South Dakota and Roe v. Wade

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 2:49:17 PM
Author: EBree
OK, I''m sorry that I am not more apt with the html or I would shorted the above quote


Anyway, what I wanted to say was that the child does not necessarily resent the parents. One of my close friends is adopted and he says he is so grateful to his birth mother for having the sense to give him up and into his wonderful family.

By giving the baby up for adoption, I DID NOT mean into govermental care. I meant giving it directly to a family you meet and discuss the decision with, or don''t depending on what you both want.


Oh, I know, and I didn''t mean to say that ''all children'' resent their parents...but many do. And I agree with you regarding adoption and how it''s a wonderful thing. The problem is, so many children around the world are without homes. Thousands die of starvation every day. Where are the loving parents to give these children homes? Probably at an adoption agency, seeking a white baby.


I don''t mean to sound bitter, I really don''t. I just don''t see the point in bringing additional unplanned children into the world when there are so many already born that won''t ever get the chance to have a wonderful life because of *insert reason here* (not white, too old, too much trouble adopting overseas, etc.).

You make a good point about there being too many orphaned children in the world. But I think life is worth living, even if its not the best circumstances. Would you rather have never been born or never have a family? Even if they are bounced from home to home or live in an orphanage, at least they have a life and once they reach adulthood, they can always start their own family and have a life that''s wonderful.

There just so many "what ifs" in situations like this. I go back and forth with myself over these issues, in the end I still have mixed feelings about abortions, but I do believe life is worth living.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Over time, I have changed my views on abortion. Originally, I felt it was probably generally wrong, but that each woman should have the right to choose. Later as I came to a different understanding, that cliche "right to choose" actually meant "right to kill an unborn child", a child created by God. We do not have the "right" to choose to end the life of a child who is born, and we should not have the right to end the life of an unborn child, in most cases. I do think there is room for an exception clause in the case of the mother's life being threatened, and maybe others. However, most abortion in this country is purely selfish. Most babies WOULD be adopted if given the chance to live.

I am incredibly blessed to have been pregnant and given birth to two children. In the past, I used to think about abortion protesters that they should stop wasting their time picketing and just go and help one of the many unwanted children in this world. Once my views began to change, I realized I would be a hypocrite, too! So you know what? To make a long ordeal into a very short story, we went to China and adopted a baby girl from an orphanage when we were 40 and our other kids were 10 and 13. I cannot express to you the joy she has brought to our lives! The thought of her dying due to abortion in a country where abortion is very much practiced to eliminate female babies is a horror beyond my imagination!!! And it sickens and grieves me that a country like ours would support the killing of unborn babies for the sake of convenience.

(I'm sorry that I came over here. I really try to stay on Rocky Talk and Show Me the Ring. My agenda on this forum is only to learn about diamonds. But my child has value, and every child does.

)

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 3:19:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I am incredibly blessed to have been pregnant and given birth to two children. In the past, I used to think about abortion protesters that they should stop wasting their time picketing and just go and help one of the many unwanted children in this world. Once my views began to change, I realized I would be a hypocrite, too! So you know what? To make a long ordeal into a very short story, we went to China and adopted a baby girl from an orphanage when we were 40 and our other kids were 10 and 13. I cannot express to you the joy she has brought to our lives! The thought of her dying due to abortion in a country wheere abortion is very much practiced to elimnate female babies is a horror beyond my imagination!!! And it sickens and grieves me that a country like ours would support the killing of unborn babies for the sake of convenience.


(I''m sorry that I came over here. I really try to stay on Rocky Talk and Show Me the Ring. My agenda on this forum is only to learn about diamonds. But my child has value, and every child does.)

I think what you did is so incredible! I wish more people were as caring as you and I''m glad she''s brought joy to your lives. She sounds like a real blessing.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thank you! I just want to say that I don''t like to talk about this like I am bragging or think we are special that we did this. Not everyone is called to do this by any means. We have gained more from this than she has! But yes, she is beautiful, sweet, kind, and loving. My life would not be complete without her!

