Abortion musings

If abortion were simply population control, then abort the criminals we support in the prison system. They have chosen to be a drain on society...a baby has not yet.
Take the money saved from housing murderers, rapists, and the like, and if population control is the real goal, spend a few bucks and invent a mandatory sterility drug and as someone posted before, require permits for creating life.
But, isn't that something, 46 million people unmade each year...in 2002 there were 57 million deaths worldwide en.wikipedia.org... those two numbers...thats alot

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Xcouncil=wisdom]

its ok saying a woman has a rght to care for the child and all.

ok so she keeps the baby what happens if she does not have the means to feed, or clothe it, then there is the mental care that a child needs if a woman decides she has none of the means to care for the unborn fetus then surly aborting at an early stage (i do not agree with late abortion unless there is a medical reason) is the better option.
surly a starving childis worse thank terminating a pregnancy.

why are all women who have abortions condemned, there are many reasons a woman has an abortion some not so sound illl admit.
it is the womans body that must feed and nurture the fetus for 9month and its the woman who has to give birth.

it is the womans right to choose.

yes people should use contraceptives, there definatly are enough in this day and age, but they are not 100% effect, the only 100% effective way is not to have sex simple.
but what about rape this is a very sensitive subject and some women do keep a child resulting from rape but some can not cope mentally witht the idea of caring for a child that was a result of rape.

i tink this topic comes down to choice some choose to be against and some choose to be for.
i personally choose for, for early abortion or medical reasons, not as a contraceptive.
i dont think it is right ot force your beliefs on any one for or against.

id just like to note some animals actually abort inthe wild such as rabbits, which i find interesting.


[edit on 3/2/2010 by kerrichin]

[edit on 3/2/2010 by kerrichin]

If a woman has the right to terminate a child she does not want.

Then a man has the right to terminate FINANCIAL OBLIGATION for a child that HE does not want.

Period.

-Edrick

Remember from the 1st episode of futurama, the suicide booths? I fully agree that in the future that will happen at some level. Abortion will be fully available to everyone, and who knows maybe there will be no age limit. Society had certain things that were taboo, gay relationships for example, nowadays the President is in support. How many years ago did the thought of gay marriage send the vast majority grimacing? Divorce, pre-marital sex? Whats taboo now... incest, child molesting. In 200 years I see all those things being accepted, maybe even cannibalism.

Once the ball is rolling theres no stopping this.

Also, If its a womans choice and a womans choice only, then... men should have no financial responsibility if she decides to keep it or not. Because its more responsible to look out for yourself then someone else.

Babies are dependent on the 'host' long after birth, I mean the pink background lady's argument revolves around babies being parasites and supposedly only after their born are they not. Well leave a baby on its own and see how that turns out. So their still 'parasites' basically until 10-13 years old, so I guess abortion should encompass the whole range of 'parasite'-ness.

Also, life sucks, get used to it. And its not fair, and its not easy, and sometimes even if you work hard you get nothing in return. People are poor because they were born into it, or they're rich and famous. But thats only part of why abortions happen, no one wants to deal with this:


Rationalize it all you want, but it comes down to money and dealing with the hardships of birthing and raising a child. The choice is based on the effect a child will have on YOUR life, who gives a rats A** about the kid, you're considering offing it anyways, hell, you even call it a 'parasite' and you a 'host'. Its not "how will he or she get an education etc." its something like in Revolutionary Road (with Kate Winslet & DiCaprio) they wanted to move to Europe but she got pregnant and she aborted it herself and died. But I guess you would say that if she had proper medical care and wasn't married to such a cheating bastard everything would turn out ok.

And you critizize pro-lifers for 'Imposing' their views on you, and Whoa! Hold the phones! You're doing the same thing. Well whatever you think, it has no effect on what anyone thinks on these boards, and anywhere really. Why is that? Well since you say that it always comes down to money with men, you already know. People with money make the decisions.

