posted
By opportunity cost I mean the amount of woman's resources consumed for having and raising the baby. Consider the following:
1. Nine month pregnancy: Very often this takes place when the woman is still in school or in the early stages of her career. These are critical stages of her life. I've seen coworkers who left work to have babies and return to the office only to find that she is one year behind her peers.
2. Ongoing obligations: Other than the financial burden, there is also the daily grind of taking care of a child. Yes, children are little bundles of miracles. But that does not change the fact that the primary caregiver for the child have to invest enormous amounts of time and energy on the child at the expense of other dreams or goals.
3. Other relationships: It is just harder to start new relationships when you have a child.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Number 2 can be taken care of in numerous ways. There's no reason the mother should be the primary caregiver by default. There's also adoption.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I see, Beren. I know that there are things the woman has to go through that the man cannot compensate for. But it will never be possible to make people EXACTLY equal. I think you have to do the best you can, or leave it up to the judge to decide the best way to divide things up. But the unfairness of the extra burden on the woman shouldn't inherently give her the right to end the burden; if anything it should make her more careful never to have that burden in the first place, even if it means she has to give up sex for a while.
I look at it this way. A woman has the choice not to have sex. She is equal to a man in that way. If she chooses to have sex, she has the option to use whatever method of birth control she chooses (except a male condom), and she is equal to a man in that way. (He can use birth control, too.) She also has the choice to use a more effective form of birth control, or a less effective one. She has the option of using the birth control carefully, or sloppily, in the heat of passion.
A woman can choose to do any of these things. If she opts to NOT use her options of protecting herself from pregnancy, then she has chosen to become pregnant. Reproduction is just that...it's the way a woman and a man make a child. The purpose and end result should BE a child, if it works correctly. Therefore, if you reproduce and it WORKS, then you have chosen to create a child, and have therefore exercised your reproductive rights.
It's easy to say that, in the heat of passion, you made a mistake. But just because you allowed yourself to get swept away and have given yourself completely over to the feeling, you have still made that choice.
Getting pregnant, for a woman that doesn't want to, is alot like running a race with hurdles. The hurdles are abstinence, protection, correct use of protection, etc. In order to actually get pregnant, she has to choose to jump hurdle after hurdle, running as fast as she can toward the goal.
So then, if you acheive the goal, how can you stand there and scream that you deserve the choice to not be there? You're THERE already. You CHOSE to run that race in the first place.
posted
I just want to post here in support of Kasie, who is taking a lot of heat. You go, girl!
The argument that some people make disasterously wrong choices, so other people should be deprived of their choice, how much sense does that make?
There is much that's ugly and desperate in the world. The people who want to choose for others are mostly upper middle class, white, affluent, powerful. Many of them even say privately (or don't say) that if their own daughter wanted an abortion, they would pay for her travel to another country to get a safe one. They have no clue what other people's lives can be like. They have no inkling what they are imposing on others.
Should abortion be used as a form of late birth control? Absolutely not. Should it be a casual unconsidered act? Of course not. It is grievous beyond all accounting for parents to kill their unborn children in the womb. I am LDS and I believe in abstinance outside of marriage for the very reason that it's an extremely serious thing to bring new life into the world. The power to do that is not to be treated lightly. Yet often the choices in life are not between a good and an evil, but between various options all of which are horrible. There are things that are worse, in other words, than killing an unborn child. These are the most personal and life-affecting decisions a person can make. It is draconian and patriarchal to make anyone go before a judge and prove anything before making this decision.
Abortion is a terrible shame, but outlawing it would be a far worse one.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: The argument that some people make disasterously wrong choices, so other people should be deprived of their choice, how much sense does that make?
But who would be making the choice to have an abortion other than people who have already made a wrong choice (read: big mistake)? Why would you allow yourself to get pregnant with a child you don't want if you can prevent it?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate and Kasie have said it all. I just want to add my voice to them, because the pro-choice folks in this thread are likely feeling a bit alone right now.
