Abortion Laws: Pro Life or Pro Choice(v2)?

*cough*BS*cough*.

C'mon now, can't you play nice for once?


If we are going by biology, embryos are human.

If we are going by appearances, ability to do something, or development, embryos are not human.

But the question is not so much one of whether something can be identified as "human" (that is, whether the adjective "human" is fitting), but rather, whether it can be identified as "a human" - an individual human life recognizable under the law.

If the law says I can pull the plug on my brain-dead grandparent, then why wouldn't I have the right to "pull the plug" on a "brain-dead" embryo?


My wife enjoyed being pregnant. And ask her, it was not a watermelon delivery. Some woman somewhere came up with that phrase and now every feminist used it to kind of explain what it would be like.

Not all women enjoy being pregnant, however, and I think it's safe to assume that this debate centers more around those who do not wish to be pregnant. Besides that, my friend who recently gave birth wanted her child very much, but it was still a lot of physical pain to carry that child and try to give birth to it (I believe they ultimately had to perform a C-section to deliver the child).


And, as I said before, IF the choice "IS NOT THERE", HOP ON A PLANE AND GO TO WHERE THERE IS choice.

Now, this answer seems to me a bit absurd. It would be like saying "You can't choose to use [illegal substance] in the U.S., so hop on a plane and go where it is legal" - or worse, "You can't kill that here, so go somewhere where you can kill it."

I would prefer we emphasize the better choices already available - the ones that prevent unwanted pregnancy from occurring in the first place.


"fly to Germany and abort - where there is choice".

The choice is there. If not in the United States, the choice is there somewhere. Drive-through or not.

The answer to this will be, of course, that you are enslaving the poor women to their pregnancies while letting the rich women have their choice.

This is misleading - as though the choice is a luxury some should still have.

If it is not an appropriate choice because it kills a living human individual, then it is no more an appropriate choice for the rich than the poor. Again, the answer is not "go somewhere else", it is, "make the choice sooner and you won't have to worry about it later." Give the poor women the education and the options they need to make the important choices about when and how they will have sex, and give them the tools they need to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

 

Me mum was given the suggestion of aborting Shorty after 33 trips to the hospital Damn drugheads Look at me! I have a third hand coming out of my buttocks, an eye on my forehead and a thumb on my chin.
Of course it wouldn't have mattered if one fellow wasn't on this earth, right?

Look at all these posts on the JC that could've been prevented

 

I went throught the labor of birth.

I went through the pain of it all as much as she did.

With all due respect--the hell you did. Until you have tried to squeeze a watermelon out of your ass, you haven't been through the pain.

My wife enjoyed being pregnant. And ask her, it was not a watermelon delivery. Some woman somewhere came up with that phrase and now every feminist used it to kind of explain what it would be like.

And women who don't enjoy being pregnant should have the option not to be.

Sure it hurt, but that is what it is all about.

That's easy to say coming from someone who probably would scream if he got kicked in the crotch.

We had the option to abort, but we decided to continue the journey into parenthood. The choice was there. And the choice not to abort is there as well. It's about choice. Don't you get it people.

Yes, and it's about allowing other people to have the choice you chose not to make.

And no one should have to fly to Europe in order to have the choice not to be pregnant just because this country thinks it's still 1801 and women shouldn't have the choice. Not everyone can afford to fly to Germany and stay long enough to have an abortion and recover from it.

I would prefer we emphasize the better choices already available - the ones that prevent unwanted pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

Abortion should certainly be a last resort and people should certain use birth control, but I don't think this debate is really about whether or not people should be allowed to abort because they didn't use birth control. It is about sexual freedom. Some folks would prefer that women have none--that all women be enslaved to their ovaries and not have sex unless they are willing to be pregnant.

As I said, this is not a choice very many people would ask men to make.

 

If the law says I can pull the plug on my brain-dead grandparent, then why wouldn't I have the right to "pull the plug" on a "brain-dead" embryo?

If your brain-dead grandparent would be "un-brain-dead" in a week or two, the law wouldn't say you could pull the plug.

The rational for the way the law is now concerning brain dead people is that they cannot regain health or conciousness. However, embryos and fetuses are on their way to gaining conciousness.

 

I don't think this debate is really about whether or not people should be allowed to abort because they didn't use birth control.

