Some sense on the abortion issue

a reply to: network dude

but if HE is responsible for the child after birth, (child support), then why does he get no say in the decision? I don't have an answer here, but this question needs to be asked, and factored in.

Why do you think he has no say? Why do you think he should have the final say?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

but if HE is responsible for the child after birth, (child support), then why does he get no say in the decision? I don't have an answer here, but this question needs to be asked, and factored in.

Why do you think he has no say? Why do you think he should have the final say?

So, what then? he DOES have final say... as long as the woman want him to???

a reply to: Graysen

Can you imagine a couple coming to an agreement together?

originally posted by: eletheia
I feel uneasy with the abortion issue in that it is always a majority of men
making the laws concerning abortion and men don't get abortions.

Maybe not the actual abortion, but how do you think the woman got pregnant?

Aside from the fact that I simply cannot fathom, after holding each of my three children in the palm of my hand after they were born, how someone could actually choose to kill a tiny unborn baby, one thing that I've never understood, is why women seem to think that the man who caused her to be pregnant should have no say.

He should, at the very least, have a veto right on the abortion if he is willing to take the baby when it is born and be responsible for raising it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
it is the woman's body affected and at risk of complications, many quite serious, even killing the mother. And I have a big problem with anyone -- man or woman -- telling anyone that they must risk their own life for another. Which, of necessity, includes potential mothers.

Ok, I see this argued almost every time, but - and not to make light of it, but to shed some light on it - what is the reality?

700 deaths from pregnancy complications in one year, vs about 4 million births.

That is a 0.000175% chance of death from complications during child birth.

You are far more likely to be struck by lightning than die from childbirth.

But, yes, you're much more likely to die from childbirth than winning the lottery, so there is that.

Anyway, just wanted to make that point.

originally posted by: underwerks
Banning something like abortion, much like drugs and other things that people see as "vices" does nothing but push it underground and make it more dangerous. You can't legislate morality, and to try only multiplies the actual harm involved. To the person and society.

I agree, and at the very least, Roe v Wade should be absolutely over turned, and the Federal Government should not have a say one way or the other (this goes to drugs as well).

This is purely and squarely a States Rights issue, as Ron Paul always said.

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine
Even from a purely practical aspect, I don't see what making abortion illegal hopes to achieve. We already know it doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them less safe.

This is only half true.

Making it illegal would stop a lot of them, likely even more than half.

But those who decided to pursue it underground would definitely be taking a much higher risk.

Women of lower income households and women in minorities are for whatever reason, overrepresented in abortion statistics. These aren't people for whom moving interstate is necessarily as easy as your remark suggests.

So, you're saying there wouldn't be abortion buses that would be available providing free rides to those in states where abortion is illegal, to a neighboring state where it is legal?

Please.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Maybe not the actual abortion, but how do you think the woman got pregnant?

Perhaps that question is better answered by the 'sperm donor' who is

probably long gone along with unfulfilled promises of a long and loving

relationship?

Aside from the fact that I simply cannot fathom, after holding each of my three children in the palm of my hand after they were born

You paint a sweet picture ...... but how would you feel if the blue line

showed up for you after a drunken one night stand at a time when you

and your partner were going through a rough time?


Oh NO ...... that would never be you but it is many people.......

how someone could actually choose to kill a tiny unborn baby,

This is the bit designed to tug at the heart strings *a tiny baby* Have you

ever seen a 3 month fetus...... no I don't mean the enhanced pictures that

are on the internet......I mean the real thing?

one thing that I've never understood, is why women seem to think that the man who caused her to be pregnant should have no say.

You have obviously lived a very sheltered life!! As I have often said " He's

probably long gone and certainly not interested.

You are mixing up the emotions of people who are desiring a pregnancy

with others who's emotions ended with the sex.

He should, at the very least, have a veto right on the abortion if he is willing to take the baby when it is born and be responsible for raising it.

Re read all of the above.


And just as an aside 59% of women who have abortions already have children.

Some statics

www.guttmacher.org...

a reply to: network dude

Common sense dictates that a woman's body is her own concern.

Quite simple really unless you are a religious nutter.

a reply to: tanstaafl

This is purely and squarely a States Rights issue

Civil rights are not a state's Rights issue.

Reply to Andyshake :So you think you have to be religious to know there is a life in the belly? So much for the claims of secular humanists who believe that morality can exist without the deity.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Nope, but i see the religious brigades protesting the loudest.

What i think is exactly what i said "a woman's body is her own concern".

What imaginary anthropomorphized deities have to do with bringing a child into this world is quite frankly beyond me.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Ok, I see this argued almost every time, but - and not to make light of it, but to shed some light on it - what is the reality? 700 deaths from pregnancy complications in one year, vs about 4 million births. That is a 0.000175% chance of death from complications during child birth.

