Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

@ MindsEye -->  a) I read the wall o' text.  cool.gif I agree.  Strongly.  The only point I feel different on is the part about imposing my choice and personal will on others -- I *never* want to do that, but at the same time, I feel I can't support the idea of permitting pregnant women to impose *their* choice and personal will on another human life, that of their unborn child, which is why I find myself concerned with the idea of when a human life begins.

Heh, thank you and congratulations!

 

I disagree with you about a woman imposing her choices and will on her child. Think about it: if she had that baby and wanted to feed her child only organic food, that would be her choice, not her child's. In raising a baby, a woman imposes her will and her choices on that infant. And that's her right. You wouldn't force her to give the kid beef raised with human growth hormone in its feed if she didn't want to, would you? What the child would wear, what the child would watch on TV, who the child was allowed to hang out with - those are all the mother (and/or parents') choices. Do we take away that right just because the baby isn't born yet?

 

Also, I strongly agree that abstinence-only sex education is the wrong answer. Just take a moment to go browse Yahoo! Answers' health section. I was absolutely floored by what young women don't know about sex and pregnancy. We need to educate young people about sex, and provide them with the tools they need to prevent conception. Obviously abstinence-only education doesn't work. Hormones go crazy during that period of a person's life, and they're going to have sex even if you tell them not to. (They're going to do a lot of things you tell them not to do, lol!) A lot of the problem, IMHO, stems from parents and not from schools. It isn't the school's job to educate children about sex. That responsibility falls squarely on the parents, but a lot of people aren't comfortable talking about sex with their children and many of them would prefer that their kids don't know. Unfortunately, in this day and age in America, school systems would probably get the pants sued off of them if they tried to teach proper sex-ed. It's a crying shame that people -both in the education system and parents- would rather see unplanned and unwanted teenage pregnancy than to discuss uncomfortable topics with children.

 

I see a lot of talk about religion involved in abortion - mostly Christianity. I just want to remind everyone that abortion (or the inducement of a miscarriage) was first recorded in 1500 BC, in Egypt. In ancient times women tried all manner of methods to lose their unwanted children: bloodletting, strenuous exercise, physical trauma, even drinking mercury. Abortion has always been frowned upon by the general population. Nobody has ever really been happy about potential lives being cut short prematurely. Abortion is not a good thing, and never has been. Back then, abstinence really was the only reliable way to avoid pregnancy. Nowadays, there are so many ways to prevent conception in the first place, it should no longer be an issue.

 

I'd like to bring up a perspective that is often neglected in the abortion debate - what about the father's rights? Sure, he doesn't have to carry the baby in his body, but does that mean he shouldn't get a say in whether or not the mother of his child can abort it? What if he wants the child and is willing to raise it even if the mother is not? I'm not a male, so I can't say for sure how a man would feel about it, but I'm interested in their take on this. Gentlemen, how would you feel if your girlfriend got pregnant and didn't tell you before she went down to the clinic and aborted your child? Do you think that you should have any say in the mother's decision? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree with you about a woman imposing her choices and will on her child. Think about it: if she had that baby and wanted to feed her child only organic food, that would be her choice, not her child's. In raising a baby, a woman imposes her will and her choices on that infant. And that's her right. You wouldn't force her to give the kid beef raised with human growth hormone in its feed if she didn't want to, would you?

Yes you would, if shown that the diet she was imposing on the child was in fact dangerous to the child's health and thus the child was taken from her care. /child protection issues.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes you would, if shown that the diet she was imposing on the child was in fact dangerous to the child's health and thus the child was taken from her care. /child protection issues.

Heh, I'm not talking about a woman who decided to feed her child dog food. Obviously if she was endangering her child's life with the diet, DHR (Department of Human Resources, aka Child Services) would step in. I was trying to make the point that parents exert their will and their choices on their children all the time. Apparently we have no problem forcing a parents' hand after the child is born, but not before. Which seems to me that it gives us the surety that our government believes life begins at birth.