I think it's wonderful that you got a chance to participate in the march, Kasie. I would've loved to have gone, had it been closer to home.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there's a real person with rights growing in that uterus, then the mother has responsibilities greater than her own will. But of course, all of this hinges on the initial assumption.
From a purely Constitutional standpoint, I totally disagree with Roe vs. Wade. Then again, this stems from a larger beef I have with the Supreme Court reading things into the Constitution. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
Yet, how can we, from a purely legal standpoint, tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body? Some will say that she has a responsibility to the unborn, but again, it is her body. I could never bring myself, whether im pro-choice or pro-life, to tell a woman that she has to be pregnant when she does not want too.
The thing I wanted to ask about was this: how is there no constitutional right to privacy? It lives in the 2nd and 4th amendment to say the least. Furthermore, cant we assume that the constitution implies the right? In fact, when disucssing the addition of the bill of rights, the delegation from Georgia said this that basically they were against it becuase some would try to take the constitution literally and forgo the best of wisdom of the time. Of course the constitution has a right to privacy. It lives in its words and in its implications. As Joe Pesci said in With Honors, "The genius of the constitution is that it can always be changed." IM just wondering.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are the vast majority of our Democratic legislators. The point is the less money you make, the more you likely favor restrictions on abortion. So the statement I was responding to is inaccurate.
posted
If I didn't have my Constitutional Law exam Wednesday I'd give a basic rundown. Right to privacy is a simplification of what's involved with "implied" rights, inlcuding abortion.
Maybe someone who's already gone through this can give a basic description of rights implied by substantive due process...
posted
PSI, I agree with 99% of your post. We have the same worldview: i.e. we both believe the ultimate object of sex is procreation, not recreation. And if one engages in sex for recreational purposes, one must be willing to accept the consequences.
However, everything you've written about women and responsibility should also apply to men as well. A man also has the choice not to have sex. But in our male dominant society, when a man makes the wrong choice he is not burdened as a woman is burdened.
To steal a slogan from one of Kasie's pictures: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
edited for fun.
[ April 26, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Substantive Due Process. Oh, yes. Great times in the ol' Con Law class.
Let's see if I can remember it well enough to wing a short summary.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, in part, that "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." So, of course, we have had a ton of cases talking about what "due process" actually is.
At some point, the courts also started thinking about what "liberty" means in that clause. Does it just mean that you can't be imprisoned without due process? That is the most obvious meaning, but is it really all that "liberty" means?
For the most part, the Court has said no. Liberty means more than freedom from imprisonment. What it means precisely is still a mystery, but many Justices have detected some kind of Right of Privacy within the meaning of that term. Others have said that this clause, when read in conjunction with several others, creates kind of an "aura" of rights, which includes privacy to some degree. (The phrase "emanations and penumbras" comes to mind, but I don't know if that is precisely the phrase that was used.)
So, even though the Constitution doesn't mention "privacy" directly, some kind of privacy right is supposed to be contained in the document, mostly in the word "liberty."
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, what can I say? Men and women have different hardware, so they will never be exactly equal. All we can do is the best we can do.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also that annoying Ninth Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, "Just because we didn't mention it don't mean you don't have it."
My perspective is that there may be a right to privacy but that it should usually be overridden by other people's right to safety. The majority of situations where a person might want to maintain privacy involve planning to harm someone else, so far as I can tell.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not as if we're getting really close to achieving equality and we're just fine tuning the specifics.
I'm reminded of Pooka's thread about stay at home mothers. Some of us say biology mandates that women shall make greater sacrifices in the name of procreation, and yet instead of celebrating that sacrifice, our society marginalize women for their child rearing obligations.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you can only do so much when you make laws. The rest comes from a person's personal feelings, and you can't affect that unless you just want to put alot of money into education. (Not that I'm against that). No law or legal action is going to force people to see childrearing as a viable and important job.
All you can do is make it possible for women and men to have the same opportunities, and then teach people to accept it, if they choose to. You can't force people to change their attitudes.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If childrearing is not valued as an important job to be shared by both sexes, can you blame women who would prefer not to undertake that burden alone?
