've committed some act that should be a crime. However, I believe parents should have the power to forbid their daughter from having an abortion.
quote:I don't think there is a right or wrong response. I am trying to discern what part of the equation (the coersion, the violence, the motive etc.) is triggering what part of the outrage.
Three major things:
1.) They duct-taped her and violently abducted her.
2.) These are her parents, and they duct-taped her and violently abducted her.
3.) They were attempting to kill their granddaughter.
Only the third goes away in the reverse scenario.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
kmbboots, my outrage comes at the coersion. I'm not ok with someone forcing someone else to do something against their will. I know sometimes it's necessary, like little kids getting medicine, but this is so not one of those times.
I also think the abortion plays into it a great deal. Not only were they going to make her do something, but they were going to force her to do something I personally find reprehensible, if occasionally forgiveable. Once again, not one of those times.
There's just such a large amount of ickiness to the story, it's hard to be mad at one specific part.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, the possible ugliness of the motive for wanting to end the pregnancy is provisionally offensive, since they might not have been wanting the baby to not exist simply because the father is a criminal, black, or both.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
quote:First of all, as to "distancing myself from extremists," you're missing the point. The point is that in this case, the "extremists" aren't pro-choice. At all. If you're forcing someone to have an abortion, or you think everyone should all run out and get an abortion, you're not pro-CHOICE.
Yes, I am aware of the distinction. You don't have to keep repeating it for my sake. The point I am making-and yes, I'm aware it's a guess, as so many things in this issue are-is that I believe many pro-choicers actually are pro-abortion in the sense that while that they do think women should have the choice, they also think a lot more women should be making that choice.
Clearly, fanatic who murder doctors and blow up abortion clinics aren't pro-life, but I don't see the idea to get them named something else getting much traction within the pro-choice community. Which is the entire point I'm trying to make: accept your own position's fanatics, and then expel them.
Clearly, of the two opposing sides on this issue, these parents were more in line with a pro-choice position than a pro-life one. That isn't the same thing as saying they're actually in line with a pro-choice position, it just means they probably started from that camp and went pretty nuts.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Except to me, Rakeesh, I could see how fanatics blowing up an abortion clinic could think they are being pro-life in that they think they are going to SAVE LIVES. This "pro-choice fanatic" example doesn't promote choice in the least. In other words, I see attacking an abortion clinic as a sort of reasonable (that's not the right word, but I can't think of the one I want) mutation of pro-life. If you think innocent lives are being taken, and you think that the people taking the lives should be punished by law, it just makes more sense to me that people are going the crazy vigilante route than it would for people to think they are advocating choice for women by kidnapping someone and forcing her to have an abortion. Because to me, with the pro-choice stance the crime (for lack of a better word) being rallied against is against the woman, and therefore being a vigilante to further commit crimes against the woman doesn't jive.
I'm absolutely not saying that pro-lifers want to bomb abortion clinics, to clarify.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This all loops back to the names being inaccurate to some extent. Clearly, not all thosee who claim to be pro-life are 'pro-life', because they're willing to kill for their cause. Equally clearly, not all those who claim to belong to the pro-choice camp truly do, because they're not always advocating a choice made in a vaccuum, but sometimes actually advocating abortion as well.
Some pro-choicers are pro-their-choice, just like some pro-lifers are pro-instert-type-of-life-here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This "pro-choice fanatic" example doesn't promote choice in the least.
The clinic bomber shares some of the same premises and justification as those who want to ban abortion: that abortion results in the deliberate killing of a human being, that this is wrong, and that it should be stopped.
This fanatic almost certainly shares many of the same justifications for his actions as many who want abortion to be available: that the potential harm created by a pregnancy can be averted by abortion.
Certainly this fanatic differs from most pro-choicers in thinking that he should make the decision for the mother to achieve that end. But the clinic bomber differs from most pro-lifers in thinking that he should use violence and break the law to achieve the end of fewer abortions.
The point is that just as people who bomb clinics share more premises with pro-life than pro-choice people, people who try to force someone to have a an abortion share more premises with pro-choice than pro-life people. And these differences run on a continuum: there are pro-life people who will commit illegal, but not violent, acts to stop abortions. There are pro-choice people who think an abortion is the correct decision in certain circumstances but don't want to force that decision on pregnant women in those situations.
If nothing else, it's very likely that these parents don't think abortion is equivalent to the deliberate killing of a human being.
I'm absolutely not saying that pro-choicers want to force teenagers to have abortions at gunpoint, to clarify.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dag, I can't tell if you're being snarky with that last line or not. I just threw that disclaimer in because I didn't want anyone to jump on me for an unintentional miswording of something, since that has been the chic thing to do as of late.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it seemed like a good idea.
Posted by Jayelle (Member # 9745) on :
Aside from the pro-life, pro-choice debate, this is one girl who is never, ever going to have a relationship with her own parents again. They effectively killed their entire relationship with their daughter.
And I'm guessing it can't have been that great in the first place.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
As long as we're in the relabeling mood, I'd like for my position to be "Pro-Choice".
By implantation, both parents, in 99.9% of cases, made their choice. All that's left is for the child to make his choice.
You'll find out what he decided within 10 months. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't see how having sex equates to making the choice to have a child. I mean, I'm sure couples who already have children and don't want more still have sex. I hope so, anyway. I think that equating having sex to making the decision to have a child is far more indefensible than seeing a child as a possible result which becomes more probable if precautions are not taken.
-pH
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I don't see how having sex equates to making the choice to have a child.
You're much too old for me to have to give you the "birds and the bees" talk.
Sex is for procreation. That most also use it as a sort of recreation doesn't negate the fact that pregnancy is a possible, or probable, depending on the precautions taken, side-effect.
The position's only indefensible for those who already oppose it. I think it's perfectly morally acceptable. In fact, I'd love to see only people willing to accept the intended result having sex.
That said, I didn't mean to start another debate. Just trying to point out how arbitrary labels are. I mean, the Pro-Choice crowd isn't about Choice, it's about the woman's choice. Not the father's, and certainly not the child's.
I, personally, refer to myself as anti-abortion. Calling myself Pro-Life automatically aligns me to a group that sometimes does things I disagree with, and I'm not so in favor of life that I would want to get rid of the death penalty. Hell, sometimes I feel like I want to be the one flipping the switch.
So when I refer to my opposite as pro-abortion, I'm not being deliberately inflammatory, I just don't feel like I need to affirm that they're in favor of Choice when they're really in favor of one preson's choice, not Choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I mean, I'm sure couples who already have children and don't want more still have sex.