That's really not what it's about; however, taking away the "choice" of abortion does not leave one without any choice.


It is about sexual freedom.

It is about freedom and responsibility. It is about freedom and rights.

I would not suggest outlawing abortion as an attempt to make people more likely to use birth control. Rather, I suggest outlawing abortion from the point that the child can be legally recognized as a living human being because it has rights. And I suggest an emphasis on birth control to make people less likely to need to make the choice regarding abortion.


As I said, this is not a choice very many people would ask men to make.

Which choice is that - don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant? I think they should have the same choice as women in that regard: abstain, take precautions, or have unprotected sex, but in all cases, be aware of and willing to accept responsibility for the outcome.

How about the choices men ask women to make when it's their child that they didn't want?

What about the choices women are asked to make when they become pregnant in an abusive situation?

In these situations, abortion is one of the worst choices - the emotional and physical toll on the woman's body to appease a man is not justified.

Abortion was invented long before sexual freedom - it was an escape of sorts, but didn't really free women from controlling relationships.


EDIT:
If your brain-dead grandparent would be "un-brain-dead" in a week or two, the law wouldn't say you could pull the plug.

Given the uncertainties in medicine, however, you can't say for certain that some person in a comatose state, or even in some cases labelled as "brain-dead" will never recover. If the idea is to protect people who may at some point in the future exhibit awareness, then shouldn't we be leaving everyone plugged in out of hope?

Does the government say that it is okay to unplug someone simply because there is no hope, or is it sufficient to show that the person is not now living?


However, embryos and fetuses are on their way to gaining conciousness.

A person on their way to death is not yet dead. Is a thing on its way to consciousness already conscious?

 

I would prefer we emphasize the better choices already available - the ones that prevent unwanted pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

"Emphasize" I would agree with. However, I think it would be disastrous to eliminate abortion during the first trimester as an option when birth control fails.

If your brain-dead grandparent would be "un-brain-dead" in a week or two, the law wouldn't say you could pull the plug.

If the baby is going to be born in a couple of weeks, I would be against abortion. That baby is viable outside the womb.

It is about freedom and responsibility. It is about freedom and rights.

People should be responsible enough to use birth control, however, birth control does fail sometimes--and taking away the right to have sex is taking away freedom. It is not fair, and is a violation of her rights, to tell a woman she shouldn't have sex unless she wants to be a mother.

Like I said, no one would say this to a man, or if you would, you're one of the few.

How about the choices men ask women to make when it's their child that they didn't want?

The operative word is "no".

Abortion was invented long before sexual freedom - it was an escape of sorts, but didn't really free women from controlling relationships.

That doesn't mean that a woman should be trapped by a pregnancy she can't handle.

 

If your brain-dead grandparent would be "un-brain-dead" in a week or two, the law wouldn't say you could pull the plug.

Which is why the debate can still go on.

Jediflyer. I was not saying that being pro-life is wrong. I am saying that the reasons you were giving were flawed. The real argument to me is 'is the potential life of the baby worth more than the mother?s choice?' The stance that the fertilized egg is a human life is flawed because it is 'brain dead' for lack of a better term. I feel that the mother should still have the choice for a few other reasons, but I cannot as of now overcome that question (long reasoning why I can?t. I will explain it if anyone wants me to tomorrow).

BTW. If my grandma was declared brain dead, although sad, I would consider her dead. I don't think it is even possible that we could know in a week she would be un-brain dead, but if we would somehow know, then there is something worth saving as opposed to nothing binging to become something. It is a fine line between restoring the persons awareness and creating it the first time, and I don't know if there is any reason to make that distinction, which is why in this respect I am undecided on the issue of abortion (other reasons to consider though which may or may not be convincing).

 

Informed choice and abortion
Cal Thomas

January 26, 2004


The 31st anniversary of Roe vs. Wade last week was played out with familiar theatrics. "Thousands" marched against abortion in the cold streets of Washington. In the evening, believers in the morally obtuse cult of "choice" chose a warm hotel ballroom in which to celebrate their success in reducing a baby to a meaningless blob with no intrinsic value.

There are hopeful signs that the pro-life movement is starting to win the abortion war that has divided the country for more than three decades. The number of abortions in America declined from about 1.03 million in 1992 to 854,000 in 2000, a reduction of more than 17 percent. The drop is due to a number of factors, including thousands of centers that offer material, spiritual and medical help and information to women who experience unplanned pregnancies, an improved economy and state legislation that requires women to receive more information than they have been getting before an abortion can be performed.

