What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

[oldbadger]

Do you support these people's right to vote on whether to provide care in any other cases, or only in this situation? As a man, you're never going to be in a position where you would seek an abortion yourself; is there any situation where you think it would be right for you to go to a hospital seeking medical care, only to be turned away because the staff decided they didn't want to do it?

Hello again.....

I think that I can do better than refer to the NHS's refusal to rid me of a bothersome calcified testicle!

The closest and most pertinent example is actually pro 'pro-choice', but since I really came onto this thread to point out that the Poll was badly thought out ..., I claim 'moderate' status anyway.

There is not only choice to terminate before birth, but also after birth. Hear me out.

In England, when a baby is born with severe disabilities that will affect the later quality of its life, and (I suspect) where the costs of care will be exceptional, the parents are visited by a 'special person' who puts options before them that they might not have thought of before. I would strongly suggest that these 'special people' are trained to guide to 'termination'.

If both parents (fathers having equal status) can agree that a hospital will only feed the baby 'on demand', then this will almost certainly lead to baby's death, since babies which are significantly disabled do not ask to be fed.

Ergo....... there is a form of termination after birth, and in these cases it might have been much 'better' had there been a termination before birth. A long time ago my first wife (I am a widower) and I were taken down this route. At that time I knew an extraordinary man who had no arms, clubbed feet and what we then called 'spastic'. He was a single-handed skipper (with two clever dogs) on the steel tug-boat 'Hobbit', hauling barges between London and East Coast ports. (ain't life amazing?) and I kept telling the hospital that my son would be ok, 'cos I was thinking about this guy..... but of course it was different....

Anyway....... there you have it..... there is termination after birth, and therefore in severe cases there is strong argument for late termination before birth. Today these cases are mainly discovered early on, but we still have a % of births where the foetus/baby is severely injured during birth, usually severe head injuries.

I know that you are pushing for far beyond that point, but this point, put to pro-life debaters, might move a very few of them one step towards your position.

 

[Shiranui117]

People shouldnt just "do whatever they want" without taking consideration on the consequences. Why would you expect women to be an exception?

^This.

Having an abortion is a choice otherwise the term is miscarriage. In any case, if someone aborted her baby against her will I would be extremely surprised if he held the woman accountable for it.

I wouldn't. In this case, I would fully support throwing the responsible person in the slammer, and giving the woman whatever emotional/mental counseling she needs to get over that trauma--at the perpetrator's expense.

His was also a misconscruction, because both women and men are pro life and pro choice though.

Personally, the only woman I know who has told me she doesnt feel abortion is wrong is my mother. Then on, others seem to have indeed a high respect for life since its conception. Those that I have met at least.

The thing is that I see both sides misconstructing the other and to me its a bit amazing.

True. I needed a couple more qualifiers in there.

It is wrong for a human to want to do anything that s/he wants without care or consideration for others wellbeing. This of course does not exclude women.

It implies that women dont want to face the consecuences, in this case, that they brought an inocent life to this world.

Yep.

I am not sure what you mean here. Having an abortion is a choice, at least in the contrxt we are speaking.

It implies they should not take away the rights of the unborn. If we are talking about consensual sex as he implied, both she and the man knew this could happen and took the risk. Killing your way out of it its not an option, it hasothing to do with guilt and everytng to do with doing your best with what you ve got.

^This.

As far as I am concerned, they should charge the father to help mantain the baby even since in belly.

Yep. From all the stats I've ever seen, being a singe mom sucks financially, to put it bluntly. It's not a fun time. I would love to see less divorce, less out-of-wedlock intercourse, and more effective and available help for those whose financial/job situation necessitates an abortion; "I don't have enough money to raise a child" shouldn't even come close to being an excuse in the richest country in the world. The fact that financial situations (including students who get pregnant) are a very real concern when having an abortion is a shame to our country and its people (at least to the people who are able to help, but don't). If there was enough societal/financial support available to help those with difficult financial situations to raise a child, and if more efficient and well-structured adoption programs were in place, I think the abortion rate would plummet.

I concede both of those were clumsy generalizations on his part.

As do I.

 

[oldbadger]

Men already do decide. They call themselves congress.

Wow....... Did men decide all this?
Could you please list what more freedom of choice you would like?
I picked one State at random.......

State Facts About Abortion: California

State Facts About Abortion: California
Get PDF version

National Background and Context
Abortion is a common experience: At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 58% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 61% have one or more children; 85% are unmarried; 69% are economically disadvantaged; and 73% report a religious affiliation. No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority: 36% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 30% are black non-Hispanic, 25% are Hispanic and 9% are of other racial backgrounds.
Contraceptive use is a key predictor of women's recourse to abortion. The very small group of American women who are at risk of experiencing an unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives account for almost half of all abortions. Many of these women did not think they would get pregnant or had concerns about contraceptive methods. The remainder of abortions occur among the much larger group of women who were using contraceptives in the month they became pregnant. Many of these women report difficulty using contraceptives consistently.
Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the United States. Fewer than 0.5% of women obtaining abortions experience a complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about one-tenth that associated with childbirth.
In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman, in consultation with her physician, has a constitutionally protected right to choose abortion in the early stages of pregnancy-that is, before viability. In 1992, the Court upheld the basic right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, it also expanded the ability of the states to enact all but the most extreme restrictions on women's access to abortion. The most common restrictions in effect are parental notification or consent requirements for minors, state-sponsored counseling and waiting periods, and limitations on public funding.