Yes, and those who do and are sure they don't want children frequently have surgery done to make the reality reflect their mentality, and not the other way around.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
You know, the more I hear pro-life people talk about how if you don't want a kid, you shouldn't have sex, the less I feel like remaining pro-life.
I'm pro-life simply because I think there's a chance the fetus is human, and I think that chance outweighs the mother's right to choose what happens to her own body.
Other people think there's more than a chance, other people think that the fetus is fully human. They think that a human life is worth more than the mother's right to choose what happens to her own body.
Nowhere in either of those positions is there any need to say, "If you don't want a baby, you shouldn't have sex." And yet I hear it from pro-lifers all the time. It's really starting to grate.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
It's probably grating to you because it's blindingly obvious...but over half a million abortions a year may make people think that not everyone understands this very basic fact.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: It's probably grating to you because it's blindingly obvious...but over half a million abortions a year may make people think that not everyone understands this very basic fact.
It's completely irrelevant to the pro-life position.
And, now, in an age of birth control and adoption, it's not even true.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Adoption still means carrying the baby for nine months and then "having" it.
And birth control isn't 100% accurate.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm not sure what your point is Theca?
I wasn't trying to support the pro-life position. I was just saying that it's perfectly possible to be pro-life, not want to have a baby, and be having sex without any conflict between the three.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I was just saying that it's perfectly possible to be pro-life, not want to have a baby, and be having sex without any conflict between the three.
I suppose that's true, as long as when you get pregnant you deliver the baby you don't want.
But I think that the majority of people who say they don't want a baby will not keep it in the event they get pregnant. And those are the people comments like that are geared towards.
In other words, they're not talking to you. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I find that a much more sensible way of stating the same thing is: If you don't know how to adequately prepare in advance, and you're not ready or willing to deal with the consequences of pregnancy, you shouldn't be having sex.
Thus, someone who would not be willing to have an abortion should be ready to either raise any child they produce, or have the child and give it up for adoption before having sex.
A person who would be willing to have an abortion should be ready financially, emotionally and spiritually to accept that bump in the road.
One of the major problems I see is that short of actually getting (someone) pregnant, many people only think they're sure about what their position on aborting their own pregnancies is. I've seen a number of girls (and a few guys) who when faced with the decision to abort, regardless of a decision to abort any pregnancy beforehand, ultimately end up either unable to go through with the abortion or going through the abortion and suffering much more severe psychological trauma than they were prepared to deal with.
For many, there's no way to prepare for a decision about a pregnancy. In that light, Frisco's assertion (one that gets repeated, as blacwolve said, by many in the pro-life camp over and over again) makes more sense than it would otherwise (as someone who is pro-choice, does not view a fetus as a child, and is sexually active).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
blacwolve,
You can be tired of it all you like, but personally I think it needs to be said. Abstinence and redundancy are two things which our society gives basically zero heed to with regards to sexuality, and they're important things to mention.
Especially with regards to abortion because, given the known failure rate of even birth-control methods which are only used once per sexual activity...a very, very large majority of pregnancies resulting in abortion aren't involving properly used birth-control at all.
Furthermore, the idea that we shouldn't say such things is tenable only because of our current level of technology. It's only something anyone thinks of because we have abortion on demand, relatively inexpensive, along with cheap and effective birth-control.
If through some sort of tragedy our technological level were to drop sharply, and suddenly we didn't have abortion on demand and cheap, effective birth control as even an option to consider allowing...
Well, suddenly, "I don't see why having a child has to be the result of a couple having sex," gets thrown straight out the window. It becomes quite frankly laughable. I'm very uncomfortable making such potentially momentous decisions on a basis as subjective as our current technological level.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
With all the birth control methods available, why are there ANY abortions? The answers are:
1) Rape 2) truly failed birth control 3) failure to take proper precautions 4) concern over health issues of the mother or offspring.
I am totally in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion. I do, however, think there are some problems pointed to by our current number of abortions (and percent of pregnancies aborted).
First off, is there any doubt that reason #1 happens far too often in our society? Are we doing everything we can to drop that rate as close to zero as possible?
Secondly, as much as "failed birth control" gets brought up as a reason for abortion, I don't really believe it. I never used expired condoms, never had one break, and never once have had one fail in any way. So, what's the REAL incidence of failed birth control? The manufacturers claim less than 1% failure rate for most methods that have commercial viability in this country.
Granted, if a couple is really trying to avoid pregnancy and something does fail, then it's understandable that they would want a method available to terminate the pregnancy.
Does anyone here think this really accounts for a large proportion of our current abortions?
#3: Let's be honest...this reason includes people who have the "Oh Sh*t" moment, right? They put the condom on after penetration, or figured they were outside the fertile period, or the heat of the moment took over, or they just didn't care, or whatever. Sometimes it's an honest mistake (like miscalculating the date of the woman's period, or something similar -- I've know it to happen). So, really, really, REALLY, I'm not being pejorative here. I understand that the couple don't WANT to be pregnant and most of the time did "something." It just turned out not to be enough.
#4: There are some major-league legitimate concerns here, but there's also a BIG controversy looming -- as genetic science gets better at this sort of thing, should we let people abort if the fetus has the genetic predisposition for diabetes? How about a higher than average risk of heart disease or cancer? What if it's a girl and the couple really wanted a boy? Right now, we're basically "allowing" genetic screening for common genetic maladies, and some abortions are indicated when the mother's health would be put in jeopardy.
So...can we put numbers to these alternatives? Are 10% of abortions post-rape? Are 1% due to failed birth control? Are 10% due to health problems of the mother and/or child?
Those numbers should be toward the high-end of the estimates. (Although rape is still an under-reported crime in this country, so perhaps that number is higher.)
So, are we not saying that people not practicing a birth control regimen, or just plain not using one and that accounts for about 80% of abortions?
Are the numbers really telling us that?
Let's take it as given that the number of abortions in this country is too many and that the preferred option is to avoid abortion if at all possible. Right? I suspect that only the far end of the pro-choice spectrum will disagree with that (the position at that end being nothing else matters BUT the woman's right to choose) -- a position held by a small percentage of the population, last I checked.
So... Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life (I'll go ahead and use the self-selected terms), the question that we should be answering is which of these abortions could be avoided?
I am in favor of reducing the incidence of rape. I doubt anyone is against this.
I am in favor of better educating people in the methods and options of birth control.
I'm on the fence about genetic screening, actually. I think there's a place for it, but I worry that we're going to abuse it.
Health of the mother -- well, I suspect there are a few cases where the woman should pursue sterilization treatment, but otherwise, these abortions are pretty much unavoidable and should be performed.