It is this last development that has created a large window of opportunity for the pro-life movement. "Choice" presupposes access to information so that people know what it is they are choosing. We have truth-in-labeling and lending laws that require food manufacturers and financial institutions to disclose the contents of what they are selling (be it food or a loan). Laws also require auto dealers to put informational stickers on the cars they sell. But in still too many instances, a woman can get an abortion with fewer informational requirements than for any other surgical procedure.

A new study suggests that information may be the key to reducing the number of abortions. Many women testify following an abortion that they would have made a different choice had they been presented with more information. Taking data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Heritage Foundation concludes that states that have adopted "informed consent" laws influenced the decline in the number of abortions performed in America during the 1990s.

The Heritage analysis, by Michael J. New, Ph.D., found that in 1992 virtually no states were enforcing informed consent laws. By 2000, 27 states had informed consent laws in place. In 1992, no states banned or restricted "partial-birth" abortions. By 2000, 12 states had bans or restrictions on the procedure. In 1992, 20 states were enforcing parental involvement statutes. By 2000, 32 states enforced such laws.

Because most women who regret having had abortions say they would have made a different choice if they had been given more information, state legislatures and Congress should be focusing on providing that information. From requirements that the pregnant woman see a sonogram picture of what she is about to abort, to information about alternatives, places to live and free baby clothes, furniture and counseling, laws should give women at least as much information as that required in the supermarket, the bank and the automobile showroom.

Politically, this is a win-win for everyone except those who want to keep women ignorant. No one is taking away "a woman's right to choose." The woman is simply receiving additional information so that her choice will be fully informed. To those who claim such legislation implies women are ignorant and can't be trusted, the reply should be, "Fine, let's remove labels from bottles, packages and cans; let's not require banks to provide women with information about loans; and let's take those stickers off the windows of new and used cars. Women are smart enough to figure out these things on their own."

The Heritage analysis also reveals that pro-life candidates made considerable and lasting gains in state legislatures during the 1990s. Informed consent laws are the ticket to even greater gains at the state and federal levels. Abortion cannot and will not continue as it has because it is anti-human. To celebrate the horrible 1973 judicial decision that has

 

In the evening, believers in the morally obtuse cult of "choice" chose a warm hotel ballroom in which to celebrate their success in reducing a baby to a meaningless blob with no intrinsic value.

I got as far as the boldfaced type before I stopped reading.

DM, you know how much I respect you on these boards and as a person in general , but do you really hope to convince anyone with clearly biased articles such as these?

I would argue that taking away the choice is "morally obtuse"-amongst other things.

Given that a majority of americans have consistently supported the Roe decision-and the fact that abortion has been legal for decades, not to mention survived numerous conservative administrations-I would hardly call being pro-choice "a cult".

Peace,

V-03

 

Vaderize,

Of course the article is biased - it's an opinion piece (a well-written one), and makes no pretensions to be otherwise. It's simply a thoughtful piece on the trend towards pro-life attitudes among the populace and towards infomational laws in states, as well as the recent decline in numbers of abortions.

The article is also not referring to the many people who think Roe is generally a good thing, but are not fanatically pro-abortion - the article is referring to the Kate Michelmans of the world, the NARALs, the rabid feminists who oppose even such things as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act on grounds it might infringe the sacred right of 'choice'. That is much more akin to a cultish belief, one which rigidly puts on blinders to avoid seeing any information that might lead to other 'choices' than they think are appropriate.

 

As you notice, irishjedi if you actually read my post, my comments are also an "opinion" piece-in my opinion, the articles tries ever-not-so-subtely to paint being pro-choice as "freakish".

I have the same issue with this that pro-lifers have when they are compared with those who not only oppose abortion rights, but birth control as well. The author may not have directly come out and said it, but he certainly implies it.


on the trend towards pro-life attitudes among the populace and towards infomational laws in states, as well as the recent decline in numbers of abortions.