But, I agree with you that we cannot force people to change their attitudes. We can only do our best, and hope.
quote: My wife and I are helping a young mother who decided to keep her child-- well, keep her child. (This is the second time we've done this) It's not easy for anyone.
That is amazing beyond words Scott. While we bicker over whether government and laws can adequately regulate the intricacies of life and death, you remind us that it only takes an act of individual kindness to make all the difference.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If childrearing is not valued as an important job to be shared by both sexes, can you blame women who would prefer not to undertake that burden alone?
No, I can't. That's why there's ADOPTION for those women who cannot bear the stresses of being a parent, a single parent or whatever.
quote:There is much that's ugly and desperate in the world. . . Yet often the choices in life are not between a good and an evil, but between various options all of which are horrible. There are things that are worse, in other words, than killing an unborn child.
AKA- yes the world is full of horrible things. But there is beauty and hope, too. Your reasoning here is too much along the lines of mercy-killing-- we abort the child to spare him a life of poverty and misery.
Baloney, baloney, baloney, and again baloney. We don't get to decide whose life is valuable and whose life isn't. Speaking from a strictly Mormon point of view, life is the most precious gift, next to our agency, that our Heavenly Father has given us. While we live, we can learn and repent.
I've seen squallor and misery in the gypsy camps in Italy, where children are so poor, they steal or let men steal their bodies to feed their families.
For all that misery, yet there is hope. Don't you DARE claim the guise of mercy to hide your point of view.
Which children would be better off not living? Which children would you prefer had been aborted?
Or do I completely misread your POV and owe you my deepest apologies?
[ April 26, 2004, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Far too few kids are adopted. For a white middle class mother, adoption is very much an option. For a lower class black mother, her kid will be lucky to find a parent, and will most likely be shuttled around the foster system instead.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is so hard to be pro-choice after seeing those pictures, but I will manage. I hate it when those on my side look ridiculous to me.
For me, as long as the child is in the mother, I do believe the mother's rights take precedence over the child. Her body her choice.
That being said. I think they should take very graphic pictures of the process of abortion for every stage of pregnancy, and if some woman wants an abortion, she needs to see a video of what it does to the baby. She needs education on whether unborn babies feel pain. She needs to see videos of them being carved up and vacuumed out. She needs as much information as possible. If she still wants to...well, in my opinion, what a selfish B*$%! But I don't think we have the right to deny it.
Information is the best resource to change behavior. I would have a hard time having a close relationship with someone who has so little regard for life. Poor men who find themselves in that type of relationship.
Edit [I only feel that strongly against women who have had a abortions IF they feel ok about it. If they regret it or repent of it, I have mroe respect.]
posted
I will give one example of a situation I mean. Someone on hatrack once gave the example of their 15 year old daughter who was attacked and raped. She was affected terribly and was desperately depressed and suicidal. He felt sure that if she had to remain pregnant with the rapist's child, and bring it to term, she would have committed suicide beforehand.
They chose to abort the baby.
Grievous personal things like this have no business in court. These decisions are personal.
[ April 26, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, AKA, I have to disagree with you; I think grievous personal things like that are EXACTLY the sort of things that belong in court.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know most of this debate hinges on US law and such, but I'd like to point out that when the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the abortion laws in the Morgentaler Decision, there was no new laws put in place. None. In Canada, there are no restrictions regarding trimester, partial-birth, or anything.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's a thought. We could make it illegal in the States, and any woman who really wanted one could just hop a plane to Canada. Safe, fairly inexpensive, considering the exchange rate.
'kidding, of course.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What?? Do I read this correctly that abortions are legal in the US at pretty much ANY time?
In that case I refine what I said earlier. (Although I'm still with Ela, I think.)
I can see that it is hard to define the moment when a "person" begins. A sensible compromise, legally, would make most sense to me. Where I grew up, abortions were possible up to something like 2 months into pregnancy.
So I do think that a woman should have the right to choose -- but I also think this choice should be made early on during pregancy.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example was a friend of mine who had one child with downs, (when she was young enough that the doctor had not recommended an amnio) and wanted to get pregnant again. She was planning to abort the fetus if it had downs.