 

Which is an interesting point, I should add. Why is there such a discrepancy between how we feel a mother should treat her child before and after it is born? There's no law criminalizing the consumption of alcohol or tobacco during pregnancy, though it's proven to be damaging to and dangerous for the unborn child. On the flip side of the coin, if a pregnant woman is killed the party responsible can be faced with two charges instead of just one: a charge for the mother's life, and a charge for the child's life. Shouldn't we be consistent with our perspectives?

 

Let me say this, in clarification of my viewpoint. I don't like the idea that the government can tell me what I can and can't do with my body. I think that the criminalization of abortion is a step down a slippery slope. I don't think abortion is right, I would never have one and would never encourage anybody I knew to have one. That aside, I don't think it's my right -or anyone's right- to decide how people live their lives or what they do with their bodies. Would we criminalize sex-change operations? No, even though quite a few people feel it's just as wrong as abortion. (I'm not one of those people, just so it's clear.) Would we make breast augmentation surgery illegal? No. I understand that in these examples we're not talking about the end of a human life, but the principle remains the same. So long as the child is inside the woman's body it's her right to decide what happens.

 

Again, I'd love to read some views on father's rights. Could a father force a mother to have the child, and after the birth allow her to forfeit all parental rights and never again be liable for the child's well-being or financial support? Personally, I think that father's rights are every bit as important as mother's rights, but the men generally get left out of the equation. Is this because outside of medically necessary abortions, dads aren't usually in the picture?

Share this post


Link to post
What's the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? The terms they're identified with? Both are exactly the same thing in terms of what happens. The only difference is is abortion is a conscious choice whereas miscarriage is an accident.

 

'Without a second thought?' :/ That's a bit of a generalisation isn't it?

 

Also, wouldn't it be more merciful to the fetus to kill it before it has developed rather than wait?

 

And I know a lady who miscarried and she very much was hoping to, since she doesn't believe in abortion (I found that ironic).

i have to agree with you,

 

it is rare sometimes, though around were i leave they act like second thinking is not cool, it is careless and foolish to not second thought that though humans normaly second thought a lot of things. a prime example is people with a phobia of needles going to get there shots, though those are needed you can't help but second thought them ohmy.gifwink.gif

 

 

sometimes the body will do that because of Luteal phase defect, found it on this site http://www.ourmiscarriage.com/cause_of_miscarriage.html though i'm not shore if the site is all the way correct, though it states if it is correct the body can abort if it lacks progesterone. i figure that the brain can influence the levels of progesterone to make the abortion happen. stress is the argument that cause misscarriges too.

Share this post


Link to post
Heh, I'm not talking about a woman who decided to feed her child dog food.

No, but I am pointing out that you can take the choice away from the parent as needs must.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I'd love to read some views on father's rights.  Could a father force a mother to have the child, and after the birth allow her to forfeit all parental rights and never again be liable for the child's well-being or financial support?  Personally, I think that father's rights are every bit as important as mother's rights, but the men generally get left out of the equation.  Is this because outside of medically necessary abortions, dads aren't usually in the picture?

If the father and the mother are in a good relationship, they probably would discuss it anyway.

If they aren't in a good relationship, I agree with the man never having to know - sadly, there are plenty of abusive relationships, some husbands might try to quilt-trip, threat or otherwise emotionally or physically abuse their wives to get what they want, others might have tampered with the birth control method in use or outright forbidden the woman from using it to begin with, etc. Horrible, but sadly fairly common.

 

In no way should the man be allowed to force the woman to carry to term.

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post
No, but I am pointing out that you can take the choice away from the parent as needs must.

And I concede that point. Once the child has its own independent body, there's apparently a whole new set of rules. Which is messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
And I concede that point. Once the child has its own independent body, there's apparently a whole new set of rules. Which is messed up.

Not really, given that pre-birth and post-birth the child is a very different organism in a very different situation, subject to a whole new set of variables and influences which will interact in completely new ways. Which bit do you find messed up?

Share this post


Link to post
If the father and the mother are in a good relationship, they probably would discuss it anyway.