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 2/26/2006 3:16:47 PM
Author: XChick03
Even if they are bounced from home to home or live in an orphanage, at least they have a life and once they reach adulthood, they can always start their own family and have a life that''s wonderful.

children bounced from home to home or who grow up in an orphanage more often than not do not grow up psychologically healthy and having learned good parenting skills. yes, there are exceptions to the rule but does society really have the $$$ and services to devote to 1-making sure kids don''t bounce from home to home, 2-that an orphanage is well run and loving, 3-that these kids will receive parenting skills other than that kids are meant to bounce from home to home and that its ok to dump your kid at the orphanage?

i hear and see a society that says all children should be born but does not devote the time, $$$, and energy to making sure all children grow up loved, with a roof over their head, with food in their stomachs, and a good education. if it is the individual''s responsibility to provide these things, then it is the individuals choice as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

movie zombie

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If the individual cannot provide these things, then they can certainly make an adoption plan and place the child in a home that can. No one wants a child to be raised in a home where they are not wanted or unable to care for them.

 

[Momoftwo]

Date: 2/26/2006 4:55:52 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 2/26/2006 3:16:47 PM
Author: XChick03
Even if they are bounced from home to home or live in an orphanage, at least they have a life and once they reach adulthood, they can always start their own family and have a life that''s wonderful.

children bounced from home to home or who grow up in an orphanage more often than not do not grow up psychologically healthy and having learned good parenting skills. yes, there are exceptions to the rule but does society really have the $$$ and services to devote to 1-making sure kids don''t bounce from home to home, 2-that an orphanage is well run and loving, 3-that these kids will receive parenting skills other than that kids are meant to bounce from home to home and that its ok to dump your kid at the orphanage?

i hear and see a society that says all children should be born but does not devote the time, $$$, and energy to making sure all children grow up loved, with a roof over their head, with food in their stomachs, and a good education. if it is the individual''s responsibility to provide these things, then it is the individuals choice as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

movie zombie

That is not a justification for taking a completely innocennt life. The child has no choice in this matter either way so why compound it with abortion? The biggest problem we have in this country is the court''s fear of terminating parental rights for those kids that are in foster care but cannot be adopted because the system won''t allow it. The courts will tell you it''s okay to kill an unborn child but not take away the rights of a parent who isn''t capable of caring for that child so the child can be placed in an adoptive home. Children given up at birth for adoption are placed at almost 100%, not so for those that are thrown into the foster care system because some judge is afraid to terminate the parental rights no matter how they were neglected or abused. Having friends who have adopted after major upheavals and roadblocks with court systems, most try for newborns or foreign adoptions because the chances of it actually happening are higher makes me really sad. I know more than a few couples who would adopt in a heartbeat if given the chance. I hear and see some in society that would rather kill unborn children than give them a chance.

 

[rainbowtrout]

MomofTwo--


I have to say I agree with you in a lot of ways. I do feel that society could be structured to better support women who make this choice, though--not make them feel guilty or ashamed or assume that they are "loose" or bad mothers.

I have to say if I had gotten pregnant in high school it would have taken a lot of personal strength to suck it up, keep going to class, and not feel ashamed, especially if I was giving the baby up. Even now it would be hard, although mostly finincially so...but on the other hand, in some respect I know I have to think about this. Even though I am pro-choice I think when two people have sex they have to seriously consider the chance that they could make a child--are they ready for that? would you be happy with raising a child with this man/woman? do you even WANT a baby from this man/woman?

I just think the government needs to largely stay out of it. The only way to change the rate of abortion is not through punitive laws, there will just be a black market. It''s through teaching people to value life, sex, etc..I''m not saying abstinence education, but something that would teach people how important a decision it is and not shameful or taboo. I don''t know though, maybe people are just stupid and won''t learn anyway.

I know that makes me rather old fashioned and fuddy duddy but there it is. I wouldn''t consider it until I had a high school diploma (so I could get some kind of job) and knew I believed he would stick around..


Sorry if that''s TMI

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 4:55:52 PM
Author: movie zombie

"children bounced from home to home or who grow up in an orphanage more often than not do not grow up psychologically healthy and having learned good parenting skills. yes, there are exceptions to the rule but does society really have the $$$ and services to devote to 1-making sure kids don''t bounce from home to home, 2-that an orphanage is well run and loving, 3-that these kids will receive parenting skills other than that kids are meant to bounce from home to home and that its ok to dump your kid at the orphanage?"