I suspect that if people used birth control consistent with instructions, we'd could achieve about an 80% reduction in abortions. Maybe I'm off and the number would turn out to be 70%. It's still a big number.
I'd like to see us concentrate on that.
We don't really need to battle over this in the legal realm of things. We can achieve a huge reduction in abortion without any new laws. We just need to get people to use birth control in the most effective manner possible and we'll achieve a huge reduction.
Hey, what if the estimates are off by 50%...we STILL get a huge reduction.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Theca,
Where are people getting this 'black' thing from? Maybe I missed it, but it's not mentioned in the original article?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I don't know what the bias is on these guys, but the number of abortions match what was said in the last thread I read. About a fourth of all pregnancies end in abortion.
According to this Guttmacher Institute, the top four reasons given for having an abortion are:
quote: Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
They also say 60% of women getting abortions already have one or more children. One third are between the ages of 20 and 24.
Only 1% of women receiving abortions reported having been forced to have sex. That's pretty low. Most women seem to have used the pill wrong. I think my favorite excuse are the 15% or so that had concerns about contraceptive use. What does that mean? I was afraid the pill would make me sick so I got knocked up instead? I hope someone can clarify the logic there for me.
So, it looks like only 2 and 3 on Bob's list are major concerns. What can we do about that? Personally, I've been on the Pill 10 years now and never had a glitch. And with the FDA claiming a 99.9% effectiveness rating, how do we have 10% or so claiming to have used the pill right and gotten pregnant anyway?
It looks like better education could take care of that 10%, all the people who know they used something wrong, and the 8% who never used a method of birth control at all. That could be an almost 50% reduction in abortions.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Oh, I got that from scholar's post on page 1. Ask him. I thought he must have read a different article about it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, o.k.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I think it was mentioned in the article mackillian posted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Two of my sisters (not the twins) were conceived while my mother was using an diaphragm. And she was told when she was younger that she wouldn't be able to conceive at all. I have five brothers and sisters.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Aside from the pro-life, pro-choice debate, this is one girl who is never, ever going to have a relationship with her own parents again. They effectively killed their entire relationship with their daughter.
Only if she and her parents choose to hold this situation against one another to such a degree that a relationship is impossible. (I think it would be fairly foolish of them to do so.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:With all the birth control methods available, why are there ANY abortions? The answers are:
1) Rape 2) truly failed birth control 3) failure to take proper precautions 4) concern over health issues of the mother or offspring.
You've skipped over the biggest reason why there are abortions: Because people choose to have sex when they aren't prepared to have a baby!
It would be helpful to make people better informed about birth control, but it is wrong to think that being informed about birth control will make us safe from abortions. I'd be willing to bet that a large portion of those getting abortions thought they were informed about birth control beforehand, and thought they were safe. I'd also be willing to bet that a significant number actually WERE well informed, but simply made a mistake, or had a lapse of judgement, or got lazy, etc. People are always going to make mistakes - that's the nature of people.
For this reason, among other reasons, it is unethical to have sex if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of having a child. You don't have to want a child beforehand; you might even choose to put it up for adoption if you think that is fair to the child and you realize you won't be able to care for it like it deserves. But if having a child will leave you with no option other than to abort (a.k.a. kill) it, don't have sex, period. (It's not like you don't have other things to do in life. ) It is a failure to accept this ethical responisibility that is the big cause of abortions. Unnecessary abortions will continue to happen until either people accept this responsibility to refrain from sex until prepared for the possible consequences, or technology advances to a point where human error can be totally eliminated from the equation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Is it unethical to have sex if one is prepared to have an abortion if they get pregnant?
Because, technically, there are many who view contraception + abortion to essentially be 100% birth control.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Aside from the pro-life, pro-choice debate, this is one girl who is never, ever going to have a relationship with her own parents again. They effectively killed their entire relationship with their daughter.
Only if she and her parents choose to hold this situation against one another to such a degree that a relationship is impossible. (I think it would be fairly foolish of them to do so.)
I have to say that anyone doing to me the things her parents apparently did to her would very decidedly result in a reevaluation and most likely termination of our relationship.
I would also like to point out to anyone thinking I'm too extreme that the most important word in the previous sentence is "reevaluation."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(Stolen from another thread)
Sometimes there are things that one must express to another person and those things can only be truly expressed by nothing-held-back intercourse. At least for me, that is a different, more vital purpose than the physical pleasure/release of orgasm.
Now. I am a grown up and make grown up choices about sex. And I am willing and prepared to accept the natural consequences of those choices. But I do think that, in a perfect world, those consequences should be chosen. I believe that we should make it more possible for people to share sexual expression without taking on consequences they do not choose.
And there are ways that we can shape those consequences. There is a difference in saying, "let's see how we can make this safer" and, "well just stop doing that". Which response we choose has to do with the value of the activity and the possibilities and costs of making the activity safer. For me, the "well just stop doing that" response to sex fails to take into consideration the enormous, non- procreative importance and value of sex.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:For this reason, among other reasons, it is unethical to have sex if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of having a child.
Is it also unethical to travel by foot, bike, horse, car, bus, train, boat, or plane if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of death?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:For me, the "well just stop doing that" response to sex fails to take into consideration the enormous, non- procreative importance and value of sex.
Do you think that it's impossible to take all that into consideration and still think it's best to "stop doing that"?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ...or technology advances to a point where human error can be totally eliminated from the equation.
Also, we're at this point now. There are effective sterilization procedures for both genders.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sometimes there are things that one must express to another person and those things can only be truly expressed by nothing-held-back intercourse.
There is nothing that you MUST express.
I suspect there are some feelings that one can only truly express to another person by physically hurting that other person... but not everything you may want to express is worth the potential costs of expressing it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tres, would you knock it off? Agreeing with you so often of late is seriously skewing my world view.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya know guys, if you want to have sex without getting pregnant you could choose to be gay. It's such a simple choice really. All the cool kids are doing it.
Seriously though, in regards to genetic screening, which Rakeesh brought up... We've been able to see a baby's sex for a long time on ultrasound... and I don't think (m)anyone turns around and aborts because of that. But when the gay gene(s) is found how many people are going to murder their baby rather than raise a fag or a dyke.
Pix
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We've been able to see a baby's sex for a long time on ultrasound... and I don't think (m)anyone turns around and aborts because of that.
