Abortion

Remove all ads!

Dorion Blackstar, your willingness to support a child without its mother's involvement is as admirable as it is, unfortunately, rare. Does this support extend to helping the mother through her pregnancy, including such things as:
* transportation to all doctor visits and tests
* payment for all medical care
* new wardrobe
* compensation for lost wages or opportunities for advancement, as applicable

 

Another EDIT-- Nothing personal here Dorion, I believe what you say. However, I don't think it wise to make the law on what a few people may do.

There is also the fact that many men say, "I'll raise the child, be the father etc" but when the moment of truth comes they are nowhere to be found.

Also, one pro-life argument is that the woman had a choice when she chose to have sex. Something could be similarly said about the man, he chose to have sex, if he didn't want to be put in a situation where the woman he had sex with was pregnant he could've chosen not to.

The difference in the choices for the men and women is that when a woman makes the choice for an abortion or against she is making a choice regarding her own body and potentially the body of another (about 1/2 of the U.S. thinks there is only 1 body and the other 1/2 thinks there are two, that's the debate.) However, were a man to be given the right to make the choice he would necessarily be making a decision of what another is to do with her body, there is NO debate over that.

You want the choice of being able to say:
1) have an abortion and if you don't I won't pay

or

2) don't have an abortion because I want a child and even if you want one you can't have it.

It looks to me like an escape clause for men, they get to make the choice without having to bear the major responsibility. In your system the men get the final say to either have the child or to not bear any responsibility by telling the woman to have an abortion.

How is that more fair then the current situation?

EDIT-- Viking, years ago in the U.S. there was a similar suit. Man and woman were divorcing, she was going to get an abortion, he told her he'd offer a better divorce settlement if she didn't. She refused and he took he threatened to file a wrongful death civil suit. She went to court to preclude this and by the time it was done she was past the point of being able to have an aboriton. This was a one time trick though in that now there is precedent and laws have taken this into account and it can be dealt with quickly. I wonder if the same happened in the U.K. in that it was a one hit wonder in the sense that now that it has been dealt with it is no longer a viable tactic.

[ December 17, 2002, 20:20: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I remember that case Laches.

You correctly point out how at this point, too many men are not around to accept the responsibility of their actions (i.e. children).

It really gets my goat all this talk about women accepting responsibility. So many more women are taking responsibility. If we have a problem, it is with men NOT taking responsibility.

What a tangled mess this issue is.
Let's talk welfare:

how many women are on welfare with 3 kids and no husband?

How many people who oppose abortion support welfare to single moms?

How about childcare expenses to single moms on welfare trying to work?

So many people talk (not here per se) about responsibility but want to pull the rug out from under the feet of the women who are taking responsibility (having those babies).
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Makes me sick.

 

I planned on taking a permanent vacation from SP, but when I noticed this I had to post...

Jack, please. You've always been a levelheaded guy, but posts like this always get me pissed off [search for "The ethics of Napster" thread on SP]. Dismissing someone as a person just because they seem to you as a bad arguer, violent feminist, etc. is not a fun way to conduct your buisiness. As a leftist on almost all fronts, I have had trouble swallowing a lot of the pro-life arguments in this thread, but I can deal with the people who wrote them.

Anyway, it's really not worth it to ignore someone completely just because you are in COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT with them on a given subject. Happy Holidays.

 

For those in America, it is a FREE country. The government should have no say in what we do. Granted, some people use it as birth control, or so I've heard, and also breach birthing and inserting saline solution should be an illegal form of abortion, but America is a FREE country. Therefore, just because some people disagree with the idea, does not make it evil or such. What if she was raped? Incest? 50% chance of major deformation? Abortion is not just in the mother's best interest, but the also the child's. It would be unfair to bring into this world a child who for all intents and purposes defy's Darwins law(the strong survive) and have so much trouble that they end up hating themselves? Unless of course you subscribe to original sin, in which you are probably anti-abortion anyways, although you may not, so please do not take offense at my supposition.

 

Abortion is Murder. Simple as.

 

Okay I feel compelled to respond to SlimShogun.
My reason for leaving this thread have to do with two things:
1. I stated my position.
2. I found that I was merely responding to very broad rants, which brought the racism in the application of the death penalty, right to bear arms, and sexism into the debate. All in an attempt to portray the anti-abortion side in a very negative light. I found this to be exhausting and fruitless.

Part of it has to do with poor debate skills. Chalk it up to the emotional state of the Scamparella and her personal stake in this argument. I can accept that. It chilled me to the bone when she implied that she was not comfortable with her decision.
That said, I don't see it as an excuse to characterize me in any way other than anti-abortion.
I was able to leave emotion out of it and not get personal.

Tearing her up and down? Hardly. I called her on her statements. It would have been VERY EASY for me to get nasty with Scamparella. I could have said all kinds of horrible things, as many people on my side of the debate do regularly. I didn't.
Why?
Because it would be wrong to do so. I don't judge Scamparella or anyone else who is pro-abortion. It's not my place. Additionally, I do respect Scamparella as a person and do not want to do anything to hurt another person.
That said, I will retract my "ignore all topics by Scamparella" comment and simply agree to disagree on the political things.