Of course its not okay, but at least they have a chance at a life. And what''s wrong with private adoption? I see ads in the newspaper all the time for people who want a child to adopt through private adoption. And secondly, yeah, our country should have the money for it. We all pay taxes and I''m sure the average citizen would love to know their tax dollars and the ton of other money the gov. gets is going to help children in need.


"i hear and see a society that says all children should be born but does not devote the time, $$$, and energy to making sure all children grow up loved, with a roof over their head, with food in their stomachs, and a good education. if it is the individual''s responsibility to provide these things, then it is the individuals choice as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy."

What do you mean by "society?" Are you referring to the individuals who make up this country or our government?

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 6:23:40 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
MomofTwo--



I have to say I agree with you in a lot of ways. I do feel that society could be structured to better support women who make this choice, though--not make them feel guilty or ashamed or assume that they are ''loose'' or bad mothers.


I have to say if I had gotten pregnant in high school it would have taken a lot of personal strength to suck it up, keep going to class, and not feel ashamed, especially if I was giving the baby up. Even now it would be hard, although mostly finincially so...but on the other hand, in some respect I know I have to think about this. Even though I am pro-choice I think when two people have sex they have to seriously consider the chance that they could make a child--are they ready for that? would you be happy with raising a child with this man/woman? do you even WANT a baby from this man/woman?


I just think the government needs to largely stay out of it. The only way to change the rate of abortion is not through punitive laws, there will just be a black market. It''s through teaching people to value life, sex, etc..I''m not saying abstinence education, but something that would teach people how important a decision it is and not shameful or taboo. I don''t know though, maybe people are just stupid and won''t learn anyway.


I know that makes me rather old fashioned and fuddy duddy but there it is. I wouldn''t consider it until I had a high school diploma (so I could get some kind of job) and knew I believed he would stick around..



Sorry if that''s TMI

I agree with almost all of that.

 

[movie zombie]

i don''t agree that abortion is taking a life: a zygote isn''t a baby nor is an embryo.

this is an individual decision to be made by a woman and her doctor. the state has no business interfering. if a woman wants to carry to term and adopt out, so be it. if she wants to keep the child so be it. if she decides to terminate the pregnancy, so be it. none of my business. but it is my business if the state or anyone else tells me what i can or cannot do re my reproduction.

end of discussion for me.

movie zombie

 

[E B]

Date: 2/26/2006 7:32:35 PM
Author: movie zombie
i don''t agree that abortion is taking a life: a zygote isn''t a baby nor is an embryo.


this is an individual decision to be made by a woman and her doctor. the state has no business interfering. if a woman wants to carry to term and adopt out, so be it. if she wants to keep the child so be it. if she decides to terminate the pregnancy, so be it. none of my business. but it is my business if the state or anyone else tells me what i can or cannot do re my reproduction.


end of discussion for me.


movie zombie

Amen. It''s not about what the woman chooses to do, it''s about it being her choice, end of story.

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 7:32:35 PM
Author: movie zombie
i don''t agree that abortion is taking a life: a zygote isn''t a baby nor is an embryo.

What do you characterize as life?

 

[Maria D]

I won''t speak for movie zombie, but to me it doesn''t appear that she was trying to characterize "life." She said that she didn''t consider abortion to be taking a life.

Look at it this way: The cow is greatly revered by Hindus and is regarded as sacred. Killing cows is banned in India and no Hindu would eat any cow product. Imagine that! It seems ridiculous to me, but I''m not Hindu. To many people, an embryo is considered sacred life and abortion should be banned. Fine. But to many other people, an embryo is not sacred life -- even though it does have the potential to become so. These people do not believe abortion is the taking of a sacred life and no amount of religious "reasoning" is going to persuade them, any more than a non-Hindu is likely to stop eating beef and worshipping cows.

I respect the views of those who would rather that all potential human life be carried to fruition and placed in loving homes. They should follow their beliefs and we should support them when they do. What I don''t understand is why all this worry and consternation over *someone else''s* 8 week embryo. Every day there is sacred human life suffering and dying all over the planet. Sometimes this country is the direct cause of it -- like when we drop bunker busters in Iraq and innocent *born* (as upposed to unborn) children die. To paraphrase momoftwo: "That is not a justification for taking a completely innocent life. The child has no choice in this matter." Where''s the outrage and debate over war and genocide?