Maybe not here, but there's been a significant amount of that in China, Korea, and Japan.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob: Secondly, as much as "failed birth control" gets brought up as a reason for abortion, I don't really believe it. I never used expired condoms, never had one break, and never once have had one fail in any way. So, what's the REAL incidence of failed birth control? The manufacturers claim less than 1% failure rate for most methods that have commercial viability in this country.
People are a lot stupider than you're giving them credit for. The whole series of stupid stories like "yeah, I banged my girl then gave my friend the condom and he turned it inside out and used it and banged his girl" is REAL. People truly, honestly don't know how to use a condom properly.
Even the above ridiculous anecdote and its pals aside, there are a lot of ways to mess up using a condom that a lot of people fail to recognize. Pinching the reservoir tip, rolling rather than pulling, holding the base when pulling out - these are some of the things a surprisingly large number of people just do not understand you need to do.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: You've skipped over the biggest reason why there are abortions: Because people choose to have sex when they aren't prepared to have a baby!
This is already implied in points number 2 and 3, not to mention most of the rest of Bob's post.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
mph: true. And they will pay the price for it. Japan already is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:We've been able to see a baby's sex for a long time on ultrasound... and I don't think (m)anyone turns around and aborts because of that.
Maybe not here, but there's been a significant amount of that in China, Korea, and Japan.
It's not as common here, but it does happen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: mph: true. And they will pay the price for it. Japan already is.
As is China.
I don't know about Korea.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
WOW.
What the hell.
Yeah, I'm with Dag. What the crap did they think the doctor was going to do when they brought in a girl with ropeburns on her wrists, all distraught and protesting?
Jeeze, some people are unbelievably stupid. I feel so sorry for this poor girl and all she's been through.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Is it also unethical to travel by foot, bike, horse, car, bus, train, boat, or plane if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of death?
Well, if I had no need to do it other than for my own enjoyment, and I thought the chances of accidently killing someone from traveling by car/train/plane/whatever were as significant as I think the chances of accidently getting pregnant (even from "safe" sex) are, then yes, I'd think it would be immoral to risk that person's life for my own enjoyment.
quote:Tres, would you knock it off? Agreeing with you so often of late is seriously skewing my world view.
Oooops...sorry! I'll try to do better. Give me a little time and I'll come up with something crazier to say...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But non-procreative sex is not just about enjoyment. That is what I am trying to say. It is a vital part of being human. Considerably more important, in my opinion, than driving (for example).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It is a vital part of being human.
What about people who choose and live celibate lives? Are they not fully human?
That's not a snarky question, it's a real one. I've had times in my life where due to medical issues was unable to have sex for long periods of time. I didn't feel less human.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think it is at all snarky.
I think that celibacy is a choice to exchange one vital* part of being human for something that is to them more vital. I think that in some cases it is a real calling. I think that in a lot of cases it is a mistake made by institutionalized wrong-thinking about sex. In any case it should be a momentous decision.
I, too, have gone for long periods of time choosing not to have sex - as much a several years. Sex is not something to be taken lightly. Nor is abstaining. "Just don't do it" is as dismissive of its import as "just do it".
*by vital I don't mean exactly the same thing as essential.
[ September 21, 2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:"Just don't do it" is as dismissive of its import as "just do it".
Well put.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
wow, kmb, I almost never agree with you but that was spot on.
Still love ya, Belle =)
Pix
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But non-procreative sex is not just about enjoyment. That is what I am trying to say. It is a vital part of being human. Considerably more important, in my opinion, than driving (for example).
Why? What reason is there to consider sex a "vital" part of being human, but not driving, or playing football, or doing crack for that matter?
Are people who have not had sex less of a human being than those who have? Putting aside deliberate celibacy for the moment, what about people who have not had sex because they don't want to get pregnant? Or people who are waiting for the right person? Are they (we) less human than you?
You say that by "vital" you don't mean "essential" - but then what do you mean? There are many things that people think they cannot live without, ranging from big screen TVs to spouses. People often have friends that move away that they think they'll never be able to live without. But the truth is, they do live on, and they live full lives anyway. The reality is that there are many things that feel "vital" but few things that actually are "vital". And ultimately, though sex may feel "vital", I suspect doing the right thing is much much more "vital" to living a good life - and that means not putting yourself into a situation where you have to kill your offspring simply for the sake of making your life feel more complete in whatever way sex does.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tres: So I take it you're giving up non-procreative sex all together?
No?
Why not?
What makes it important to you?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:"Just don't do it" is as dismissive of its import as "just do it".
Last I checked,no one is saying "Just don't do it." What I am saying and I think I speak for others is "Just don't do it unless you're prepared to responsibly deal with the consequences." That goes, by the way, for driving, for walking down the street, for any activity that involves a risk of an outcome you don't want. I don't want to be in a wreck and be injured, but I am prepared to reponsibly handle it if it happens. I have insurance, I wear my seatbelt, I take precautions, etc. I don't stay home and not drive, I take all necessary precautions, but I don't say "Driving is so important that I am going to do it anyway even if I have no insurance or don't care about the consequences."
When I had sex for non-procreative reasons, I was always prepared to deal with the consequences. Some of you know, some of you probably don't, but my oldest daughter is the result of birth control failure and was unplanned. My husband and I had been married less than three months when I conceived and we were not planning to have kids for some years yet nor were we financially in a good position for it. But, we knew that having sex carried with it the risk of getting pregnant and we responsibly dealt with the outcome - she's now 13 and I'm still having to responsibly deal with her.
Saying "if you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not dismissive of the importance of sexual activity. It's simply a recognition of the fact that no sex (with the exception, as Pix pointed out of homosexual sex and sex with a surgically sterilized partner) can be considered 100% safe in regards to the risk of pregnancy. Sure sex has non-procreative aspects to it, but let's not forget the act carries with it the ability to create new life, and that's a heady responsibility and that should not be taken lightly either.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm not sure what you mean by non-procreative sex. You mean having sex for some purpose other than having a child? Or do you mean sex that isn't really sex?
Either way, the answer is no, I'm not suggesting giving it up in all cases. The only thing I think needs giving up is having sex before one is ready to accept the possible consequences of that decision. And to accept it in a way that does not in any way entail killing someone in the event that something does not go as planned. I'm not going to put myself in a situation where I may have to kill my offspring, even if I'm not sure if it is really a person yet, just for the sake of (a) pleasure, (b) expressing myself to someone, or (c) living a "more full" life. I think my duty to not kill my potential children supercedes all of those, as important as they may be.