If they aren't in a good relationship, I agree with the man never having to know - sadly, there are plenty of abusive relationships, some husbands might try to quilt-trip, threat or otherwise emotionally or physically abuse their wives to get what they want, others might have tampered with the birth control method in use or outright forbidden the woman from using it to begin with, etc. Horrible, but sadly fairly common.

 

In no way should the man be allowed to force the woman to carry to term.

i just wonder why someone would be so stupid as to tamper with the birth control, that seems like there just wanting a baby even if its threw deception. under those cases and with the abusiveness of a male partner to the female the male should not have any say unless the female says other. unless the male wants a sex change and take the child in their who body, which is impossible last time i checked. snipe snipe guys. (last part of this paragraph is mint to be a joke)

 

though if its the female... the father should have the right to say she can keep it though can't get child support from him if he does not want to have the child, so on the bases that the child birthed can't be used as a tool to use someone, that probably would reduce the chances of it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
i just wonder why someone would be so stupid as to tamper with the birth control, that seems like there just wanting a baby even if its threw deception. under those cases and with the abusiveness of a male partner to the female the male should not have any say unless the female says other. unless the male wants a sex change and take the child in their who body, which is impossible last time i checked. snipe snipe guys. (last part of this paragraph is mint to be a joke)

 

though if its the female... the father should have the right to say she can keep it though can't get child support from him if he does not want to have the child, so on the bases that the child birthed can't be used as a tool to use someone, that probably would reduce the chances of it happening.

Selfishness. If he wants her to have kids but she isn't ready, some men just won't take that as an excuse. Oooo if that happened to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Selfishness. If he wants her to have kids but she isn't ready, some men just won't take that as an excuse. Oooo if that happened to me...

It's also one more way to 'weigh down' a woman and force her not to leave an abusive relationship. A woman is fairly mobile and can leave if she gets enough help and encouragement. Add a baby and some more emotional manipulation and you make it even harder for her to go-she's exhausted, she's attached to the child, you can use it as a bargaining chip...yada yada yada.

Share this post


Link to post
It's also one more way to 'weigh down' a woman and force her not to leave an abusive relationship. A woman is fairly mobile and can leave if she gets enough help and encouragement. Add a baby and some more emotional manipulation and you make it even harder for her to go-she's exhausted, she's attached to the child, you can use it as a bargaining chip...yada yada yada.

Plus, never rule out plain old selfishness. There's more than one instance of a guy lying that he's using a condom until it's too late, just because he didn't like using them. Horribly, horribly irresponsible, but it happens.

 

@ MindsEye, I do realize that parents get to impose their will on the child, but the general social and legal understanding is that it's for the child's own good, and if the child is in danger, the law may intervene. A mother still doesn't have the "freedom" to kill her born baby if she doesn't want it, while before it's born, she has that choice. While I would never tell someone what to do (or want the law to dictate what someone may or may not do) with *their own* body, as in a sex change or a surgery, I do think it's acceptable for the law to tell someone when they can and can't take a life. That's why I think defining a human life is always at the core of the issue.

 

I do think a lot about the father's position, but as far as I see it, creating a legal structure in defense of the father is almost certain to be to the detriment of the mother, especially if we're being realistic about the justice system.

Share this post


Link to post

Not really, given that pre-birth and post-birth the child is a very different organism in a very different situation, subject to a whole new set of variables and influences which will interact in completely new ways. Which bit do you find messed up?

Heh, this is part of the reason why I don't often get involved in abortion debates - I wind up talking in circles until I talk myself into a corner.

 

What I find messed up is that we're willing to tell a woman that she can't abort a growing fetus, but we're not willing to hold her criminally responsible for endangering that fetus' life. If it's illegal to give your child dog food, shouldn't it be illegal to drink heavily during pregnancy and risk giving your child fetal alcohol syndrome?

