quote:Even if those statistics are true, it doesn't affect my position except to say we need education on the dangers of illegal abortions when abortions are outlawed.
Dag, this is just speculation, of course, but I would suspect that education about the dangers of illegal abortion wouldn't deter that many people from having illegal abortions. It seems to me that people who are willing to have an abortion despite the fact that it is illegal probably feel strongly enough that it is necessary that they would also be willing to risk the physical danger.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, ArCHeR, I especially didn't get the last "either-or". Is that supposed to mean something directly, or is it an attack on either-or arguments?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough Bok, I can defaintly see how my response could look that way, so I apologize for that, and say that I certainly did mean it that way. The reason I said anything was that his big point seemed to be on the assumption that abortion was the only way women could choose if they could have children or not, he did go on to weaken that as his base (by talking about other options for preventing unwanted children like birth control) but since it does seem to be such a big argument for the pro-choice side I figured I'd call him on it, and even if he said that's not what he meant, he's not the only one I've heard (hear at Hatrack) make that argument. I apologize for sounding condescending, I do try to keep the my level of discourse up to Hatrack standereds and I feel really bad when I fail.
posted
It certainly looks like, according to that site, pro-life protests and cutting off government funding are effective ways of preventing abortions. Nice to know.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Archer, you're choices are all ridiculous. It's not even worth refuting them.
quote:Dag, this is just speculation, of course, but I would suspect that education about the dangers of illegal abortion wouldn't deter that many people from having illegal abortions. It seems to me that people who are willing to have an abortion despite the fact that it is illegal probably feel strongly enough that it is necessary that they would also be willing to risk the physical danger.
You may be right. Still doesn't change my position, though.
You're right - women bear an equal burden in responsible behavior. If you're not on the pill and he doesn't want to wear a condom, say no. STDs being what they are, I think pregnancy is only one of several complications.
But personal responsibility doesn't eliminate abortion as an option - in fact, one could argue that abortion is the more responsible than trying to have a child that you are unable or incapable of taking care of. That, however, is a can of worms for another time.
My minor tirade on personal responsibility was my interpretation on a man's behavior in the hypothetical scenario of: Woman is having child and Man does not want child.
In this scenario, the Man cannot force the Woman to have an abortion any more than he can force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
Is it a perfectly balanced equation? No - as women bear a disproportionate share of the experience, I'm willing to concede the decision should be weighted in their decision.
posted
Archer, don't be an extremist. Just because two situations seem similiar doesn't mean they're identical.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TM, not really reffering to you, but I guess I could've been inderictly. I agree that abortion is one more choice for the women to take to avoid having a child, I just don't think it's necessary. Except in cases of rape (in which I think abortion is acceptable) the women had plently of choices beforehand, and whenever I hear the argument that outlawing non-base types of abortion (my version of health risks and rape) would some how keep them from choosing if they have a child seem a bit ridiculous to me.
[EDIT: It could be argued, but I would never argue it that way. What about adoption?]
posted
Hobbes, half the reason, in discussions like this, that you come accross that way, I think, is the smiley at the end of your signature. Especially when it seems so earnest in all the fluff/fun threads
posted
I think Arcger does raise an interesting point though... If abortions were restricted by law, wouldn't the next step be to try and push for abstinence-only birth control? Isn't that what Bush/his administration tried to do on a limited basis, via funding efforts?
There's always a fair amount of fear that if same-sex marriage is recognized, then incest/bestiality/polygamy is next... Is not this a similar situation? There is a limited indication that some (including those with power) would prefer to bring an abstinence-only situation to the US, much as same-sex marriage opponents point to some vocal fringe polygamy groups as the next inevitable step?
So why don't we pro-choice folks get that issue addressed respectfully (or even better, have both cases of tangential issues dropped as serious defects)?
I've always defined acceptable sexual practice (no jokes, please) as interaction between consenting adults.
Violate either requirement: Adults or Consenting and it's against the law.