I have no money so I'm in the same boat as everyone here: ranting and raving to essentially a brick wall.

reply to post by afterschoolfun


Who out there doesn't know a woman is far more likely to die in childbirth than in an early termination? An early termination of pregnancy is in every instance MUCH safer for the mother's life and physical health.

When you say pro-life - does this exclude anyone? For example, the women?

To equally share responsibility for "life" after a woman gives birth the sperm donor should take complete and sole responsibility for the next 9 months of the "life" - giving the egg donor a chance to rest. From there (unless they lived together as family) the parental units should alternate intervals of care in 9 month rotations or some similar equitable arrangement.

Doctors ask on insurance forms whether you have had abortions so they can unquestionably determine whether you are able to conceive, not because it is some health risk for the woman. In fact childbirth carries a great many risks and responsibility for women that men are exempt from.

This is why the decision to give birth is as it should be, a private medical matter between a woman and her doctor.

"My body, My choice" works both ways.


If it a woman's choice to have an abortion.

It is a mans choice to decide where the fruits of his labor goes.


Compulsory Child support is immoral AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, when we do not also have compulsory child birth (I.E. No abortions)

-Edrick

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Edrick


Compulsary childbirth? You mean like chaining pregnant women to walls so they can't go get illegal abortions?

Isn't slavery illegal on your country now?

[edit on 4-2-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by Edrick

 

Compulsary childbirth? You mean like chaining pregnant women to walls so they can't go get illegal abortions?

Isn't slavery illegal on your country now?

Yes, unless you are a man.

Men are compelled to work, and give money to children that the woman has the option of abandoning.

This is slavery.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by Edrick

 

Compulsary childbirth? You mean like chaining pregnant women to walls so they can't go get illegal abortions?

Isn't slavery illegal on your country now?

Yes, unless you are a man.

Men are compelled to work, and give money to children that the woman has the option of abandoning.

This is slavery.

-Edrick

You want a world where women are forced to stay pregnant on a mans request and a man can abandon her mid pregnancy on a whim. You think your stance is moral? You speak of pregnant women as if they should have no more rights than breeding cattle.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by riley]

reply to post by riley

You want a world where women are forced to stay pregnant on a mans request and a man can abandon her mid pregnancy on a whim.

You want a world where men are forced to pay for a woman's decision, and can abandon the man on a whim, taking his children, while still keeping his money.

You think your stance is moral? You speak of pregnant women as if they should have no more rights than breeding cattle.

You think your stance is moral? You speak of men as if they should have no more rights than financial slaves.

-Edrick

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by riley

 

You want a world where women are forced to stay pregnant on a mans request and a man can abandon her mid pregnancy on a whim.

You want a world where men are forced to pay for a woman's decision, and can abandon the man on a whim, taking his children, while still keeping his money.

No. Men are required to pay support to their children.. not gestating fetuses.

You think your stance is moral? You speak of pregnant women as if they should have no more rights than breeding cattle.

You think your stance is moral? You speak of men as if they should have no more rights than financial slaves.
I NEVER never said such a thing. You actually SAID childbirth should be compulsary. For a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy that would be akin to rape. Women are NOT animals or property of the men who impregnate them. Childbirth is a very painful and in a way violent ordeal.. forcing a woman to go through that against her will is disgusting.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by riley]

reply to post by riley

No. Men are required to pay support to their children.. not gestating fetuses.

Then why are women allowed to give their children up for adoption, without paying child support for them?

Why are women allowed to terminate their responsibility as a parent, by aborting the fetus, but men are REQUIRED to be financially enslaved to that child?

I NEVER never said such a thing.

You did.

riley
No. Men are required to pay support to their children..

See?

You are stating that men are REQUIRED to pay for children that they father.

But that women are NOT required to care for children that they carry.

For a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy that would be akin to rape.

For a man, paying for an unwanted child would be slavery, and theft.

Women are NOT animals or property of the men who impregnate them.