 

If we're not willing to pursue women for other damaging/detrimental things they do to their children before birth, why are we so upset that women terminate their pregnancies? It's okay for you to drink so much that your baby is born with a misshapen cranium and defective heart, but it's not okay to have an abortion? Sure, if someone sees you in the club with a cigarette in one hand, beer in the other, and a baby bump in the middle, you're probably going to get some hostile comments. But DHR isn't going to come in and demand that you give up the baby the moment it's born.

 

It only serves to further illustrate my point that what happens to a baby while inside a woman's body is her responsibility and perspective. If we're not willing to hold her liable for damage done to the child in-utero, what's so wrong about letting her end the pregnancy? We're okay with her having children that will likely be mentally and physically handicapped, possibly leading a miserable life, but heaven forbid that she kill it? If she drinks it to death we're not going to make that criminal, but we're willing to outlaw a significantly more humane abortion?

 

I'm just sayin'. That's messed up.

 

Shienvien

 

If the father and the mother are in a good relationship, they probably would discuss it anyway.

If they aren't in a good relationship, I agree with the man never having to know - sadly, there are plenty of abusive relationships, some husbands might try to quilt-trip, threat or otherwise emotionally or physically abuse their wives to get what they want, others might have tampered with the birth control method in use or outright forbidden the woman from using it to begin with, etc. Horrible, but sadly fairly common.

 

In no way should the man be allowed to force the woman to carry to term.

 

Thanks! I have a couple questions for you. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? (I'm too lazy to scroll through the whole thread to find out if you posted your stance previously.) Second, your answer seems to be largely based on circumstance. True, if the mother and father have a good relationship they are probably likely to discuss it and make a decision together. What if they tried to be careful but failed, say the condom broke and she got pregnant. Dad decides he wants to raise the child, but mom decides she wants an abortion. What then? Aren't we making second-class citizens out of men by telling them that they don't have any rights to their unborn child just because women are the ones carrying it?

 

@ xhunter: If the female is agreeable, the man can surrender his parental rights. When a person (man or woman) surrenders their parental right, they're no longer liable for child support, but are also no longer entitled to custody or any tax benefits that come with having children. Currently, however, there is no way for a man to do this without the woman's agreement and vice versa. So, since we're not willing to let a man wash his hands of a child, whether he wants it or not, shouldn't we impose the same restriction on a woman?

 

Personally, I think that the child's father is probably the only person or entity who has the right to stop a woman from having an abortion, unless the pregnancy is a danger to the mother's life. To be fair, even if a man pokes a hole in the condom because he really wants a kid, if the woman is on birth control that's probably not going to work. Furthermore, if she gets pregnant through underhanded means, she'd have the right to give the child to its father, leave him, and never need to think about it again.

 

Though I've never known a female personally who did this, I hear stories rather frequently of women who tamper with birth control and/or lie about being on a contraceptive in order to entrap a man by conceiving his child. There's not really a way for men to get out of such a situation, either. If DNA testing proves that the child is his, he's usually required to at least pay child support and jailed if he refuses to do so. If we're willing to make men so liable for their children, shouldn't we give them the power to force a woman into having their child, even if the woman doesn't want to? It seems terribly hypocritical of us to give a woman the right to kill a child without giving that child's father a say in the matter.

 

@ WereJace: You're absolutely right about that. But, on the flip side of the coin, if a woman is abused she can report it to the police and have her abusive partner jailed. There are shelters and support networks that will help a woman get out of such a relationship. Even if she is abused and afraid, she still has a choice. My mother's first husband hit her... until one day she punched him in the face and left for good. I'm not saying its easy, and I'm not saying it's a good situation for any woman, but in the eyes of the Law she has a choice whether or not to leave the man.

 

The point I'm trying to make in all of this is why we don't need laws to regulate abortions. There are so many circumstances and situations surrounding a woman's choice to have an abortion that it simply isn't possible to make a law which accommodates them all. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is so intensely personal, and so often based on personal belief and situation, I don't feel that the government has any business poking its nose in. As long as there are doctors willing to perform the procedure and women looking to have it done, it should be allowed to continue. From a personal standpoint, I can't imagine doing such a thing - the thought horrifies me. From a political standpoint, I don't think the government has any right to insert itself into such personal matters. In custody battles, in DHR cases, and in most other aspects, the law tries to enforce what is best for the child. Is it better that the child be born into horrible circumstances, or is it better for the child's life to be ended before it is born to a mother who doesn't want it? My best friend in high school was adopted, and constantly struggled with the fact that her biological parents didn't want her. Is it better to do that to a person than to simply end their life before they even know they have one?