If homosexuals want to be as miserable as Heterosexual couples, more power to them. The instant marriage was given legal standing, it cannot be denied to interested parties that do not necessarily conform to the popular, yet informal, standard.
Hell, technically I see nothing wrong with polygamy, if the participants are willing. And no, I'm not interested - I have enough trouble spending quality time with one woman. Why would I want to listen to two women talk to me about decorating and fashion statements? Although, they could talk to each other...hmmm...I think we have a good idea here after all...
posted
If you're going to make abortion illegal, and contraceptives illegal, then you need to either start preparing for a an enormous boom in unwanted pregnancies, or get out the knife and start castrating kids now.
I will never understand why so many of those who are against abortion don't see sex ed and widely available contraceptives as the answer. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, I accept that as a completely calid concern. So if you tell me that a serious reason for you being against abortion, here's what I can say:
1) Like I've already said, I respect that as a reason to be fearful of making abortion against the law. 2) I personally, while being pro-life, would not have any desire to pursue that (and would vote against such laws). I obviously, can only speak for myself, but take it for what you will. 3) I feel that while this is a reason to not illeailize abortion, it is not as strong as the reasons to do it, and so I am still pro-life, though I admit that the choice is not 100% one sided (though I would argue that it is still pretty darn weighted towards pro-life, obviously that's just me).
posted
Moral issues not being considered, abstinence has a lot going for it.
Otherwise, you're just playing with Russian Roulette. Anyone want to make a "cocking the hammer" joke?
That being said, I'm not demanding, lecturing or insisting how you live or how you conduct your affairs (ahem) - simply outlining the possible consequences of various actions.
posted
Zeugma, from my end of things (I can't speak for the Catholics, who hold a different view), I'm theoretically willing for that to happen, but I also believe that extramarital sex is immoral--just not quite as bad. I can't see an increase in teen sexual activity as a good thing, only a lesser evil at best. We'd much rather see kids taught to avoid sexual activity entirely. I, at least, am willing to accept the lesser evil if I must, but I'm not surprised that there are people who won't.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Travor, while I think that there are a lot of trivial religious laws, there are also many that are grounded in basic human morality.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I know the reasoning, Frisco, but I still don't understand it. I mean, a whole lot of well-meaning Christian parents aren't even able to keep their own kids from engaging in pre-marital sex, after over a decade of indoctrinating them into their beliefs. Teen sex and premarital sex are here to stay, and taking away the only methods of making them safer can only harm our society.
You can tell me all you want that the sky shouldn't be blue, that if we just tell it not to be blue, and start up a new government-funded program to ban nitrogen from the skies, it'll turn red like God intended.... but you wouldn't get my vote.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks) n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
posted
Everyone, I don't want this to be a same-sex marriage thread. We have 30 million of those here Or you can start another! I was just pointing out a parallel (of slippery slopes, it would seem) in argumentation.
Anyway, my opinion is more based off of potentiality of the embryo, and the reality that some people flat-out don't believe a fetus is a living being in any meaningful way, up until a certain point (my fiancee, for one). I feel that they should be legal and rare, that we'd cut down on unwanted pregnancies if we spent a ton of money on sex-ed (of the "here's how the human reproductive system works from men and women" type), and birth control options, including abstinence (of which I was a 25 year, 10 month practitioner). I think that the difference between making it illegal by presuming something (fetus=life) that many disagree with, is a worse option than legalizing/regulating it, and allowing those that believe a fetus == life to not get abortions and to pursue non-violent avenues to convince others likewise, via education of other options and the like.
Are there flaws with my stance? Surely. It likely has untended/unwanted ramification when stretched in an analogy, but there it is.
quote:I think Arcger does raise an interesting point though... If abortions were restricted by law, wouldn't the next step be to try and push for abstinence-only birth control? Isn't that what Bush/his administration tried to do on a limited basis, via funding efforts?