The lack of it is what leads me to believe that the abortion debate has little to do with "innocent life" and everything to do with so-called conservatives trying to push *their* "religious" beliefs into everyone else''s life.

 

[E B]

Date: 2/26/2006 10:39:02 PM
Author: Maria D

'That is not a justification for taking a completely innocent life. The child has no choice in this matter.' Where's the outrage and debate over war and genocide?


The lack of it is what leads me to believe that the abortion debate has little to do with 'innocent life' and everything to do with so-called conservatives trying to push *their* 'religious' beliefs into everyone else's life.

I deleted what I previously wrote (as not to cause a flamewar), but I will say I completely agree with the above.

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 10:39:02 PM
Author: Maria D
I won''t speak for movie zombie, but to me it doesn''t appear that she was trying to characterize ''life.'' She said that she didn''t consider abortion to be taking a life.

I wasn''t trying to imply she had characterized it. It''s just that since this bill was passed, I''ve heard lots of different ways people characterize "life." I respect everyone''s opinions on the issue, I am just curious as to what she, or anybody else, thinks.

As far as religion, I do agree that many (if not most) people who are against abortion are only against it for religious reasons and I don''t think that''s fair at all, being not very religious myself.

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 10:39:02 PM
Author: Maria D
I respect the views of those who would rather that all potential human life be carried to fruition and placed in loving homes. They should follow their beliefs and we should support them when they do.

I definitely agree with this.

What I don''t understand is why all this worry and consternation over *someone else''s* 8 week embryo. Every day there is sacred human life suffering and dying all over the planet. Sometimes this country is the direct cause of it -- like when we drop bunker busters in Iraq and innocent *born* (as upposed to unborn) children die. To paraphrase momoftwo: ''That is not a justification for taking a completely innocent life. The child has no choice in this matter.'' Where''s the outrage and debate over war and genocide?

I also agree that war is a terrible thing, but I don''t think war can directly be compared to abortion. Yes, they both result in death, but so do many other things in life. Also, there''s been plenty of debate and outrage over war and there has been for decades. I guess I am just not quite following what you''re saying.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I believe this would be termed setting up a straw man. You don''t really know anyone''s views on any other subject, and it is irrelevant to the debate on abortion. Have you seen an ultrasound of a 10 week old baby? It looks like a baby to me. I forget at which week this happens, but you can easily see the beating heart.

So my question is, when does this "embryo" suddenly become "sacred life"? Is is okay to kill a 9 month old unborn baby? How about 8 months? Where do you abortion supporters draw the line as to when the "fetus" has enough value to warrant saving it''s life? At what age is it okay to kill an unborn baby? And then I''d like to know the basis for the age you choose.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/26/2006 11:28:51 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I believe this would be termed setting up a straw man. You don''t really know anyone''s views on any other subject, and it is irrelevant to the debate on abortion.

Please quote the passage you are referring to in your posting or at least name the person to whom you are responding. I am unable to follow the discussion here because I don''t know what you think is a straw man or who is setting him up!


Deb

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 11:28:51 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I believe this would be termed setting up a straw man. You don''t really know anyone''s views on any other subject, and it is irrelevant to the debate on abortion. Have you seen an ultrasound of a 10 week old baby? It looks like a baby to me. I forget at which week this happens, but you can easily see the beating heart.


So my question is, when does this ''embryo'' suddenly become ''sacred life''? Is is okay to kill a 9 month old unborn baby? How about 8 months? Where do you abortion supporters draw the line as to when the ''fetus'' has enough value to warrant saving it''s life? At what age is it okay to kill an unborn baby? And then I''d like to know the basis for the age you choose.

This is what I''ve been wondering as well. I belive it''s around 3 weeks that the heart begins beating and at around 40 days the brain is developed, though I could be wrong on this.

 

[Maria D]

>>Have you seen an ultrasound of a 10 week old baby? It looks like a baby to me.
Yes I have. It does not look like a baby human to me. It looks like a human embryo.