First and foremost, our rights are individual rights and absolute. So numbers and ratios are not relevant. If only one woman is at risk, then that one woman has an absolute right to protect her own life. Period. However, we know the number is far higher than just one. And while you might be okay with 700 deaths, I'm pretty sure the families and loved ones left behind aren't okay with it.

Second, there is no formal recording system for maternity deaths, so the numbers cited are not definitive. At best, that is the number of women recorded as dying in childbirth and/or while still in the hospital. There is no system to record maternal deaths from complications after leaving the hospital. And quite often those deaths are not recorded as due to post-partum complications, but as an isolated incident. For example, a death from sepsis contracted during childbirth will be recorded as sepsis with no mention of it being maternity related.

Third, deaths are only part of the risk; other complications can cause lifelong debilitating adverse outcomes for the mother (and child). Including increased risks of stroke and heart problems leading to an early death for the woman. Such post-partum conditions are not tracked at all.

Fourth, women are also putting their lives and health into the hands of another (healthcare providers) who can and do make mistakes. Quite often compounded by arrogance and a refusal to take a woman's complaints seriously. I've personally experienced this, and seen it with my daughter's doctors. When I suffered a tubal pregnancy which subsequently ruptured, I had seen an OB-GYN twice and both times told him my symptoms -- which were textbook!!! -- and he dismissed me oh-so-disdainfully with "This is your first pregnancy... you don't know... I've done this hundreds of times! Trust me..." I didn't and made an appointment with another doctor. A few hours before the appointment, the tube ruptured and it damn near killed me. It never should have happened. The pregnancy should have been terminated before the 11th week. I was at the 13th week when it ruptured. My baby never had a chance. (And no, there is no procedure for transferring the embryo from the tube to the uterus for a successful pregnancy -- despite some of the crazy things I've heard people say!)

Fifth, not every woman has the means and resources to obtain the necessary and proper prenatal medical care, and given the nature of pregnancy, not every woman is able to work throughout her pregnancy. Both of my pregnancies were complicated, especially my second, where I was told to stay in bed for the last four months of the pregnancy. Thank heaven I had a husband who was happy to take care of us... not every woman is so lucky.

You are far more likely to be struck by lightning than die from childbirth. But, yes, you're much more likely to die from childbirth than winning the lottery, so there is that. Anyway, just wanted to make that point.

I'm honestly not sure what point you think you're making. It simply seems that it's no big deal if 700+ women die from childbirth and complications, and not important if women suffer their entire lives with complications.

And quite honestly, it's exactly this lack of care and concern for the health and well being of the mothers that chills me to the bone, and why I cannot in good conscience accept Big Gov dictating a woman's choices. As long as God/Nature gave women the ability to terminate a pregnancy, by herself and for herself, then I have to accept that it is a woman's right to do so.

Therefore, it is not up to us to tell women they must carry their pregnancy to term, it's up to us to make sure every woman has everything she needs to want to carry her pregnancy to term. And if she still chooses otherwise, then it's between her and her God.

This is a long read, but quite informative and comprehensive: Severe Complications for Women During Childbirth Are Skyrocketing — and Could Often Be Prevented

originally posted by: eletheia
Perhaps that question is better answered by the 'sperm donor' who is probably long gone along with unfulfilled promises of a long and loving relationship?

Worst case scenario ass-u-me-ption there - how about responding with regard to the other scenarios?

"Aside from the fact that I simply cannot fathom, after holding each of my three children in the palm of my hand after they were born"

You paint a sweet picture ...... but how would you feel if the blue line showed up for you after a drunken one night stand at a time when you and your partner were going through a rough time?

Assuming I somehow found out about it? I'd feel the same... it isn't the baby's fault.

"how someone could actually choose to kill a tiny unborn baby,"

This is the bit designed to tug at the heart strings *a tiny baby* Have you ever seen a 3 month fetus...... no I don't mean the enhanced pictures that are on the internet......I mean the real thing?

Yes, I have, but I'm not someone who can see a picture of a living, developing baby and pretend I only see a clump of random cells.

"one thing that I've never understood, is why women seem to think that the man who caused her to be pregnant should have no say."

You have obviously lived a very sheltered life!! As I have often said " He's probably long gone and certainly not interested.

And like I said, how about addressing those very real and more often than not situations where he is not long gone, instead of relying on a worst case scenario for all of your arguments?

"He should, at the very least, have a veto right on the abortion if he is willing to take the baby when it is born and be responsible for raising it."

Re read all of the above.

No need, it is irrelevant to my point.

And just as an aside 59% of women who have abortions already have children.

Totally irrelevant - unless you want to make the argument that if someone already has a 4 yr old, they should be able to 'abort' their 3 month old because ... numbers.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"This is purely and squarely a States Rights issue"

Civil rights are not a state's Rights issue.