There's always a fair amount of fear that if same-sex marriage is recognized, then incest/bestiality/polygamy is next... Is not this a similar situation? There is a limited indication that some (including those with power) would prefer to bring an abstinence-only situation to the US, much as same-sex marriage opponents point to some vocal fringe polygamy groups as the next inevitable step?
So why don't we pro-choice folks get that issue addressed respectfully (or even better, have both cases of tangential issues dropped as serious defects)?
As someone who has accepted the polygamy argument as valid and given reasons why legalizing same-sex civil marriage does not logically mean we must legalize polygamy, I'll go ahead and do the same here.
It is true that the larges pro-life organization in the U.S., the Catholic Church, is also against birth control. However, the two moral stances do not necessarily imply the same legal treatment.
For every action, there's a continuity for where it falls on the legality spectrum, from morally bad enough to require criminal sanctions, morally bad enough to require legal discouragement short of criminal sanctions, morally bad but not requiring legal discouragement, morally neutral, morally good but not requiring government encouragment, morally good but requiring government encouragment, and morally good but requiring government provision for it. The pro-life position is that abortion is wrong enough that it belongs in the first category. My justification is that the moral wrongness of abortion stems from the fact that it is murder, and murder deserves the most severe legal sanction.
The reason for Catholic teaching on birth control (and ignore disputes over potential obortificient effects of some methods - let's say they all just prevent conception) is totally different. While the Church considers the modern view of sexuality to be a great moral wrong, it is not a wrong that causes direct, preventable harm to a non-consenting party, and so does not require the harshest legal sanction.
The funding issue is a little tricky. In the Catholic perspective, birth control is a great enough wrong that committing it is not even justified to reduce abortion (ends and means and all that). So it would naturally discourage government funding.
posted
I wouldn't vote for the candidate simply b/c I believe that abortions should be legal in other cases. Before jumping on my case, please note that this does NOT mean that I dis-believe in birth control, saying "no", or being responsible.
I would, however, support the legalization of certain drugs - namely pot. I think we spend too much money trying to keep it out, and I truly don't see much of a difference btw. it and drinking.
posted
Dag, I'm curious: what is your stance on contraception in general, and on the pill in specific?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know on the pill - I've heard that it can prevent implantation, which would effectively mean it's killing an embryo. I do not know enough of the science to judge on the subject.
As to birth control in general, I'm leery of the idea of treating a woman's fertility as if it were a disorder to be controlled. However, I'm also leery of people having children they're unprepared for. Personally, I'm not sure exactly how we're going to handle things.
From a legal perspective, I don't think it should be outlawed. As far as government support, it makes me uncomfortable for the government to be supporting irresponsible behavior (and contraception alone is not enough to make sex responsible). If someone presented me with a bill that banned abortion except in rape/incest/physical health of the mother but funded a system of birth control clinics, I'd sign it as a compromise.
From a marital perspective, I see a lot of benefits to keeping sex connected to it's principle purpose. But that's an individual decision, not one for government.
In other words, I don't have a clear position.
Dagonee Edit: I do think birth control has contributed to some very unhealthy ideas about women in general. Not from the "barefoot and pregnant" perspective; from the "fertility is a women's business and men can safely ignore it because there's a little pill." It's a respect issue.
Further edit: In other other words, I'm not immune from the fears that birth control can help assuage. I have the same problem with money, for that matter.
posted
Dag, your comment/thought about how "men can safely ignore it" got me to thinking. My husband and I have actually talked about this extensively. I do think that men need (and hopefully most want) to take more responsibility about birth control so that it's not always the woman's worry. However, when Mr. Opera and I were discussing a pill for men, I had to admit that there is no way I would want him taking it. The reason being? Well, I don't feel comfortable about relying on anyone else (even him) to take a pill. It's my body that would have to carry a baby if he forgot, and for some reason I can't imagine giving someone else the total responsibility for something that could affect me so dramatically.
posted
I would vote for another party there. Even though I'm very pro-life, and am indifferent to legalising some drugs ( seems silly to me to send someone to jail for growing pot in their backyard, but I have no compelling interest in legalising either.) But the legalising of hard drugs bothers me.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know on the pill - I've heard that it can prevent implantation, which would effectively mean it's killing an embryo. I do not know enough of the science to judge on the subject.