 

[Revoltingest]

And "This guy" demonstrated a rather demeaning view of woman who choose to have abortions. That probably wasn't the best example you could have chosen.

You say it is demeaning, but I disagree.
But you may also consider the better examples you know of.

 

[Falvlun]

I am not sure what you mean here. Having an abortion is a choice, at least in the contrxt we are speaking.

I'm not going to belabor the point, as I can see your side on many of those.

I did want to comment on this one though. Yes, having an abortion is a choice, but it is also a consequence to her actions. It's not like having an abortion is a walk in the park, both physically and emotionally. If a woman gets pregnant, there is no "get out of jail free" card.

I concede both of those were clumsy generalizations on his part.

As do I.

I am satisfied with this.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Most people here understand taking an innocent life for self defense, including cases of abortion.

The man doesnt want to pay for a son he didnt want to have? He shouldnt have _____. (Hint: its not "sex" its "______ sex" ( no, its not premarital sex)

The thing is unless life is at risk you dont deliberately kill an innocent person.

IF LIFE IS AT RISK then the person's whose LIFE is at risk has the choice.

All of this is predicated on the point of the health and autonomy of a woman and her body means nothing if she is pregnant.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not going to belabor the point, as I can see your side on many of those.

I did want to comment on this one though. Yes, having an abortion is a choice, but it is also a consequence to her actions. It's not like having an abortion is a walk in the park, both physically and emotionally. If a woman gets pregnant, there is no "get out of jail free" card.





I am satisfied with this.

Depends on the woman. Some feel guilty, but others truly dont care because they dont see human value there.

 

[Me Myself]

All of this is predicated on the point of the health and autonomy of a woman and her body means nothing if she is pregnant.

It means everything that it has always meant. She has all her rights.

The only right she does not have is right to kill the unborn.

Men dont have that right either.

 

[Falvlun]

Depends on the woman. Some feel guilty, but others truly dont care because they dont see human value there.

I wasn't only talking about guilt, MM, nor am I even suggesting that every woman should feel guilty.

I also mentioned the physical aspect. It's a surgery. A safe surgery, but it's still a surgery. That's a consequence.

And for the emotional side, there's more than guilt. There could be sadness, such as if she wants to be a mother, but knows that now is not a good time. There could be fear that people will find out and judge her. There could be doubt and uncertainty. The point is that an abortion isn't a "get out of free" card. It doesn't make the consequences of an unintended pregnancy go away; it produces different ones. An unintended pregnancy will have consequences regardless of the choice of the mother, and to pretend otherwise is inhumane.

You gotta think a little further than the life the fetus, Me. There's a real live woman also, and even if you do think she is a murderer for choosing to abort, she is still more than just that one action.

 

[Sunstone]

All of this is predicated on the point of the health and autonomy of a woman and her body means nothing if she is pregnant.

Oh, jeez, I suppose now you're going to tell us it should. :ignore:

 

[Falvlun]

To the life-is-sacred-and-must-be-protected crowd, what is your response to the dilemma of a child requiring a blood transfusion, and it is discovered that you are her best shot at life. Should you have no choice but to donate the blood?

(I know this has been done before, but I don't recall the responses.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It means everything that it has always meant. She has all her rights.

The only right she does not have is right to kill the unborn.

Men dont have that right either.

Men have the right to deny anyone else the use of their body. They also have the right to choose not to subject themselves to bodily risk even if someone else will certainly die because of their decision.

 

[dawny0826]

Is the abortion debate really all about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, or is it more about controlling women's reproductive choices? What do you think?

I think it's a crazy mix and you cannot blanket label people and their thought processes as a great deal of factors influence viewpoint on abortion.

And if it is really about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, then why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception? Especially, contraceptives that have nothing to do with abortion?

Depends on who holds these opinions. Take my Grandmother, for instance. In her (brand) of conservative form, she subscribes to a belief system where abortion is wrong and contraception is sinful, but, her application of this is primarily applied when evaluating people and their life decisions. She feels it's wrong to have sex outside the auspices of marriage, period.

Catholics oppose contraception within the auspices of marriage, while opposing abortion. The premise behind both forms of opposition is absolutely morality-focused at it's core. The opposition against contraception yields impractical results, but, doesn't necessarily translate to a control over women's reproduction. Family planning and choice still lies in the court of the Catholic family.