Of course, abortion is not the only reason not to have sex at any given time. Sex, I suspect, entails many more complications than that. But abortion is certainly among the most extremely serious dangers involved.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Belle wrote: Last I checked,no one is saying "Just don't do it." What I am saying and I think I speak for others is "Just don't do it unless you're prepared to responsibly deal with the consequences."
quote:Saying "if you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not dismissive of the importance of sexual activity. It's simply a recognition of the fact that no sex (with the exception, as Pix pointed out of homosexual sex and sex with a surgically sterilized partner) can be considered 100% safe in regards to the risk of pregnancy.
I can appreciate that. Can you appreciate how it's a severe misjudgement to assume people who are sexually active but don't want children are as irresponsible as "just do it" implies? Can you appreciate that calling abortion in the event of birth control failure despite proper, conscientious use "irresponsible" is not only deeply irritating, but offensive?
I'm not saying or implying you do either of these things - but many, if not most, of the pro-lifers I know do.
As an aside, I know surprisingly few pro-lifers who feel the way you do as quoted above, and most of them are on Hatrack.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am willing to concede that sex is not a vital part of humanity for everyone. For me - and I think for many people - it is.
I do think that there are folks who have the response of "well just don't do it" about sex and yet would find this response unacceptable about aspects of daily life that I (at least) find considerable less fundamental.
For example: With cars, we crash test them, put in safey belts, air bags, fix roads that are unsafe. While we are never going to make driving completely safe, (and we know that) we wouldn't want to start thinking that we don't need to keep working at it because accidents are just a consequence of driving.
Not a perfect analogy, but an attempt at illustrating a shift in perspective.
And I think a lot of people are ready to accept the "well just don't do it" response because they either underestimate sex or, at some level, really don't think people should be doing it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Can you appreciate that calling abortion in the event of birth control failure despite proper, conscientious use "irresponsible" is not only deeply irritating, but offensive?
To resort again to imperfect analogies, let's go back to driving. "I'm going to take every precaution to not have a wreck in my car. I'll obey all the speed limits, I'll be extra careful and vigilant and I'll always drive while alert and never while inebriated and I'll be the best driver I possibly can." That person would be considered a responsible driver, just as someone who practices birth control properly is responsible. But, say that driver assumes that because he's so good at driving and so responsible, there is no need to worry about the possibility of having a wreck, therefore no need to carry insurance. That is someone who is not recognizing that bad things can happen even if they do everything right. Even if you use birth control, even redundant birth control like the pill and a condom, you still cannot 100% eliminate the risk of pregnancy. (And though we haven't discussed it really, nor can you 100% eliminate the risk of STD's.) So in that sense, the person driving that uninsured car is still irresponsible just as a person who takes every birth control option and has sex while not prepared to deal with a possible pregnancy is still irresponsible.
I don't want to get into an argument over semantics only, I recognize that irresponsible has a negative connotation but I'm using it to refer to those people who think they don't need to worry about pregnancy just because they practice birth control.
Some people think abortion is a perfectly valid form of birth control and approach sex with the idea of "well, if I get pregnant, I'll just abort it." That is also irresponsible to me, but in a different way. Yes, that person has done what I would like, which is to acknowledge the risk of pregnancy and have a plan for dealing with it, but the plan includes something I find reprehensible which is the taking of a human life. (no need to tell me that not everyone thinks a fetus is a human life, I get it - and that's not a debate we're going to solve here, I'm talking about how I view things not how everyone does)
So I guess I'm using irresponsible in different ways and maybe I need to re-think my phrasing and terminology. I don't know if that helps or clarifies or just confuses the issue.
Now that's not to say that people who practice birth control and take precautions aren't being responsible AT ALL. They are taking responsibility and trying to prevent the outcome they don't want but at some point they are making the decision that their desire for sexual activity outweighs the risk of pregnancy and they're choosing to have sex. I don't want a human life to pay the price of that choice if things don't turn out the way the couple plans. I think the baby's right to life trumps the couple's right to not have children right now. Of course, pro-choice people disagree with me. That's why I'm not pro-choice.
If a couple approaches sex with the attitude of "hey, we'll do all we can to prevent pregnancy and if we do get pregnant we'll handle it" and "handle it" doesn't include abortion but rather take care of the child or put it up for adoption, then I would call that couple mature and responsible.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Belle wrote: Even if you use birth control, even redundant birth control like the pill and a condom, you still cannot 100% eliminate the risk of pregnancy.
I started writing a post a good hour and a half ago with a bunch of statistics and realized that really, all I wanted to know was this: is there any risk threshold beyond which you would consider it acceptable to make "I am ready to have sex" and "I am ready to carry a child to term" two separate decisions?
After all, even surgery isn't 100% effective.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: So I guess I'm using irresponsible in different ways and maybe I need to re-think my phrasing and terminology. I don't know if that helps or clarifies or just confuses the issue.
It clarifies it for me.
quote: Now that's not to say that people who practice birth control and take precautions aren't being responsible AT ALL. They are taking responsibility and trying to prevent the outcome they don't want but at some point they are making the decision that their desire for sexual activity outweighs the risk of pregnancy and they're choosing to have sex. I don't want a human life to pay the price of that choice if things don't turn out the way the couple plans. I think the baby's right to life trumps the couple's right to not have children right now. Of course, pro-choice people disagree with me. That's why I'm not pro-choice.
Right, exactly. This confirms for me that it's a semantic problem, since the use of "irresponsible" in this example is purely axiomatic.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Twinky the answer is no. At no point do I separate "I'm ready to have sex" and "I'm ready to carry a child to term." I don't think you should answer yes to the first unless you're prepared to answer no to the second because to me, (emphasize to ME) the fetus is a human life and that baby should not have to pay with its life for someone else's decision.
Some surgical procedures may not be 100%, but others are. The removal of the ovaries and/or uterus is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. That is incidentally, my situation - due to endometriosis and adenomyosis and polycystic ovarian disease (talk about a trifecta!) I've had a hysterectomy and oopherectomy so yes, my chances of getting pregnant are 0%.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Oh, I got that from scholar's post on page 1. Ask him. I thought he must have read a different article about it.
There was a follow up article on cnn that talked about the father's race.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Black, white, it's pretty clear the guy's a loser.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Black, white, it's pretty clear the guy's a loser.
Jailtime = loser status, or is there more information released on him that I'm unaware of?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
wannabe rapper + jailtime for theft = loser
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Ah, the rapper + for theft part was news to me. ^_^
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I am willing to concede that sex is not a vital part of humanity for everyone. For me - and I think for many people - it is.
Well, I don't think it is "vital" for anyone. As I said, I suspect a number of people do THINK it is vital, but in the same way that people think they could not live without all sorts of other things.