[ December 19, 2002, 16:59: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

I would tend to agree with you Laches,since my belief seems to be such a minority I doubt we will see any laws protecting fathers rights to protect their unborn children.

In response to Rallymama I would have to say in the situation I proposed,yes,the father in question would have to pick up all expenses caused by the birth,medical and personal.

I just read Laches link on the murder of the unborn fetus.I know this is going to spark some angry responses and I believe this guy should be charged with murder,However I find it interesting that a man killing an unborn fetus is murder but if a women gets an abortion it is not.Though I am sure that in this case if it had been a women who attacked the other women she would have been charged with murder as well.

Dont get me wrong that guy should go to jail,and I also believe in a womens right to abortion,but it does pose an interesting question?

Awaiting the angry flames to fall on my head.

 

No, Jack did not call me on any statements, he simply chose to undermine my credibility by posturing himself above....

Abortion is not a simple issue. A person cannot say in one instance 'life is all important' and then add 'when I deem it so'. The death penalty, and welfare support are connected to this issue of abortion by virtue of the fact they deal with the same moral issues. I guess Jack needs someone to connect the dots or else he can't follow a line of argument. Pity, and he thinks he is so smart...

BTW, excuse me if I get passionate here, but my 'discomfort' was not with my choice; it was for one, the result of having had a self-centered boyfriend who just about left me for death so he could get enough sleep one morning. My abortion was for naught, I had an ectopic pregnancy and was bleeding to death internally. I have lived 20 yrs knowing I have limited capacity to bear children and therefore not had the luxury of choice which I promote so readily. I certainly wouldn't expect Jack to give a **** enough to probe into the matter at any depth, but if he insists on using my statements as fodder I choose to clarify them irregardless of his obvious callousness.

Oh, and one more thing, who would have been *responsible* had I died? Me, for being too afraid to tell my parents? The nurse for telling me I just had cramps, when I coudn't even walk upright? My boyfriend?

[ December 18, 2002, 21:37: Message edited by: scarampella ]

 

Hmm, I didn't feel like reading through all 5 pages, but that doesn't stop me from giving my opinion. I, for one, hate abortion. Bearing children is a gift, and not all women are granted with it. I mean, I'd love to have children one day, and I'm seriously scared that I may not be able to, but that's hardly the point I want to make.

The point is, if the male and female had been practicing safe sex, abortion wouldn't be a factor in the aspect. As far as like rape and incest goes, my heart goes out to all the women that have been sexually abused like that. I couldn't think of anything worse then that for a woman, besides death. But, is abortion really the answer to their troubles? I don't think so. You know, two rights don't make a wrong, and killing a child before it even had a chance to live is wrong, flat out wrong.

@Scarampella, I'm a bit of a feminist myself, and let me tell ya, I totally believe that if a woman has unprotected sex, it's her fault. Why, you ask? Look, I carry a condom in my purse everywhere I go, why can't other women do that? Who's to say that the male has to carry all the protection? While he should have some on him, we women should protect ourselves too. I've even heard of female condoms. Diaphrams can stay inside a woman for hours without hurting them, I mean there are methods of protection for us, and with all these diseases running around here, getting pregnant should be the least of a girl's worries. So, yeah, if the girl allows the guy to stick his soldier in without his helmet, then it's all on her if she gets pregnant.

I get so tired of that speech, you know, the "I didn't mean for this to happen" speech, or the "Why me" speech. Can you be any more stupid? You know what happens when you have unprotected sex! You're not dumb, stupid yes, dumb no. You know that there's a very good chance for you to get pregnant. I've known 14 year old girls on birth control pills, and if that's what it's come to, if I have a daughter, I'll shove them down her throat every night.

Now, I'm not saying it's totally the girl's fault, 'cause he should know better too. Girls carry diseases just like guy's do. So, if he starts itching down there, that's his fault too. And if they conceive a child, and he doesn't want to accept his responibility, then he's a no-good punk that should be cast out from society. It's his type that are making single mothers pop up everyday with careless abandon.

*sighs* The whole situation just gets on my nerves. If the children were educated enough, by parents and sex ed classes in school, then abortion wouldn't be as prominent as it is now. All that life, all the potential destroyed because someone didn't want to wrap it up. It sickens me.

Scarampella, I didn't know that you had an abortion, and I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I don't know you, and you don't know me, however, I'm still adamant that the proper protection could've avoided that whole nasty situation, I wouldn't care how much of an @$$hole my b/f was. I really am sorry for your loss though, I'm even sadder for that child that never had a chance.

[ December 18, 2002, 22:11: Message edited by: DarkGoddess ]

 

Rallymama: if it were only that simple(which really is not that simple anyhow)

I like to try and avoid the personal stories but sometimes I suppose they lend credence to the positions...

Not all unwanted pregnancies are the result of unprotected sex.

Every form of birth control has a margin of error.

Must I really get into detail here?

May it suffice to say I used my diaphragm and still got pregnant.

So what then? Are we going to advocate 'just say no' to sex? Do you believe that would actually work?