 

Reform the healthcare system, and make birth control more accessible to people. Do a better job educating our children about sex. Don't make laws that restrict medical procedures based on personal choices. That's a step in the wrong direction.

 

(Heh, it's really tough to be against abortion but argue pro-choice. I'm enjoying the challenge and I hope you all are enjoying debating the points I'm bringing up!)

 

Edited to add:

 

I do think a lot about the father's position, but as far as I see it, creating a legal structure in defense of the father is almost certain to be to the detriment of the mother, especially if we're being realistic about the justice system.

 

There, you hit the nail on the head. We can't trust the justice system to be fair to both the father and the mother, so why do we trust it to be fair to just the mother? Or to just the child? It can't be, by its nature, which is why we shouldn't give it the power to have a say.

 

Partial birth abortions are barbaric, and thus, illegal. Can't we just be content with that?

Edited by MindsEye

Share this post


Link to post

You cannot give the father rights to keep the baby over the mother's objections without taking rights away from the mother in the process. If you give a man the right to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term, risking her mental and physical health in the process, you might as well just call women nothing more than living incubators and be done with it.

 

Yes, a couple should be able to talk it over and come to a consensus if they're in a healthy relationship, but he gets no rights to her body if they can't come to an agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
You cannot give the father rights to keep the baby over the mother's objections without taking rights away from the mother in the process. If you give a man the right to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term, risking her mental and physical health in the process, you might as well just call women nothing more than living incubators and be done with it.

 

Yes, a couple should be able to talk it over and come to a consensus if they're in a healthy relationship, but he gets no rights to her body if they can't come to an agreement.

Exactly! We're not willing to give that right to the child's father for goodness' sake, so why oh why would we give Uncle Sam the privilege?!

Share this post


Link to post

What about women who have a phobia of pregnancy? Should they be forced to carry to term? I personally have a friend who almost shot herself when she had false pregnancy signs. Those women are in so much relief when recieving an abortion and I don't think that calling them a child killer and using G-d as guilt is the best thing for them after a traumatic experience...but hey, that's just me.

Pointing this out again because this is me. When I had a medical issue that showed symptoms of pregnancy instead of the expected symptoms, I jumped in front of a bus hoping to at least miscarry from the trauma and at that point I was so terrified I didn't care about the other possible results.

 

edit: Adding to that, I hadn't been stupid and was using two compatible types of protection but there isn't much a person can do when one isn't very effective by itself and the rubber breaks. After that, even though I'm bi, I've stopped having relationships with men just so I can avoid that terror again.

Edited by dragon_mando

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly! We're not willing to give that right to the child's father for goodness' sake, so why oh why would we give Uncle Sam the privilege?!

Then I have to ask, what did you mean by this:

 

Personally, I think that the child's father is probably the only person or entity who has the right to stop a woman from having an abortion, unless the pregnancy is a danger to the mother's life.

Share this post


Link to post

The same thing. If anyone has the right to deny an abortion, it's the father. The responses so far have indicated that giving the father the right to force birth isn't fair or proper, and probably detrimental to the mother. So why is it okay for the law to force her but not the dad?

 

Edited for redundancy.

Edited by MindsEye

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, this is part of the reason why I don't often get involved in abortion debates - I wind up talking in circles until I talk myself into a corner.

 

What I find messed up is that we're willing to tell a woman that she can't abort a growing fetus, but we're not willing to hold her criminally responsible for endangering that fetus' life.  If it's illegal to give your child dog food, shouldn't it be illegal to drink heavily during pregnancy and risk giving your child fetal alcohol syndrome?