>>So my question is, when does this "embryo" suddenly become "sacred life"? Is is okay to kill a 9 month old unborn baby? How about 8 months? Where do you abortion supporters draw the line as to when the "fetus" has enough value to warrant saving it's life? At what age is it okay to kill an unborn baby? And then I'd like to know the basis for the age you choose.
I don't understand why you are trying to answer these questions for *someone else.* Why is it yours or any other anti-choicer's business if a woman feels that her first trimester embryo/fetus is/isn't sacred life?

You say that I'm setting up a straw man argument by bringing war and genocide into the picture. I do not agree. The argument had been made that innocent life is what is at stake here, that "the child" has no say in the matter and pregnancies caused by rape and incest are no justification for killing a child. (Never mind that we weren't talking about killing children, but ending pregnancies.) I maintain that the "innocent life" argument is just a facade for butting into the most personal and private decisions of others. That's what the neo-conservatives seem to live to do. (Look no further than Terry Schiavo if you need more proof.) For the neo-cons, there is nowhere near the outrage and indignation over the killing and suffering of innocent children in the cases of war and genocide as there is over the termination of pregnancies. Why? If it's just the destruction of innocent life that they can't abide why is there not equal moral outrage when the life is already born?

 

[fire&ice]

Maria D - hate to nit pick - but the Neo Cons have little to do with the abortion debate. It''s not their agenda. And, if one thinks so - they have been hoodwinked.

I think most who has seen the "miracle of life" would pause at determining that their fetus is not *life*. But, a 6 week fetus is completely unviable with *any* care given outside of the womb. Hence, it is the body host that has that choice.

Recently a very good friend was pregnant and upon a doctor visit learned that the fetus had serious problems. Her body did not miscarry as it should have. With a heavy heart, she had an abortion/DNC. Though, she was glad she had that choice.

My disconnect with the whole argument is that I can''t understand why war would be O.K. with rationalization & taking a fetus "life" not. Why would the innocent "collateral" be worth war? And, to the extreme - bombing abortion clinics?

With the caveat that we do have a different Supreme Court make up, in every instance where VA has tried to put a limit (paritial term, parental notification), a higher court has reversed it - fairly handedly too.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 2/26/2006 2:19:41 PM
Author: XChick03
I know three people who''ve had abortions, and two didn''t ''need'' them. The first was my cousin, who I mentioned above. She was 26, engaged, had a great job, and a family who happily help her and she told me she didn''t want to get ''fat.'' That I just don''t understand. The other two didn''t have the means to raise a child and were very young and wanted to finish school. And both of the father''s disappeared at the mention of ''pregnancy.'' That I can understand.

With all due respect, how do you decide for someone else whether they did or did not "need" an abortion? Just because someone has the financial means to support a child does not mean that she is ready or wants to be a parent. Just because someone is an adult and married doesn''t mean that they should be forced to have a baby whether they want one or not. The decision to have a child is so deeply personal that I simply can''t imagine how others can judge another woman''s or couple''s choice.

This, to me, is the crux of the issue: everyone is entitled to his/her viewpoint. You may be utterly convinved that life begins at conception; your religion may tell you that abortion is wrong regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. You have every right to your beliefs and, frankly, I think we''re getting off track by arguing those points. For those that believe that abortion is wrong, DON''T HAVE ONE!!!!!!!!!!! But don''t you dare presume to know what is best for me, my mother, my sister, or any other woman you''ve never met. You may not like it, you may think it''s immoral and disgusting, you may hate me for choosing to have one, but you are not entitled to impose that viewpoint on me or anyone else!!!! Period!!

Oh, and let''s not confuse the term pro-life with those who are in actuality anti-choice. Most people in this world are pro-life, but they may still be in favor of allowing a women the basic right to choose what to do with her body.

 

[Maria D]

>>Maria D - hate to nit pick - but the Neo Cons have little to do with the abortion debate. It''s not their agenda. And, if one thinks so - they have been hoodwinked.
Maybe I''m ignorant in my use of political terms, but I thought I was correct in thinking that the current administration could be described as neoconservative. I feel this administration has *everything* to do with the abortion debate. Yes, we do have a different Supreme Court make up. The reason South Dakota is putting forth this legislation now is because they feel a window of opportunity has been created by Bush''s appointments to the Supreme Court. So, as I see it, that places this admin. front and center in the debate -- whether they are neocons or not.