If someone opposes both abortion and non-aborting contraceptives, isn't their position more consistent with a desire to control women's reproductive choices than it is consistent with a desire to merely prevent the killing of fetuses?

Maybe. Depends on the person.

 

[Shiranui117]

To the life-is-sacred-and-must-be-protected crowd, what is your response to the dilemma of a child requiring a blood transfusion, and it is discovered that you are her best shot at life. Should you have no choice but to donate the blood?

(I know this has been done before, but I don't recall the responses.)

I don't know why you wouldn't give a pint or two to save someone's life, barring medical problems on your end... Sure, you can refuse to give them the blood transfusion, but then you have the guilt of letting someone die hanging over your head. I think only the coldest people would refuse. But I don't think you should be "forced." Human dignity and the respect for human life alone should be compelling enough.

 

[adi2d]

I don't know why you wouldn't give a pint or two to save someone's life, barring medical problems on your end... Sure, you can refuse to give them the blood transfusion, but then you have the guilt of letting someone die hanging over your head. I think only the coldest people would refuse. But I don't think you should be "forced." Human dignity and the respect for human life alone should be compelling enough.

If instead of a couple pints of blood,what about something that would change your life. Should you be required to give a kidney if it would save a child?

 

[LuisDantas]

As I see it, it is mainly an effort at keeping society in harmony with a familiar, confortable model. I don't think controlling women's reproductive choices is a particularly accurate way of describing it, though. It is probably correct, but sort of accidentally, periphericaly.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't know why you wouldn't give a pint or two to save someone's life, barring medical problems on your end... Sure, you can refuse to give them the blood transfusion, but then you have the guilt of letting someone die hanging over your head. I think only the coldest people would refuse. But I don't think you should be "forced." Human dignity and the respect for human life alone should be compelling enough.

So you think it should be a choice to give the blood, even though you'd disdain a person who chose not to?

Do you find this analogous to the abortion debate? If not, why not?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh, jeez, I suppose now you're going to tell us it should. :ignore:

LOL of course it should.

A woman's body is her body, and it's her body, and it's her body. Is a man a murderer if he has a vasectomy against everyone's consent? Is a person guilty of treason if he or she refuses to join the armed forces in times of war? Is a miscarriage mourned in the same way as a baby that died?

The answer to all of these is "no." And not only "no", but "of course not."

The difference is that culturally we are still under the impression that a woman who chooses alone what happens to her body or not....whether it's to follow through with a pregnancy, whether it's to utilize contraception, whether it's to give consent or not to sex, whether it's to present herself in a certain way that speaks to her sexual autonomy....is not entirely hers to make.

That's the elephant in the room that anti-choicers would prefer to remain quiet about. The idea that "she shouldn't just do what she wants" includes what she should do with her own body.

Such ethical and cultural restrictions do not extend to males with what they wish to do with their own bodies.

 

[Shiranui117]

LOL of course it should.

A woman's body is her body, and it's her body, and it's her body. Is a man a murderer if he has a vasectomy against everyone's consent? Is a person guilty of treason if he or she refuses to join the armed forces in times of war? Is a miscarriage mourned in the same way as a baby that died?

The answer to all of these is "no." And not only "no", but "of course not."

The difference is that culturally we are still under the impression that a woman who chooses alone what happens to her body or not....whether it's to follow through with a pregnancy, whether it's to utilize contraception, whether it's to give consent or not to sex, whether it's to present herself in a certain way that speaks to her sexual autonomy....is not entirely hers to make.

That's the elephant in the room that anti-choicers would prefer to remain quiet about. The idea that "she shouldn't just do what she wants" includes what she should do with her own body.

Such ethical and cultural restrictions do not extend to males with what they wish to do with their own bodies.

Generally because males never have unborn, living, human children inside their bodies. Yes, it's a woman's body. But it's also a child inside a woman's body. If you kill a child outside the womb, you go to jail for the crime of infanticide. Kill a child inside the womb, and it's legal, common, accepted medical practice. It's not about denying the woman's ability to decide what she wants to do with her own body. It's about protecting the human child within her womb.

 

[Shiranui117]

So you think it should be a choice to give the blood, even though you'd disdain a person who chose not to?

Do you find this analogous to the abortion debate? If not, why not?

I think it is analagous. I don't think that abortion should be outlawed, nor do I think we're societally or morally at a point where everyone can agree in which cases abortions are permissible. Once we can start clarifying or eliminating the "what ifs" about abortion, perhaps then we can pass some laws on when abortions are permissible and when not. For now, I wouldn't advocate any change to the abortion laws as we have them; that would be trying to treat the symptoms while ignoring what causes them. First, as I've mentioned, the adoption system needs to be cleaned up, safety nets (private, public or charitable, I don't care) need to be set in place for single mothers and those families who would find it financially impossible to raise a child, and we as Americans need to learn more responsibility when it comes to our sex lives.