 

If we're not willing to pursue women for other damaging/detrimental things they do to their children before birth, why are we so upset that women terminate their pregnancies?  It's okay for you to drink so much that your baby is born with a misshapen cranium and defective heart, but it's not okay to have an abortion?  Sure, if someone sees you in the club with a cigarette in one hand, beer in the other, and a baby bump in the middle, you're probably going to get some hostile comments.  But DHR isn't going to come in and demand that you give up the baby the moment it's born.

 

It only serves to further illustrate my point that what happens to a baby while inside a woman's body is her responsibility and perspective.  If we're not willing to hold her liable for damage done to the child in-utero, what's so wrong about letting her end the pregnancy?  We're okay with her having children that will likely be mentally and physically handicapped, possibly leading a miserable life, but heaven forbid that she kill it?  If she drinks it to death we're not going to make that criminal, but we're willing to outlaw a significantly more humane abortion?

 

I'm just sayin'.  That's messed up.

Quite simple: Practicability.

 

How can you ensure a pregnant woman isn't drinking, or prevent her from drinking, any more than you can another person? What justification and limitation is there to stopping said woman drinking dangerous amounts; post a 24/7 guard on all pregnant women? How can you ensure she isn't abusing drugs any more than another person? And how can you prove that the physical damage done to a child was carried out by a mother while she was carrying it?

 

And yes, a baby can be taken into care from the moment of birth as required. If it is justifiably feared that the mother is unsuitable, Social Services can take the child into protection and remove the mother's rights from the child totally.

 

There, you hit the nail on the head. We can't trust the justice system to be fair to both the father and the mother, so why do we trust it to be fair to just the mother? Or to just the child? It can't be, by its nature, which is why we shouldn't give it the power to have a say.

A child's safety is paramount over all other concerns. This is in part because a child has even less chance, methods and ability to protect itself.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post
The same thing. If anyone has the right to deny an abortion, it's the father. The responses so far have indicated that giving the father the right to force birth isn't fair or proper, and probably detrimental to the mother. So why is it okay for the law to force her but not the dad?

 

Edited for redundancy.

Well, I'm pro-choice, so I don't think it's okay for either to have that right. Why do you think it's okay for the father to?

Share this post


Link to post

if they force the mother not to abort they should just make the offspring a test tube baby. that is the only way not to take away her rights.

Share this post


Link to post
if they force the mother not to abort they should just make the offspring a test tube baby. that is the only way not to take away her rights.

What do you mean by this - grow the child in a test-tube? That's not possible at the moment I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post

She didn't necessarily say that it's okay for the father to have a say in keeping or terminating the pregnancy -- only that the father is the one person most reasonably allowed any kind of input, much more so than the law and a bunch of strangers. So, since the father *doesn't* get any legal say in it, then strangers should have even less legal right to decide.

 

I *think* that was the gist, anyway!

Share this post


Link to post

What do you mean by this - grow the child in a test-tube? That's not possible at the moment I'm afraid.

matter of speech, nothing much other than to point out that its impossible to make women keep their rights as a human under human law if they have to keep the offspring in them, taking the offspring out is the only way to preserver the life of the child and the right of the mother. the term test tube babie i see often though si-fi books and moves has the most infulence of the term. i seen a example for something like this somewhere i will go see if i can find it again and post it for you.

 

edited=found the example though i was a little off, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_test_tube_babies they would have to remove the baby from the mother and give it to another mother to carry if they wanted the baby, if the other mother is willing to take it. though i was shooting more for the si-fi thought of births without a mother, you would have to see one of the shows about it of the books though.

Edited by xhunter

Share this post


Link to post
She didn't necessarily say that it's okay for the father to have a say in keeping or terminating the pregnancy -- only that the father is the one person most reasonably allowed any kind of input, much more so than the law and a bunch of strangers. So, since the father *doesn't* get any legal say in it, then strangers should have even less legal right to decide.

 

I *think* that was the gist, anyway!

What about learned medical professionals making snap-decisions in a crisis situation?

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.