Men are NOT animals, or property of the women who are impregnated by them.

Childbirth is a very painful and in a way violent ordeal..

Child support is very painful and in a way violent ordeal..

forcing a woman to go through that against her will is disgusting.

Forcing a man to go through this against his will is disgusting.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by Edrick

 

Compulsary childbirth? You mean like chaining pregnant women to walls so they can't go get illegal abortions?

Isn't slavery illegal on your country now?

Yes, unless you are a man.

Men are compelled to work, and give money to children that the woman has the option of abandoning.

This is slavery.

-Edrick

An excellent point Edrick. I agree it sucks for the man to be duped into this type of indentured servitude. It isn't fair.

So wear a rubber even if she says she is on the pill.

Unfortunately that is the level of responsibility needed for a man to make sure he does not suddenly become a dad.

However if the sex was forced or the woman was not an actively consenting participant (as unplanned sex often is) I still do think the man should be ordered to support the resulting child.

Wonder what would happen in the courts if in consenting sexual circumstances the guy has the woman sign a legal contract before sex saying that she is on birth control and in any event accepts sole financial responsibility should a child occur from the union....?

I am sure some guy has tried this already

What a coincidence. I just wrote a thread on this subject a few days ago, I pop in here and here it is again. There must be a common wave length going on that we're all picking up on.

I'm reposting portions of my original thread and hope that it does not turn into the slug fest that it did originally.

It has been argued that there is no difference between passive euthanasia of the sickly senescent and the abortion of unborn fetuses. This is an error in logic. To prevent the inevitable death (by natural causes in a chronically ill invalid) is vastly different than to prevent the inevitability of birth (or continuing of life) of an unborn child.

In the first scenario, life has occurred, gone through it's stages and reached it's conclusion-dilapidation of the body machine. Through the miracles of modern science, the process of the eventually inevitable dilapidation can be postponed; delayed. This is a temporary measure that will afford the loved ones of the dying person time in which to "come to terms" (or accept) the inevitability of their loved ones dying. It will afford the dying person time to take care of unfinished business and/or accept their own dying. It is out of respect and value of life that these death-postponing measures are utilized.

In the second scenario, no illness (usually) is found (or even looked for). There is a time factor for performing the active euthanasia (1st trimester) so that death must be calculated and carried out without consideration of the pregnant woman's time needed for grief acceptance. And what can be said of the fetus? Unlike the chronically ill, the fetus is not afforded the time necessary to adjust to the idea of it's death or to take care of unfinished business. Indeed, the "unfinished business" of an unborn child is the living of life itself.

It is argued that the unborn can have no thoughts; either about it's dying or it's living. How arrogant! How presumptuous! While it is true that one which has yet to learn language and therefore is not yet able to vocalize it's perceptions and can not give us insight into the workings of it's mind; it is erroneous to assume that an undeveloped life form HAS no perceptions/cognitions (as yet non verbalized).

Do not even cockroaches run from the flyswatter? Do not even bacteria attempt to swim away from bactericidal agents placed on the augur plates? A fetus, unlike the occasionally lucky cockroach or bacteria, has no chance of escape. We kill our unborn children with as little regard as if we were stepping on a bug. Imminent death in NOT inevitable for the unborn as it is in the chronically ill or fatally wounded. Abortion, unlike passive euthanasia is performed out of the deepest LACK of respect and value of life.

It is argued that abortion is to prefer, respect and value the life of the pregnant woman more than the life of her inconveniently developing child. The Nazis also preferred the life of Aryans over the life of Hebrews but they were still regarded as murderers and deadly force was used against such murderers to prevent their continued life-stealing activities. It may be that the pregnant life would be inconvenienced or even made more difficult by the arrival of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. No doubt, life was difficult in the extreme for our forebears, yet out of love for life, zest of living, respect for life, they IMPROVED their conditions in order to OVERCOME the hardships of their life. By so doing, they improved the standard of living conditions for us all. They would doubtless scoff to hear this generation whining about the hardships of life while taking a frozen pizza out of the freezer, popping it in the microwave and setting down in front of the TV in an air-conditioned, electrically lighted house to eat it.