And I think that's a very dangerous misconception, because when something is vital, you do what it takes to get it. In the case of sex, believing sex is vital may lead you to risk abortions, rather than refrain from it. Or if you have no partner, the belief that sex is vital could lead you to rape someone, or abuse some prostitute, just to get what you think you cannot live without. Or it may just make you live in fear that you can never be a complete person, becasue you have no partner to have sex with. That's the danger of believing things to be vital when they are not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tresopax, I think that our ideas of what sex is and should be are sufficiently different that further attempts to find agreement would be futile.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Ah, the rapper + for theft part was news to me.
NP. I think it might be news to a lot of people.
"Mom! Dad! Guess what!?! I'm pregnant with MC Dipshit's baby! And he's in jail! For theft! Isn't that awesome?!?"
That's why I keep on saying that I understand on some level the parent's flipping out, though again, I don't condone it or think it was right.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think that, in a long-term non-platonic relationship (like marriage), sex, when possible, is part of the maintenance of the relationship. It's one of many means by which a couple keeps themselves close to one another. It's not the only means, but it's one of them, and an important one, in my opinion. (IIRC, there's actually biblical support for this, though I couldn't find it if my life depended on it.) Right or wrong (and that's a whole other thread), part of how our (culture/society/natural inclination)* defines non-platonic relationships in the romantic, which ultimately becomes the sexual.
*There's the nurture vs. nature thing again.
I'm married, but I don't want children. According to the "just don't do it" philosophy, my husband and I shouldn't be having sex at all. Could we have had a completely celibate marriage and remained together, a la the Children of the Mind, from the book fo the same name? I don't know. I'm skeptical.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Even couples who don't have sex until their wedding night probably don't want and aren't ready for a child right then.
Being married != being ready to be a mother/father.
Should couples who are still sexually active after the woman has finished menopause also be ready to have a child?
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Not all sex makes you pregnant. Just listen to your inner Clinton and everything'll be cool.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Twinky the answer is no.
Thanks for answering so clearly and concisely.
Tresopax, I'm interested to know how you'd answer the same question (near the top of the page).
quote:Some surgical procedures may not be 100%, but others are.
While that's true -- and that is indeed quite a trifecta -- those procedures wouldn't generally be performed on people merely seeking contraceptive surgery. Vasectomy for men and tubal ligation for women seem to be the "standard" surgical procedures for people who don't want to have children. While neither has a 100% effectiveness rate, depending on methodology they can certainly approach it.
I take your position to be that someone who wishes to separate the decisions about sex and pregnancy should use 100% effective methods. However, I don't think many (any?) doctors would surgically remove healthy sex organs upon patient request, for no reason other than to eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. Not to be crude, but I think that if I went to a doctor and asked to be castrated, they would probably laugh and tell me to get a vasectomy. Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Quoted from Dagonee: "However, I believe parents should have the power to forbid their daughter from having an abortion."
So then everyone is ok with me making mine have one? Becauses, Dagonee, it appears from your statement that it's ok for parents to make the medical decision for their minor daughters to have or not to have childen.
I, however, find the fact that these parents felt it was ok to impose their values on their daughter completely inappropriate.
Belle, I'm sorry, I may have missed it, but did you ever answer my question regarding whether your personal position on abortion was that it shouldn't be be an option at all? That is, that the choice should not be there? I realize that you may feel this way generally but wish the procedure to be available for cases where the mother's life is in danger, and perhaps a small few other cases as well.
On a larger plane, for those of you who identify yourselves as pro-life or anti-abortion, does your position apply to your personal desire not to have an abortion, to work toward alternatives, promote abstinence and safe sex, etc. but allow abortion to remain legal, or do you truly wish to outlaw the procedure?
I'd like to know just how off from each other we are.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Becauses, Dagonee, it appears from your statement that it's ok for parents to make the medical decision for their minor daughters to have or not to have childen.
He doesn't need me to defend him, but I distinctly remember him addressing this at some some length at least once in the last thread we had on the subject. Being able to forbid something is not necessarily the same as being able to [require] it. In other words, I believe his perspective to be that parental approval should be a necessary -- but not sufficient -- condition of having an abortion.
It isn't the same thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Quoted from Dagonee: "However, I believe parents should have the power to forbid their daughter from having an abortion."
So then everyone is ok with me making mine have one? Becauses, Dagonee, it appears from your statement that it's ok for parents to make the medical decision for their minor daughters to have or not to have childen.
It only appears that way if you mistakenly assume that my reason for making such a statement is the same reason you would have for making such a statement. I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption.
Especially since I replied to that already 6 posts down from where you made the same mistaken point. Here's what I said then:
quote:No, it really doesn't. There are many situations in which a parent can prevent a child from doing something but can't force the child to do it. Underage marriage comes to mind immediately.
It's a common pattern: many people can stop an action from occurring, but consent of all involved in the decision chain is required to have it occur.
I haven't noticed anyone responding to that other than Theca complimenting me about it.
quote:I, however, find the fact that these parents felt it was ok to impose their values on their daughter completely inappropriate.[/QB]
I find the fact these parents thought it was OK to duct tape and take the daughter at gunpoint, for any reason, completely inappropriate.
You've also stated that "find it morally repugnant to try to force or influence someone to have or not to have an abortion." I'm not sure if moral repugnance is worse than complete inappropriateness in your scale of bad things, but the language suggests you find "imposing" to be on the same level of badness as "trying to influence" (you ranked that in the same category of badness as "trying to force.")
To me, that position is morally repugnant. I want people to attempt to influence others to act morally. There are limits, and these limits should change based on the relative importance of the moral point, but in general, wanting people to do good is a good thing. Attempting to influence people to do good is a good thing, too, depending on the means.
Edit: Or, what twinky said in his 04:41 PM post today.
[ September 21, 2006, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think the problem with the pro-life getting into the whole just don't have sex thing is that it makes the issue about sex and views on sexuality. I think (could be wrong here) most people are pro-life because they believe that there is a life and that life should be protected. If the point in pro-life is not that life is there, then it is just about punishing people for having sex.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, you might want to be careful about how you phrase agreement with me in a thread like this one -- I know you're talking about my [4:41] PM post, but someone just skimming the thread might mistakenly think you agreed with my 4:26 PM one.
Also, not to nag (he says, as he begins to nag) but I'm still interested in those follow-up posts from the other thread. As always, no rush, especially if you're busy, but at some hypothetical future time I'd still like to read them. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I intend to do them. I might extract them to a new thread.