>>Recently a very good friend was pregnant and upon a doctor visit learned that the fetus had serious problems. Her body did not miscarry as it should have. With a heavy heart, she had an abortion/DNC. Though, she was glad she had that choice.
Even with those same circumstances, there are those who would not make the same choice. And then there are those who would have it that no one may choose legally. I''m very glad your friend had the choice too.

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/27/2006 2:26:57 PM
Author: Demelza
With all due respect, how do you decide for someone else whether they did or did not ''need'' an abortion? Just because someone has the financial means to support a child does not mean that she is ready or wants to be a parent. Just because someone is an adult and married doesn''t mean that they should be forced to have a baby whether they want one or not. The decision to have a child is so deeply personal that I simply can''t imagine how others can judge another woman''s or couple''s choice.

I didn''t judge her because of it. I don''t think of differently of her as a person or love her any less. I guess it just baffles me because she told everyone she was pregant, then had the abortion and told everyone she had a miscarriage. If she didn''t want a child, especially with being in a serious relationship and having sex, she should''ve used birth control. Every woman makes a concious decision as to whether or not to have unprotected sex and they know that sex without or sometimes even with a condom, pregnancy can result. If they don''t want to have a child, they should be more responsible in their decisions. I just dont udnerstand how its okay to kill a fetus with a heart and brain just because you weren''t responsible enough to spend 50 cents on a condom or take 2 seconds to use one. It just doesn''t seem to fair to me.


This, to me, is the crux of the issue: everyone is entitled to his/her viewpoint. You may be utterly convinved that life begins at conception; your religion may tell you that abortion is wrong regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. You have every right to your beliefs and, frankly, I think we''re getting off track by arguing those points. For those that believe that abortion is wrong, DON''T HAVE ONE!!!!!!!!!!! But don''t you dare presume to know what is best for me, my mother, my sister, or any other woman you''ve never met. You may not like it, you may think it''s immoral and disgusting, you may hate me for choosing to have one, but you are not entitled to impose that viewpoint on me or anyone else!!!! Period!!

I agree with you. I definitely believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I do believe life begins at conception and so do many highly credibile doctors, but its not a religious issue, and if we make it one, it becomes an arguement of "you''re just trying to force your religion on me."

Oh, and let''s not confuse the term pro-life with those who are in actuality anti-choice. Most people in this world are pro-life, but they may still be in favor of allowing a women the basic right to choose what to do with her body.

I''m definitely pro-life but I have mixed feelings on the choice issue. There''s just way too many shades of gray any way you look at it. I feel women should have the choice to do what they way, but I also don''t think its fair that something you willingly created by being irresponsible should have to pay the consequences. I''m still very torn on the issue.

 

[E B]

I didn't judge her because of it. I don't think of differently of her as a person or love her any less. I guess it just baffles me because she told everyone she was pregant, then had the abortion and told everyone she had a miscarriage. If she didn't want a child, especially with being in a serious relationship and having sex, she should've used birth control. Every woman makes a concious decision as to whether or not to have unprotected sex and they know that sex without or sometimes even with a condom, pregnancy can result. If they don't want to have a child, they should be more responsible in their decisions. I just dont udnerstand how its okay to kill a fetus with a heart and brain just because you weren't responsible enough to spend 50 cents on a condom or take 2 seconds to use one. It just doesn't seem to fair to me.

You didn't want to have a child, were responsible (I assume) and you got pregnant. Accidents happen. Because accidents happen (though prevented to the best of the couple's abilities shy of abstinence), do you feel that this couple should now live with what happened no matter what? Even if they're not able to provide for the child? Even if, selfishly enough, they're just not in that place?

What it comes down to is easy; you believe one thing, we pro-choicers believe another. What actually matters is that what you believe shouldn't matter in regards to another couple's decision. Vegetarians believe it's cruel to kill an animal for food. Should you have to stop eating steak because of what they believe? Is that issue any less relevant because it's an animal and not a human? Because the point of "life" is not yet defined (and will it ever be?), it is a matter of opinion and for many (for most, I'd imagine), a matter of religion. In my opinion, until the baby is viable, it is the woman's choice because the embryo is not an independent human being capable of living outside the mother's womb....it is a part of the woman. The woman's choice.