Sorry, abortion is not a civil right. It was decided as a 'privacy' issue, which it obviously is not.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Privacy rights are also civil rights. See the 4th Amendment.
SCOTUS ruled that state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional and violated a woman's civil rights.

originally posted by: Boadicea
If only one woman is at risk, then that one woman has an absolute right to protect her own life. Period. However, we know the number is far higher than just one. And while you might be okay with 700 deaths, I'm pretty sure the families and loved ones left behind aren't okay with it.

I have made it clear many times (but admittedly not in my last comment) that I have no problem with a doctor and the mother deciding to abort if she actually finds herself in a situation where the pregnancy is threatening her life.

But that tiny risk does not excuse the wholesale legalization of murder.

Another point never discussed...

Every single parent I've ever talked to would give their own lives in defense of or to save their children...

In addition, every single mother I've ever talked to, if faced with a decision to kill her baby to save their own life, or to allow the baby to be born knowing it could or even would kill them, they would choose the latter. I can also say that if I were a woman, faced with such a decision, I would do the same.

Second, there is no formal recording system for maternity deaths, so the numbers cited are not definitive...

Third, deaths are only part of the risk; other complications can cause lifelong debilitating adverse outcomes...

Fourth, women are also putting their lives and health into the hands of another (healthcare providers) who can and do make mistakes....

Fifth, not every woman has the means and resources to obtain the necessary and proper prenatal medical care,...

Fair enough on all additional points. But it still doesn't excuse murder.

"You are far more likely to be struck by lightning than die from childbirth. But, yes, you're much more likely to die from childbirth than winning the lottery, so there is that. Anyway, just wanted to make that point."

I'm honestly not sure what point you think you're making. It simply seems that it's no big deal if 700+ women die from childbirth and complications, and not important if women suffer their entire lives with complications.

Not at all. I was making the point that it is an extreme, not the norm.

And quite honestly, it's exactly this lack of care and concern for the health and well being of the mothers that chills me to the bone, and why I cannot in good conscience accept Big Gov dictating a woman's choices. As long as God/Nature gave women the ability to terminate a pregnancy, by herself and for herself, then I have to accept that it is a woman's right to do so.

Eh? We aren't talking about that. We're talking about women going to a doctor and the doctor ripping the baby from her womb, limb by limb.

This is a long read, but quite informative and comprehensive: Severe Complications for Women During Childbirth Are Skyrocketing — and Could Often Be Prevented

It is definitely a problem, but these severe complications are skyrocketing mostly because the general health of the population is plummeting due to horrible nutritional and lifestyle decisions.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Privacy rights are also civil rights. See the 4th Amendment.

Sorry, being secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures has nothing to do with a woman being able to murder her unborn child.

SCOTUS ruled that state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional and violated a woman's civil rights.

I know that. They were wrong.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry, the law and the US Constitution says you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

I try not to bring this subject up, as it's not my business. I will never get pregnant, and have passed the age and ability where I will be getting my wife pregnant. I shoot blanks now. And the choice to end a life, is a legal choice in this country, so women who have to make this choice must do so between them and their God and their Family. It's a personal thing that nobody else gets to meddle in. I personally think it's murder, but again, not my duck, not my pond.

By shooting blanks you've murdered millions of unborn babies, dude. The sperm you're shooting out carried within in the seed to create life like there is in no other place in the solar system, and yet you went ahead and you castrated yourself. You lost your manhood by making yourself sterile. You destroyed your ability to breed, a treasure that made kings and pharaoh's and sultans have hundreds of sons and daughters each.

What right do you have to get a vasectomy? What gave you the go-ahead to have non-reproductive sex with your wife? The great god above said that you must BREED and spread your seed amongst the women on this earth.

k, you saw how dumb what I just wrote was?

Men saying that abortion is murder and that women don't have the right to abort WHAT IS INSIDE their OWN BODY are as dumb, and more dumb, because it's not they who are stuck carrying something for 9 months and then going through the very laborous and highly dangerous event of childbirth.

I would ask this, if anyone is in the position to abort simply due to finances, please check into the adoption process. There are many families who cannot conceive and would love any child they got like their own. Be safe and wrap that rascal!

No. There are 7 billion human beings, nearly 8 billions and those numbers are going to increase by several billions before the century is closed. Drinkable water is not everlasting. Jobs for everyone? Lol, sure with automation billions will lose their jobs, and many millions will never ever even have their first job to begin with. There are countless reasons for people to not have kids, and very few reasons for people to make babies.

Unless the dude is the Prince of Wales and has a throne to pass one, unless he's Cristiano Ronaldo and has a gorgeous body and supernatural football atheletcism, and unless the dude looks like Brad Pitt - I don't see a reason for the ''average'' man or woman to produce children.

Now if we're talking about high quality women and men.. then go ahead.