Our forebears invented these modern conveniences so that they, as well as their children (us), might enjoy life more fully. Yes, working in a field 12+ hours a day and raising 14 children led to an average lifespan of 40 years; however, we do not have that consideration, thanks to their life-affirming contributions. This generation, with it's drive-by shootings, et al, concedes by it's lifestyle that life is of no value (or little value) and so would rather destroy any potentially inconvenient lifeforms than overcome the hardships imposed by them.

All actions have consequences. One of the (many) consequences of engaging in sex is the possibility of pregnancy. Is it unreasonable to expect people to accept the consequences of their actions by accepting responsibility for their actions? Is it reasonable to expect another to serve as scapegoat for the consequences of my actions? By killing our unborn children we offer up the "products of conception" as substitute scapegoats for dodging our self-imposed responsibilities.

It is unpopular to speak of, much less insist upon, personal responsibility and consequences of actions to this generation. Truth has never been popular with the masses. Nevertheless, reality can not be denied: all actions have consequences. All that remains to be said of that point is to ask ourselves (individually, as well as a collective society), do we rise above the tragedy of our self-imposed mistakes, show ourselves to be triumphantly "human" and DEAL with our problems? Are we a superior species able and worthy to dominate this planet or are we just another animalistic life form that is unable to even obey the laws of nature and instead serves as a parasite by not caring for other life forms as long as "we get ours"?

Such an attitude is self-defeating in the long run. It is extremely short-sighted. Shall we become a people like those in the movie, Logan's Run? Only the young, healthy, beautiful people are allowed to work and live while the the sick forfeit their lives at a certain age? All actions have consequences. If you think that the abortion issue has no consequences for you personally because you have never birthed or sired children, think it through a little more thoroughly.

It is argued that we can not know when life begins and are therefore justified in snuffing it out before it becomes problematic for us. A few years ago we could not detect a fetal heartbeat in less than 8 week. Now we can detect is at 40 days (6 weeks). Were those babies hearts not beating at 6 weeks or were we just unable to detect their signs of life? Do we know for certain that in a few more years we will not be able to detect fetal heart beat even sooner?

Science, out of the deepest regard for life, has invented methods and equipment for preserving and advancing life. Signs of life-like activity are apparent at the moment of conception when the zygote (fertilized egg) begins it's cell replication. Once the sperm and egg are united, only active intervention will stop the natural course of events.

There are those in intensive care units in hospitals across the country who neither have an independently beating heart or a functioning brain, yet we spend a great deal of time, money and effort to make sure they stay "alive". What hypocrisy! Outside intervention is required to keep those on life support alive whereas the only "active" intervention required to keep the fetus alive is that the pregnant woman keep herself alive.

Life and quality of life are used interchangeably in the abortion argument. They are NOT synonymous. If your quality of life is diminished by a drunken driver crashing into your vehicle leaving you paralyzed from the waist down, should someone else determine that your life is no longer worth living and relieve you of it? If parents of a grown, adult child now have to care for that child and provide his daily needs due to that same scenario, should they be allowed to determine that you are too "inconvenient" to live? Who determines who will live? Who decides whom the determiners will be? Where does it stop?

If you become unable to work this year due to illness, injury (both recoverable) or downsizing by your employer and my taxes are increased to pay your unemployment or rising medical costs, you have become "inconvenient" to me. Should you die for this? According to the euphemistically named "pro-choice" logic, you should indeed die so that I am not further inconvenienced by you or your demands on my time, money or effort.