 

Since you mentioned that margin of error, however infinitesimal it may be, you still have to take it into account. I mean, if you use like 2 or more methods, like for instance a condom and the pill, the chances of getting pregnant are really really low, less then 1% low.

My point is, once you recognize the margin of error, you have to recognize that you still have a chance to get pregnant. And if just totally abstaining from sex is what a person has to do in order to avoid having children, then hey, that's what they have to do. Then again, there's getting your tubes tied, that works just as well. That's more of a personal decision though.

I mean, hey, I like sex, I like it a lot, and I use protection, but even I acknowledge that I could get pregnant from doing so. I mean, I know that I have someone who would stick besides me and my child no matter what, and unfortunately not all women have that.

I guess being emotionally secure is also a big factor. We women are a bit prone to getting attached to someone who doesn't want attachments. Still, getting pregnant unintentionally can be deemed a mistake, I suppose, and we all learn from our mistakes, one way or another.

 

dark goddess: sorry i refered to you as rallymama

responsibility: that word again.
I want to state again this is not a simple issue. We cannot even begin to forsee every circumstance. How we can possibly believe there could be a cut and dry solution is a ridiculous concept in my opinion.

Responsibility: but if there were only a way that the life of a child were in fact the responsibility of two people I might have a different view.

As long as our society sells Barbie, Brittany Spears, and Victoria Secret.... we are going to have young women getting pregnant with the men they love. It is unfair to promote and chastise at the same time.

[ December 18, 2002, 22:56: Message edited by: scarampella ]

 

I was wondering about that rallymama thing, but ah well.

Anyways, I wasn't aware that I was promoting abortion, 'cause I'm not, however, I'm well aware that terminating the pregnancy may be the one way for the woman to survive or both the woman and child will die. I'm well aware of this, I don't like it one bit, but I know that in certain circumstances, it may be the only choice, literally. And in those instances, we pro-lifers have to just swallow our thoughts and accept it.

 

You may have misunderstood my post, I didn't think you were supporting abortion

 

Thanks, Jack.

 

Scarampella,

Enough is enough. I had posted a response to your latest bought of madness, but I removed it. It is fruitless to try to have a civil discussion with someone who cannot leave emotion out of it. I had hoped that my previous post would have cleared the air, but you are unwilling to let it go.
I feel sorry for you. You obviously have many unresolved issues related with this issue. I encourage you to get help. I am going to start therapy again after the new year to help me deal with my brothers murder and the feelings of anger and loss that I carry with me every day. I encourage you to do the same.
I wish the best for you. I hope that you find peace and joy. I will remember you in my prayers.

[ December 19, 2002, 17:09: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

I don't really have anything relevant to add here, but I think I'll just warn you guys to lay off, or Tal will have to do for 'Abortion' what he did for 'Random Babbling Post'.

 

This might sound a bit conservative, but the only real way I see we can find a solution to this is by stating that before the child is born, the man can only be responsible for protecting the woman, not the child. The responsibility over the child is up to the mother alone. After birth, the responsibility over the child falls on both parents, but not before that. For as long as the fetus needs the womans body to survive (meaning while it still resides in her womb, feeding and living from her system), it is her own personal "property", so to speak. No man can force a woman to 9-month pregnancy and child labor only because he was the one who gave his seed to breed the baby.

And as I already said in the beginning of this all (on one form or another as I can't remember and will not go and check), it is wrong that abortion should be used as a means for prevention. But to claim control over the body and life of a woman against her will on the basis of an unborn and unwanted fetus is certainly not the answer to this. As we all know, it has got to be a fairly difficult subject since the 6 billion people living on this globe of rock have not yet come to an even somewhat satisfying conclusion over what would be the best solution over the matter. But I do strongly object to any ideas that lead to full denial of abortion, since it's obvious there are times when it is needed.

And yes, I am and always have been acting against all forms of religious or other fanatics and their disturbing habit of wanting to control the lives of others. The term, "abortion is murder", reflects the same attitude that these fanatics have on many other things as well. Blasphemy in its way can be murder, as many religious fanatics think it deserves the penalty of death. The are countries where a word from a woman's mouth will bring a death penalty. This is the way of fanatics. The simple coincidence that this time their "abortion is murder" cannot be scientifically overruled or proven wrong by the general public (as opinions are too divided) does not make this matter any different. It is a matter of fanaticism, for me at least. There are those who do not act against abortion because of fanaticism, of course. But should the fanatics-come-opportunists be taken away from the abortion resistance count, I'm sure people would be surprised at how few there were left.

Edit: As for my opinion on the "birth" of the child, I think this should be left for the nature to decide, as it has been so far. When the child comes out of the womb, she is born. Before that, she is not. Even though one week before birth the child is about exactly as developed as the day it comes out, I think that if we really MUST draw a clear non-compromising line then this is where it must be. So abortion before birth should be allowed. Questions of wether or not it is murder or anything other should be left for the time after it is born, after it comes valid as a human beign with all the rights of a human child.

[ January 02, 2003, 11:23: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

@Soul forever seeking.
I think the moderators are well aware of what they are doing and not doing. Anyway no posts had been posted in two weeks; So they kinda layed off already.

Some good came out of it though. Forashi's post.