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/27/2006 3:09:40 PM
Author: EBree
I didn''t judge her because of it. I don''t think of differently of her as a person or love her any less. I guess it just baffles me because she told everyone she was pregant, then had the abortion and told everyone she had a miscarriage. If she didn''t want a child, especially with being in a serious relationship and having sex, she should''ve used birth control. Every woman makes a concious decision as to whether or not to have unprotected sex and they know that sex without or sometimes even with a condom, pregnancy can result. If they don''t want to have a child, they should be more responsible in their decisions. I just dont udnerstand how its okay to kill a fetus with a heart and brain just because you weren''t responsible enough to spend 50 cents on a condom or take 2 seconds to use one. It just doesn''t seem to fair to me.



You didn''t want to have a child, were responsible (I assume) and you got pregnant. Accidents happen. Because accidents happen (though prevented to the best of the couple''s abilities shy of abstinence), do you feel that this couple should now live with what happened no matter what? Even if they''re not able to provide for the child? Even if, selfishly enough, they''re just not in that place?


What it comes down to is easy; you believe one thing, we pro-choicers believe another. What actually matters is that what you believe shouldn''t matter in regards to another couple''s decision. Vegetarians believe it''s cruel to kill an animal for food. Should you have to stop eating steak because of what they believe? Is that issue any less relevant because it''s an animal and not a human? Because the point of ''life'' is not yet defined (and will it ever be?), it is a matter of opinion and for many (for most, I''d imagine), a matter of religion. In my opinion, until the baby is viable, it is the mother''s choice because the embryo is not an independant human being capable of living outside the mother''s womb....it is a part of the mother. The mother''s choice.

Accidents do happen, I know, but the fact is, I still chose to have sex which I knew could result in pregnancy. I''m not the person to decide who should/shouldn''t get an abortion. I''m just trying to add some of my thoughts to the discussion, and they go both ways. I think, my opinion on the matter is that basically, they shouldn''t be allowed after a certain point in the pregnancy and I think that the first trimester is too long. By the end of the first trimester, the fetus already has a heart and brain. I think something like 45 days would be a better period of time. For a lot of women, they don''t even realize they are pregnant until they are almost a month along, so I think 45 days is enough time to realize the woman is pregnant and make her decision to have an abortion without waiting until the fetus is more developed. If they did something like this, perhaps most people wouldn''t feel so strongly one way or the other. Pro-choicers would still be able to choose whether or not they wanted the child and pro-lifers could be sated with the arguement that the fetus is barely even begun to develop in that period of time.

Just a thought.

 

[fire&ice]

To add to Demzela''s point - which I concur - also because you are pro-choice doesn''t mean you''re are pro-abortion. And, I''ve always found it odd that "men" are the one''s choosing that a women shouldn''t have a choice.

I suppose one of my main problems with the "anti abortion" stance is the hypocrisy. Failed birth control or use of no birth control is a non-issue. They aren''t pro-active in the "not getting pregnant in the first place". It''s just not realistic - or perhaps not logical to my senses - an opinion. How many are involved with the health care, mental care, finding a home, etc. for those women who choose to have their baby? If a women''s right to choose is reversed, how many will open orphanages for the unwanted? It''s unrealistic to assume that all the babies will be lovingly cared for by their birth mother or be adopted.

At the crux of one''s stance is your personal opinion (based on many things) of when life begins. What if the baby never forms a brain stem? Slippery slope - and why I believe that abortion should be a choice - and I can''t see how one could impose "limits" or exceptions because those are open to interpretation - and by the time it''s sorted out - could be a non issue.

 

[E B]

Date: 2/27/2006 3:28:53 PM
Author: fire&ice

And, I''ve always found it odd that ''men'' are the one''s choosing that a women shouldn''t have a choice.

I don''t just find it odd, I find it infuriating.

 

[rainbowtrout]

I find it wierd that the republican party, which is supposed to be about small government, seems to be for making abortion illegal at a federal level...it seems to be an issue of parental rights to an extent.

I agree with the people who are saying it is too personal a choice to legislate against. I think if we made abortion easier for poor women to have access to and to finace we would see the rates of late abortion drop *drastically* Often the cause of late abortion is the difficulty in scraping up the funds for it, especially if it includes out of state travel.