I don't know what I would do in that circumstance, but I do know that I think this should be her choice, and the courts should not get involved. The earliest you could do an amnio then, if I remember correctly, gave you an answer some time in the second trimester. I don't know if that's changed.
Edited to add that the baby was fine after all so this story had a happy ending.
[ April 27, 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, are you going to write a piece on this March for your Journalism class?
Would you mind if I used some of your pictures on my blog (hosted on my own bandwidth)? I will give you proper photography credit, either "Kasie Hunt" or, if you prefer, "Vagina Warrior." I would understand if you said no, so no pressure. (before you agree, you might want to remember that I never sent in my feminism survey... bad Beren... BAD.)
I know the pictures may offend some of you, but they really *are* pretty funny.
[ April 27, 2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think the decision is often made very quickly, by nature. And, also by people cognizant of their situation. As I understand it (could be grossly wrong, believing in what I read and having a penis), people's decisions are a drop in the bucket compared to those of nature regarding which conceptions move forward.
posted
aka-- Are you saying that you think the courts should make a distinction between 'normal' fetuses that should not be aborted and 'abnormal' fetuses that CAN be aborted legally?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really all goes back to whether you consider featuses as human beings. You wouldn't, for example, suggest that a woman have the right to kill her two-day old baby just because the baby is the result of rape or had down syndrome.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate, I'm just curious...your friend would have aborted a down syndrome baby in the second trimester? Meaning, anywhere from 3-6 months of growth? (I think that's what you meant when you said that they didn't get info until an amnio in the 2nd trimester.)
Doesn't that seem a little LATE...doesn't the baby seem a little BIG to still use the "It's My Body" argument? (sorry, I've been reading along and this post just made me want to ask that question.)
I guess it STILL comes down to the "When is the baby a person" question. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I honestly felt strange because I felt like they assumed I hated them and in turn hated me."
So who is doing the assuming here? If you abhor assumption, why are you utilizing it in your post?
As for protests; I love DC and the frequent protests make it an exciting place to live, but I never attend such events...it's too much of a mob reaction for me. No matter the protest, the protestors generally tend to be (from what I have seen) uneducated and incapable of reason.
posted
My understanding is that you can't (or couldn't) get an amnio done until the second trimester. The needle has to pierce from outside, and reach a small pocket of amniotic fluid without harming the baby. If you do it too soon, or miss, then you stab the developing fetus. I thought you had to be about 4 months along before this was safe. I could be wrong about that.
My friend got the procedure done as soon as it was safe, and got the results back as soon as possible. I think that was second trimester, but I may be mistaken.
I was going to take her to the clinic, if the test showed the baby was downs. There were lots of protesters then at all the clinics around here, being very ugly to people, screaming "murderer" at them and so on, and holding pictures of bloody aborted fetuses. I told my friend we should pretend I was the pregnant one if we had to go. Her husband didn't want to take off work or something. I can't remember for sure why he wasn't going to be there.
Like I said, I don't know what I would have decided in that same situation, but my friend is very brave and wonderful, and I certainly didn't second guess her decision. She is raising one child with Downs.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may be wrong that it was as late as that. I do remember nobody announced pregnancies until the amnio results were back, and it was a lot later than you would really want to wait. Almost to the point that the announcement would be superfluous.
Obviously the choice my friend made was an agonizing one. She loves her child with downs very much, and spent many heartbreaking hours, weeks, and months with his health problems. He had to have open heart surgery as a baby. He had many serious illnesses, and was in life threatening danger again and again. I think she probably just decided their family could not possibly survive another one like that, emotionally or financially, yet she very much wanted another child.
After coming to such a personal and agonizing decision, I just can't see forcing her to get up in front of a judge and defend that choice, especially since those who would be deciding her fate would most likely not be parents of downs children. Perhaps they would not be parents at all. Perhaps they would be bored civil servants who were putting in their time until retirement.
I just can't see how it's right for that decision to have rested with anyone but my friend.
[ April 27, 2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