This is actually the heart of what I wanted to discuss on that matter. There are two different pills: a progesterone-only pill, and a progesterone-estrogen combination pill. The progesterone-only pill works by preventing implantation, whereas the combination pill does that as well as preventing the ovaries from releasing eggs. In either case, there is a chance that a fertilized embryo is being prevented from implantation. In the case of the progesterone-only pill the chance is higher, as that is the only mechanism it uses to prevent pregnancy.
(Much of what follows, Dag, is not very applicable to or answerable by you, so feel free to skip the rest if you like.)
I have talked to a number of people who are against abortion but don't have a problem with the pill. The question in that case comes down to at what point you believe life begins. After the first trimester? After implantation? After fertilization? If a person is willing to draw the line somewhere, why one place rather than another?
The most common reasoning I've heard for anti-abortion types not havnig a problem with the pill is that a first-trimester fetus is much, much more viable than a fertilized egg is. Lots of fertilized eggs fail to implant even without birth control. So it's a question of probability. Both abortion and the pill are ending the possibility of a human life. There's no question about that, regardless of whether or not you think that abortion is murder.
This raises--to me, anyway--an interesting question: if it's really a question not of ending an actual life, but a question of ending the possibility of life, and if a line can be drawn in one place, why not another? How far up the chain can we go? In that case, are condoms immoral? Masturbation? After all, in both cases, the possibility of life is ended. With sperm the answer becomes more ambiguous, as sperm cells die and are produced all the time within the testes, and even in sex for reproduction, most of the sperm don't end up fertilizing an egg anyway. But then what about eggs? If a woman completes a menstrual cycle without attempting to have a child, that egg is gone; a possibility at life is ended.
Don't mistake me; I'm not trying to engage in hyperbole or some kind of slippery slope argument. I really am curious what separates one situation from another. Moreover, I'm interested to know what separates them in other people's minds.
Edit: I looked it up and apparently both types of pill work to prevent fertilization, although only the combination pill prevents ovulation. Even so, both pills also do work to prevent implantation in the event of fertilization.
posted
All I have to say is this: I know a number of women who have had abortions. In no case, was it a matter of just not wanting to be bothered, or a matter of using abortion as birth control. And in every case, it was a huge decision that was not made quickly or lightly.
Perhaps there are women out there who take abortion as a light matter. I've certainly never met one, especially among women who have had abortions.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I know women who have had abortions, do not regret having the abortion, are pro-choice. They consider it a very serious matter, did not enter into their decision lightly.
I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be offensive, but I think that the idea that anyone who is pro-choice takes the issue of abortion lightly is ridiculous.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the info. I can attempt to rationalize support for the pill and not abortion, although I don't buy it myself.
Implantation might serve as a convenient starting point for personhood. It's a bright line rule, which has attractions, and can't really be fudged. Prior to implantation, the embryo is actually in a fairly hostile environment. The pill just makes the environment more hostile. Choosing implantation as the bright line also solves the embryonic stem cell and in-vitro controversies nicely.
I have a hard time buying any other line, because until sentience none of them seem very important and none differentiate animals. And sentience as a line would allow killing of infants, as well as possible some mentally disabled persons.
The potentiality analysis avoids the animal equivalency issue and would also allow the pill, because prior to implantation there's a much smaller chance of a successful birth.
posted
lma, I never said they didn't take it seriously. I said their taking it seriously is a good sign that this is a significant event that bears analysis, and that the analysis will weigh heavily in favor of pro-life.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I apologize for sounding condescending, I do try to keep the my level of discourse up to Hatrack standereds and I feel really bad when I fail. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