If you care about the reason why I didn't do the next installment last Saturday, I started playing EQ again last week. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Gaming is always an excellent excuse. I myself have gotten completely hooked on Chromehounds. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I can't stop playing Company of Heroes Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It's Disgaea 2 for me. And, of course, World of Warcraft.
Speaking of which, where'd all the Hatrackers go? Karl is the only one on consistently with us anymore, and we luuuuurve him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I intend to do them. I might extract them to a new thread.
If you care about the reason why I didn't do the next installment last Saturday, I started playing EQ again last week.
Switch to World of Warcraft Dag, it will give you more bang for your buck.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It's Disgaea 2 for me. And, of course, World of Warcraft.
Speaking of which, where'd all the Hatrackers go? Karl is the only one on consistently with us anymore, and we luuuuurve him.
sorry for double posting.
My wife recently discovered WOW and now I have to split the time with her fairly (and still find time to spend with her). That leaves me with literally only 2 raid nights a week and saturday mornings while she is at work.
I just can't lvl enough in one saturday morning to be able to keep doing higher and higher level dungeons. I still have my lvl 18 warlock though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:IIRC, there's actually biblical support for this, though I couldn't find it if my life depended on it.
Perhaps 1 Corinthians 2-5: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto his wife due benevolance, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
And I'm pretty sure there's some in the Old Testament, too, but I'm not sure exactly where, I'd have to look.
Not hopping into any debates, just wanted to point Megan to what I think she was thinking of. *waves* Hi, Megan!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Switch to World of Warcraft Dag, it will give you more bang for your buck.
I have a 58 SK with pretty much top of the line gear. No way I could catch up to this in even a year of playing. Plus, they just made a bunch of changes that really improve game play.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, I'm sorry, I may have missed it, but did you ever answer my question regarding whether your personal position on abortion was that it shouldn't be be an option at all? That is, that the choice should not be there? I realize that you may feel this way generally but wish the procedure to be available for cases where the mother's life is in danger, and perhaps a small few other cases as well.
If it were up to me I would ban all abortion with the exception of when it's medically necessary to save a woman's life. As for rape and incest, it would have to be examined on a case by case basis, but abortion should absolutely be the last resort and only in instances when carrying the child would cause severe harm to the emotional well being of the mother and I fully support morning after pills being available to any victim who reports a rape. The reason I feel that way is that I'm absolutely convinced that a fetus is a living human before it's born, and removing that human life for the convenience of the mother is not something I can sign on to. I'm not pro-life to punish people who have sex out of wedlock, or to punish married people who don't want children for that matter. I was one of those people. I just think the baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to decide when to have children.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:IIRC, there's actually biblical support for this, though I couldn't find it if my life depended on it.
Perhaps 1 Corinthians 2-5: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto his wife due benevolance, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
And I'm pretty sure there's some in the Old Testament, too, but I'm not sure exactly where, I'd have to look.
Not hopping into any debates, just wanted to point Megan to what I think she was thinking of. *waves* Hi, Megan!
Hiya!
That's one of em, though what I had in mind was Old Testament, I think. Then again, my memory for such things is horribly fuzzy and vague.
Edit: I'm finding some of the most bizarre things looking for it, though. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
If I have a few minutes without "help" sometime in the next day I'll see if I can find it for you. lds.org has a pretty decent search feature on the online scriptures. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Genesis 2:24 certainly comes to mind.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ooh, yes, I know that but had forgotten the citation.
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:With all the birth control methods available, why are there ANY abortions? The answers are:
1) Rape 2) truly failed birth control 3) failure to take proper precautions 4) concern over health issues of the mother or offspring.
You've skipped over the biggest reason why there are abortions: Because people choose to have sex when they aren't prepared to have a baby!
It would be helpful to make people better informed about birth control, but it is wrong to think that being informed about birth control will make us safe from abortions. I'd be willing to bet that a large portion of those getting abortions thought they were informed about birth control beforehand, and thought they were safe. I'd also be willing to bet that a significant number actually WERE well informed, but simply made a mistake, or had a lapse of judgement, or got lazy, etc. People are always going to make mistakes - that's the nature of people.
For this reason, among other reasons, it is unethical to have sex if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of having a child. You don't have to want a child beforehand; you might even choose to put it up for adoption if you think that is fair to the child and you realize you won't be able to care for it like it deserves. But if having a child will leave you with no option other than to abort (a.k.a. kill) it, don't have sex, period. (It's not like you don't have other things to do in life. ) It is a failure to accept this ethical responisibility that is the big cause of abortions. Unnecessary abortions will continue to happen until either people accept this responsibility to refrain from sex until prepared for the possible consequences, or technology advances to a point where human error can be totally eliminated from the equation.
Tres:
I have two responses:
1) I already covered this. It's subsumed in reason #3, completely and without anything missing.
2) You are confusing personal justification for abortions with the reason for the unwanted pregnancy. This is very common, and, to me, muddles the issue for no good purpose.
Belle,
I'm very glad to see your inclusion of "mental well-being" of the mother. I place a very high premium on this and it is one of the reasons why despite my views on the absolute continuity of human life from gametes through to baby in the birth canal coming into the world, I still support the legal availability of abortion.
To all who are pro-choice, angered by the abstinence stance and using "failed birth control" as the big "exception that proves the need..." I have to ask:
If you know that birth control is ineffective for you, that your "mileage" is much lower than average (so to speak), how is this NOT an argument for abstinence in the face of a great need NOT to be pregnant?
I mean, realistically, I can see one unwanted pregnancy because the birth control results were not as promised. But two? three?
At some point doesn't the desire not to get pregnant over-ride all other considerations? Is the thought that "one more abortion" is really not a big deal and is somehow unavoidable?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I mean, realistically, I can see one unwanted pregnancy because the birth control results were not as promised. But two? three?
At some point doesn't the desire not to get pregnant over-ride all other considerations?
Not necessarily, if you're married. See Megan's thing. And while generally I would say that most married couples are a little more stable and probably would be a little more prone to accept an unplanned pregnancy despite precautions as something they could "handle", there are notable exceptions, people who really, really do not want children for a multitude of reasons, and I've known some of them (and don't judge them for it.)
Just playing devil's advocate, as someone who has very bad luck with birth control and practiced abstinence until marriage. I actually would not have an abortion, personally. But I'm just saying. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I mean, realistically, I can see one unwanted pregnancy because the birth control results were not as promised. But two? three?
On that note, 44% of all abortions are performed on women who've had one or more already. Legality aside, I can't imagine why someone would let it happen to them twice. Are abortions just that convenient and painless?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:is there any risk threshold beyond which you would consider it acceptable to make "I am ready to have sex" and "I am ready to carry a child to term" two separate decisions?