I don't agree that this is indeed the trend. Polling has continued to show that most americans want abortion to be legal, but rare. The laws you are referring to tend to occur mostly in southern states, which have always been more conservative to begin with. The declines in abortions may have to do with pro-life attitudes, or they may have to do with less pregnancy, or better birth control-you can't say which.
Overall, pro-life and pro-choice have remained regional; some areas are strongly one, and some strongly the other. The lion's share of abortion-regulating laws come from the south. Besides, attitudes towards abortion, and laws regulating it, have continually cycled on and off since Roe v Wade.

The author's hopes for the death of legal abortion are, IMHO, premature.


I don't see this as being much of an issue this election cycle, as a side note. Gay marriage is the hot-button social issue to go on.

Peace,

V-03

 

I'm not opposed to making sure a woman is fully informed about what she is about to do, up to and including a sonogram of what she is about to abort, especially if these groups are going to offer her financial help, maternity and baby clothes, adoption services, etc.

However, she should still have the choice to abort if she chooses to do so even after receiving all of this information.

As far as Cal Thomas--yes, biased. But he doesn't pretend not to be either, and I do actually respect the guy.

 

However, I think it would be disastrous to eliminate abortion during the first trimester as an option when birth control fails.

I think that is our common ground. Technically, if the embryo was displaying the necessary brain activity from day 1, I would have to be against abortion altogether - but, since biology grants a sort of reprieve in that regard, I think I could agree to elective abortion in the first trimester (but not beyond).


It is not fair, and is a violation of her rights, to tell a woman she shouldn't have sex unless she wants to be a mother.

It may seem unfair, but in a sense, it is just a reality check. How is it unfair to tell a woman, "If you have sex, even if you use protection, you may become pregnant"? That is just giving them the facts and letting them decide what level of risk they are willing to accept.

It is not up to the government to enforce your standard of "fairness." Just because you think sex should be 100% free of any risk of childbirth doesn't justify government measures to enforce it.


Like I said, no one would say this to a man, or if you would, you're one of the few.

I certainly would say the same thing, and I do wish we were more consistent about enforcing responsibility among reluctant fathers.


If my grandma was declared brain dead, although sad, I would consider her dead. I don't think it is even possible that we could know in a week she would be un-brain dead, but if we would somehow know, then there is something worth saving as opposed to nothing binging to become something.

I suppose the key question, in regard to what the law should be, is this:

Can the government make a determination based on an assumption of what will happen, or based on what is at this particular instant?

 

It may seem unfair, but in a sense, it is just a reality check. How is it unfair to tell a woman, "If you have sex, even if you use protection, you may become pregnant"? That is just giving them the facts and letting them decide what level of risk they are willing to accept.

Say it, but allow them the opportunity for safe, legal abortion rather than trapping them with their pregnancy.

I certainly would say the same thing, and I do wish we were more consistent about enforcing responsibility among reluctant fathers.

I think we could agree on this. Unfortunately it's a man's world.

 

Actually there was a thread a while ago saying that if a woman has the right to not raise a child by having an abortion, then the man should have the right to not have to raise the child either.

 

>>>> It is not fair, and is a violation of her rights, to tell a woman she shouldn't have sex unless she wants to be a mother. <<<<

You missed the point. She can have sex like she wants to have a glass of water as much as she likes, as long as she does not get pregnant.

But I don't think anyone is suggesting we tell women what to do. No way, José.

 

I find it odd that individuals find a pregnancy to be a 'trap'.

It isn't like you didn't know what you were doing to begin with, and what could result. It's like playing russian roulette and blowing your head off, and going to the pearly gates and telling St. Peter, 'Well, if the gun wasn't loaded to begin with, I wouldn't have shot myself'.

Also, the article I posted above has no mention of contraception methods other than abortion, which isn't a contraceptive method to begin with - it is a termination of pregnancy, not a prevention of. It is an article about informed consent - done in every other surgical procedure. It seems the full ramifications of abortion aren't presented to women who are seeking one, which is the issue in the op-ed piece.

 

I find it odd that individuals find a pregnancy to be a 'trap'.

Men never do find it a trap. It isn't for them.

It isn't like you didn't know what you were doing to begin with, and what could result.

And it isn't like anyone should limit the number of times they have sex to the number of children they want, either.

Besides, that excuse never works on men. It's the women who get trapped with the pregnancy.

Yes, trapped. Not everyone thinks being knocked up is a barrel of laughs.

 

Men never do find it a trap. It isn't for them.

You don't think men would think that as well, a_g?