Where there's life, there's hope. As long as one is alive and continues to exist, there's always the hope that the quality of life can be improved. This goal of improving the quality of life can be actively pursued as long as one is alive and active to do so. Before the advent of insulin the quality of life for diabetics was limited to their next (inevitable) ketoacidotic coma. Before gas heaters or central heat "quality of life" was restricted to those who were strong enough to chop and haul wood.
As long as you're alive you have choices for altering your situation, however dire; when you're dead, you don't. So much for "pro choice".

The pro choice advocates extend choices of potential improvement in quality of life to one (the pregnant female) at the expense of life itself from another (the unborn child). Incidentally, what choices do you really have when you walk into an abortion clinic? The abortionists make money (lots of it) by your decision to have an abortion. The pro life counseling centers are often made up of volunteers who obtain no material gain by your decision, whether that decision turns out to be abortion or carrying to term.

If your actions toward unborn children reveal you to be afraid of death-whether it be death of a career, death of an era, death of a relationship, etc., at least be honest about it and quit trying to convince us (and yourself) that it's because you love the life of the pregnant woman so much you're willing to kill to preserve it intact. That is not love of life, but fear of death.

There are those who contend that we are justified in condoning abortion because we condone capital punishment. (to be continued)

If the former is murder, they say, so is the latter. I disagree. Again, it is a fallacy in logic-comparing apples to oranges. In the case of executing persons dangerous to society, criminals have earned their death. As a society, our statement (and values) say that because you have taken that which is precious-life-you must pay for that life with something equally precious-another life. Since you have no right to anyone's life but your own, you can only pay with your own life. Criminals have wronged another human being by their life-hating behavior. Unborn children have not. This argument also brings up another source of contention in the abortion issue-the right of a woman to determine what happens to her own body.

We're all familiar with the saying about "the right to swing your fist in public ends where my nose begins". The right a woman has to determine what happens to her body ends where her baby's body begins. Because chemical changes occur that allow a female to carry a separate and distinct person (with a different blood type even!), we should be elated that even if no one else recognizes it, the woman's own body recognizes that the developing fetus is a separate, distinct being and makes life-affirming accommodations for it. Are we so out of touch with our own bodies that we don't recognize life blossoming even inside ourselves?

There is plenty of literature available to tell you that abortion is not the perfectly safe surgical equivalent of having a wart removed and that it's "adverse reactions" and "side effects" are not as minimal as you may have been led to believe. I will not belabor the point here by restating the redundant. Nor will I further scorch your conscience by detailing the association between organized crime and abortion money. I will summarize by saying that abortion is not the best answer or solution to a plethora of societal ills and individual character defects that sanction the robbing of our future (as a nation and a species) by murdering our unborn children. Personal responsibility, accepting the consequences of our actions, character fortitude-in short-emotional maturity is the best solution to many of the problems plaguing the 21st century, including the plague of abortion.

It seems incomprehensible to me that in our modern, enlightened and progressive age that we have reverted to human sacrifice. What else can abortion possibly be called? When one dies so that another may live-that is human sacrifice. If the person dying CHOOSES to die for another, that is not sacrifice. That is, in effect, one person telling another that, "your life is so valuable to me that without your life, my life is meaningless or not worth living. I could no more live without your presence than I could live without my beating heart."

Under such circumstances, if I step in front of a bullet meant for you I have not sacrificed anything because your life is as valuable to me as my own. If, on the other hand, you PUSH me in front of you to shield you from a flying bullet, that is murder. You have not killed me directly but you have caused me to die when I did not choose to do so. You may not kill your unborn child yourself but an even more cowardly deed is to pay someone else to do it for you.

The right to life is (was) guaranteed by our constitutional republic. It seems now that the right to life is only applicable to those who are able to get to the polls to vote on it. Goodbye convicts, invalids, unborn children. Actually, the people didn't even get the opportunity to vote their opinions on the subject. It was decided for us by "precedent". The SCOTUS interprets our constitution (for the benefit of those of us too stupid to understand what "right to life" means), sets a precedent with it's ruling/interpretation and bingo! the Legislative branch of governmental checks and balances is bypassed.