No.
In formal risk management, a risk has three attributes, the triggering event, the probability of the triggering event occurring, and the consequences (which might be expressed as a set of risks or as a single event).
People take all kinds of actions that have a low probability of death. Driving a car carries an X% chance of being in an accident per mile. Accidents carry a% chance of no bad effect, b% chance of minor property damage, c% chance of injuries (in various ranges), and d% chance of death.
But the consequence that Belle and I are talking about is not the risk of the child dying but of someone actively deciding to kill him or her and doing so.
This is why the threshold probability for sexual intercourse not resulting in a child must be 0 if the consequence of a pregnancy would otherwise be abortion. Otherwise, I do find the choice to have intercourse to be irresponsible.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:1) I already covered this. It's subsumed in reason #3, completely and without anything missing.
2) You are confusing personal justification for abortions with the reason for the unwanted pregnancy. This is very common, and, to me, muddles the issue for no good purpose.
Well, I was thinking based on the rest of your post that by "failure to take proper precautions" you meant "failure to take proper precautions before having sex." If by "failure to take proper precautions" you also include "failure to abstain from sex until the right time" then I suppose you are right.
But I do think it is misleading to suggest that the abortion is caused by the failure to take "precautions" rather than the decision to have sex in the first place, because the latter is the real mistake behind abortions, with the former being more of a patch to try and limit damages from that mistake. It is like speeding down the highway at 100 mph and then claiming the reason you got pulled over is because you didn't see the cop around the corner. In reality, it was speeding at 100 mph that most directly caused you to get the ticket, more so than your failure to be aware of nearby cops.
For this reason, I think it muddles things to suggest that the mistake was the failure to take precautions without also adding the decision to engage in the risky behavior itself as a cause. It gives the impression that it is okay to take the risk, and if trouble results then it just means you should have taken different precautions, rather than that you shouldn't have taken the risk itself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: TWINKY:
Gaming is always an excellent excuse. I myself have gotten completely hooked on Chromehounds.
Puppy
I can't stop playing Company of Heroes
erosomniac
It's Disgaea 2 for me. And, of course, World of Warcraft.
It's like you guys have been hypnotized by Gabe and Tycho...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Alternatively, it could be that Gabe and Tycho happen to be writing about fun games.
------------
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In formal risk management, a risk has three attributes, the triggering event, the probability of the triggering event occurring, and the consequences (which might be expressed as a set of risks or as a single event).
Yes. We express it as frequency/severity or likelihood/severity in our process hazard assessments at work.
In the general risk assessment case, the required safeguards are determined by the likelihood of the event and the severity of the consequences. Cases where death is a potential consequence call for multiple layers of highly effective safeguards to mitigate the risk as much as possible if you're going to do the thing that carries the risk.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People take all kinds of actions that have a low probability of death. Driving a car carries an X% chance of being in an accident per mile. Accidents carry a% chance of no bad effect, b% chance of minor property damage, c% chance of injuries (in various ranges), and d% chance of death.
But the consequence that Belle and I are talking about is not the risk of the child dying but of someone actively deciding to kill him or her and doing so.
I see the distinction between an accidental death and an intentional one, but I don't find it as compelling in relevance in this context as you do. The decision to have an abortion is deliberate, but the couple are confronted with the decision as the result of an accident. When I was looking at accidental death and unplanned pregnancy statistics yesterday for a post I ultimately didn't make, I didn't compare the likelihood of death in a transport accident to the likelihood that a pregnant woman would choose to have an abortion, I compared it to the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy -- in other words, the likelihood of being confronted with the decision.
I think what I'm trying to say is something along these lines: if the likelihood of being confronted with the decision is sufficiently low, I am willing to consider "I am ready to have sex" and "I am ready to carry a child to term (or support my partner in doing so)" separate for practical purposes. In such a circumstance (that is, low risk/high severity) I consider "we'll cross that bridge if we come to it" acceptable provided you can move beyond a certain risk threshold (e.g. elective sterilization surgery).
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This is why the threshold probability for sexual intercourse not resulting in a child must be 0 if the consequence of a pregnancy would otherwise be abortion. Otherwise, I do find the choice to have intercourse to be irresponsible.
This is an impossible standard to meet -- not even people who have had elective sterilization surgery meet it. Let's say, hypothetically, that I don't want to have children, ever (I'm not sure that's actually the case, but I do know that I'm in no rush). So I go have a vasectomy. Under the metric you, Belle, and apparently Tresopax are using, as someone who (hypothetically) does not want to have children and has taken the steps that are available to me through medicine to eliminate that possibilty, I would still be irresponsible were I to have sex.
I think I'm seeing the hazy outlines of underlying assumptions on my part, at least. I seem to be implicitly assuming that sex is a given. Also, because I don't think my (incomplete) opinion about the morality of abortion should be the deciding factor were the situation to arise, I'm more comfortable with the uncertainty of not having a hard-and-fast opinion than people who do have fully-formed opinions might be.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Under the metric you, Belle, and apparently Tresopax are using, as someone who (hypothetically) does not want to have children and has taken the steps that are available to me through medicine to eliminate that possibilty, I would still be irresponsible were I to have sex.
No, you are irresponsible if you have sex when you know that there is a reasonable chance of getting pregnant, and when you know that getting pregnant would require you to have an abortion.
Whereas if you don't want children, but are willing and able to take responsibility for them anyway if they result from your decisions, then you can still responsibly have sex.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What if you have sex under those circumstances and defer the decision [about pregnancy/abortion] until and unless it comes up?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: what's a reasonable chance of getting pregnant? BCP + condoms with spermicidal lubricant brings the chance of pregnancy to below the chance of dying in a car wreck, for instance. People (I suspect including you) still drive.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: No, you are irresponsible if you have sex when you know that there is a reasonable chance of getting pregnant, and when you know that getting pregnant would require you to have an abortion.
Whereas if you don't want children, but are willing and able to take responsibility for them anyway if they result from your decisions, then you can still responsibly have sex.
Just to point out the obvious, but this pov works only within the point of view that abortion is wrong from the moment of conception.
I think that if the paradigm is that the blastocyst is not a child until X amount of time passes, then you can ethically have sex as long as you abort within a certain time period.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
-- those procedures wouldn't generally be performed on people merely seeking contraceptive surgery. Vasectomy for men and tubal ligation for women seem to be the "standard" surgical procedures for people who don't want to have children. While neither has a 100% effectiveness rate, depending on methodology they can certainly approach it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)