What about the woman that forces him to provide for the child that he doesn't want, or the woman that gets knocked up on purpose to keep the man around?

The fact is that pregancy shouldn't ever be considered or used as a 'trap'. Both women and men should take more responsibility when this type of thing is involved.

 

What about the woman that forces him to provide for the child that he doesn't want, or the woman that gets knocked up on purpose to keep the man around?

You want my straight-up opinion? I always thought these women should be strapped to a gurney and permanently sterilized.

My point is that obviously this isn't the only reason we have sex, nor should it be. I have had sex hundreds of times--do you really think I am supposed to be raising hundreds of children right now? Or even approximately 20 children--which would be approximately one every nine months from the time I started having sex?

That's not realistic, or practical in today's world. Plus having that many children would kill most women.

People should always use birth control if they don't want children. The act of having sex with no birth control when you don't want a child has a name: it's called "stupidity". However, if you take all proper precautions and you still don't want to be pregnant, you should not be strapped with the pregnancy.

 

I agree with a_g, it IS more of a trap for women. aA guy can run off. Does it make him a world class ass****? Yes. But it's still possible. Short of abortion, how is a woman supposed to get out of the pregnancy situation? She can run away, too. But that damn pregnancy's going with her, I can tell you that.

 

>>>> People should always use birth control if they don't want children. The act of having sex with no birth control when you don't want a child has a name: it's called "stupidity" <<<<

We must be really stupid, right?

We don't want any more children. As it is, the five year old is driving us nuts, in particular my wife. They don't get on.
But we manage to have sex quite often, and without birth control.

It might be like Russian roulette, but that is the risk we take. It is a challenge. I am allergic to latex and the pill makes her sick.
It is in the art of making love that we manage to avoid pregnancy.

Some of you should try it sometime. Stop having sex and start making love.

But like I asked before, how does one "have" sex? The "act" of having sex?
I certainly don't call it acting, although I fake it sometimes, but she can tell.

 

Sorry. Double post.

 

No, people who aren't black or Jewish aren't allowed to think slavery or racism is right, or that Hitler was right to exterminate the Jews.

Actually, they're entitled to think anything they want....doesn't mean they're right, though.

Be pro-choice all you want.

Um, I'm not, but thanks anyway.

That tells me that you admit that you don't understand what it might be like for the woman.

I've never maintained otherwise. I'm not a woman - there's no way I can fully appreciate what it's like to go through pregnancy. I understand that it is (to put it mildly) extremely uncomfortable and painful, but the only way I know that is by watching my daughter's mother go through it.

However, if you haven't been pregnant either, then you really don't know either, do you?

So, since you're pro-life, do you avoid stepping on bugs?

I certainly don't go out of my way to kill them. Accidents do happen, however.

That being said, I do believe that a human life (any human life) is more important than any non-human life.

Are you against birth control?

Personally, I'm opposed to any birth control that would take effect after conception occurs. Other than that, well....I've used condoms myself.

Why is it that I don't feel like this would be an issue if men got pregnant? Men would never allow themselves to be enslaved to having a 15-pound bowling ball sitting on their bladders for nine months, or having to deal with the agony of childbirth--

That's an assumption.

not to mention the slavery of 18 years plus raising a child, a job that often falls primarily on the mother.

The father bears equal responsibility for raising the child, IMHO, no matter what his relationship with the mother is. We have "deadbeat dad" laws (and rightly so) to ensure that fathers financially support their children, but I don't see how spending quality time with your child could be legally regulated.

All this as a "consequence" of having sex--something many men feel is their divine right and shouldn't have consequences?

I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel that way. I must admit, however, I can understand why you feel that way - there are men who think that way (not to mention some women as well).

The idea of considering an embryo from the time of gestation as equal to a contributing citizen is not only ridiculous but insulting to those of us who have already been born.

I find it insulting to me that people think that a human life is less important than their personal comfort and convenience.

 

>>>> Unfortunately it's a man's world. <<<<

Don't call it "world" as if the United States were the
world... In Australia, laws protect the children and
no man can get away from the responsibility of being
a father. The government, through the tax system,
withdraws 23% for every child that he fathers (I
will get the exact figures for those that are
interested). At the end of the day, the man can
never run too far.

And the mother gets a pension for having children.
Whether she's in a relationship or not.

So, it pays to be in a relationship because it certainly does not pay to be separated.