Our government is only supposed to ensure the rights of others. Constitutionally guaranteed, fail proof rights are: 1) life, 2) liberty, 3) the pursuit of happiness. You may argue that your liberty and/or pursuit of happiness are threatened by pregnancy but it is only for 9 months whereas the LIFE of the unborn child is permanently threatened by your desire for abortion. You don't know for certain that your liberty or pursuit of happiness will be permanently denied by carrying the pregnancy to term (pretty unlikely really) whereas there can be no doubt that loss of life permanently precludes the enjoyment of all other rights for the unborn.

"Parasites"? "Clump of cells"? I gotta tell ya, I'm not feeling a lot of love here or respect for life. WHATEVER it is (by whatever definition you want to give "it"), ACTIVE INTERVENTION, ie: murder, is required to stop it from BECOMING a living breathing human being. Abortion requires action to stop something from happening that WILL happen if you leave it alone.

And do you really want to go there with such a description or definition of parasites? Because I think that would include a lot more than just unborn babies. Anyone that can't feed themselves or take care of themselves without requiring the life input/efforts from someone else? Yeah, we could clear out the welfare rolls pretty quickly. Disabled vets and others on SSI. No more nursing homes. No more mental institutions. Both the House and the Senate. I could go on (for quite a while, unfortunately).

Careful who you call parasites and that you or someone you love doesn't get caught by that definition. Which is exactly the point: allowing someone else to determine the value of another's life is an allowance that we as human beings and as freedom-loving Americans can't afford to make. If we allow it IN PRINCIPLE for one group we will allow it FOR CONVENIENCE or PERCEIVED NECESSITY in another group. The Germans didn't hate the Jews. They came to perceive them as the source of their discomfiture. They came to view them as less than "real" humans. Not as valuable as Germans. We wonder how anybody could round up their fellow man and shove them into ovens or gas chambers or slave labor camps and daily witness the inhuman horrors that occurred? Simple. They didn't view them as human.

reply to post by whitewave


What do you call war? Whole countries die, on principal, die so that another group may live - without them. What about the collateral damage of war? Whole families of innocents, blown off the map because we are fighting their country? Not soldiers -civilians - die all the time in our fight for freedom. They are called "necessary losses" but you can call them human sacrifices.

Abortion is murder.

War is murder.

The world is full of murder.

If you execute murderers (which, by the way, should include warmongerers), abusers, rapists, people who abuse children (the worst, in my opinion), you will just end up with a world in which all of these evil people are developing.

They may start as babies...then they grow up.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by whitewave

 

What do you call war? Whole countries die, on principal, die so that another group may live - without them. What about the collateral damage of war? Whole families of innocents, blown off the map because we are fighting their country? Not soldiers -civilians - die all the time in our fight for freedom. They are called "necessary losses" but you can call them human sacrifices.

For the record, I do call all the human loses in war "human sacrifices" but the topic of the thread was musings about abortion, not musings about war casualties. Nice deflection, though.

reply to post by whitewave


Perhaps you can explain why, exactly we place such an emphasis on every single piece of human life, especially in those that contribute nothing and yet act as the greatest weights on society. We live within a vast structure that repeatedly puts forth new concepts and ideas, slowly shaping and rewarding those that adapt and grow while discarding any that are flawed. Individual animals that are weak or defective are usually hunted down first. Yet humans in this age have attempted to remove this basic mechanism within the structure, living within the safe confines of their cities and preserving every life no matter the cost. In this propensity to preserve life, the natural struggle to grow is neglected as we uphold the failures and drag those of excellence down. Notions of equality ultimately lead to a sacrifice in human quality for quantity, as societies must operate according to the lowest common denominator.

Billions of people flood the planet and consume all they can, yet contribute little to society. Abstractions that hold absolutely no basis in the world outside our minds such as 'freedom' and 'progress' provide the ultimate foundation of society, serving as a justification for nearly unrestricted breeding and rampant devastation.