Why are our tax dollars going to fund other countries'' abortions?

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:15:53 PM
Author: starsapphire
Actually, I really don''t care WHAT it is, whether it is ''healthcare'' or whatever that the US is funding. Why are we, as a BANKRUPT country, that is borrowing from other countries for our ''stimulus package'', funding ANYTHING AT ALL in another country, when we can''t even help ourselves???????

Really!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:18:30 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/29/2009 8:11:41 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/29/2009 7:20:28 PM

Author: HollyS




Geez. Did you read this before you hit submit? You just implied that the subject of an abortion would be probably: 1) a minority, 2) an unwed mother, 3) her kids would be delinquent and might wind up in prison, 4) and of course, she would be on welfare, 5) or maybe she'd be such a lousy mother, her kids would be taken from her.



And you're a liberal?



Margaret Sanger was a liberal too. The Mother of Planned Parenthood felt that the best way to keep the non-white population in check was to advocate birth control. And legal abortions.



Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure you will. I'll be elsewhere.

Holly, she actually makes a good point, and here's why. First of all the abortions we're discussing are the ones paid for by the taxpayers. It's a hypothetical if we're discussing the domestic situation, as the Hyde Amendment forbids public money from going toward abortion procedures. In other words, people on publicly funded healthcare cannot get abortions through that system. We of course can still debate the merits of that position, but it's worth noting.


The woman in Trill's example is likely to at least be on public assistance because if they were not on public assistance, the taxpayers wouldn't be paying for her healthcare. People who are on welfare qualify for publicly funded healthcare. Most people who are part of the welfare system or publicly funded healthcare system in the US are either older [not what we're discussing] or have kids [which is the point of this conversation]. If a woman already has children and becomes pregnant again, the addition of a new child to her family will lead to her spending less time raising the children she already has. She could be the most awesome parent in the world, but if she is working and making below the poverty line in wages and struggling to keep stuff together something tells me she might not have the time to be a good parent, no? And if she REALLY cannot afford those kids they will end up in child protective services' hands.


Also, Margret Sanger was an idiot in many ways. You definitely don't have to try to sell that position to me! I'm one of those evil feminists who studies Women's Studies and we all know and definitely learn in class that she was a nutso. That doesn't mean we agree on all counts when it comes to the merits of certain types of family planning, but we do agree on that.

Wishful, thank you for acknowledging the Margaret Sanger problem with eugenics. I think that is kept pretty quiet these days!


I agree that it is a dilemma providing welfare for women with multiple children they cannot support. I support easy and free access to the best birth control available and free tubal ligations for those who want them. I just can't in good conscience say I think it's morally right to kill babies because they are being born into the home of a poor mother. But no easy solutions, I do agree.

I think you'd be surprised by how many people do know- feminists especially. I've certainly never heard anyone make excuses for her.

I think the birth control thing is key, and something that is SO OFTEN overlooked. This is the thing I think we should all try to keep in mind because it's the thing that most of us are going to agree on: preventing unwanted pregnancies is the best thing for everyone. It is best for the women who do not want to be pregnant or cannot afford to raise children, it is the best thing for children who are already alive, it is the best thing for government assistance programs. If there were less unintended pregnancies there would by default be less abortions and although I am vehemently pro-choice I am most certainly NOT pro-abortion. No one is. If we can't agree on that we should try to find common ground in figuring out the best, fastest, and most efficient means of making sure that both women and men have birth control available to them and they they know how to use it properly. We are not doing nearly enough to make that happen.

I do have to say that while we obviously still disagree, I think it's great that so many people on PS who are against abortion are consistent and show compassion for families trying to care for unplanned or unwanted children. To be honest I see a lot of contradiction when it comes to some people who are against abortion but who do not show concern for the welfare of those fetuses once they become breathing, sentient human children, or who oppose birth control just as strongly as abortion. If we can agree on some things I think those things should be emphasized, you know? Rationality is key.

ETA: Since Margaret Sanger is loooong dead and Planned Parenthood conducts something like 90-95% of its office business providing free and low-cost contraceptives to people who might otherwise not be able to access them it might be a good idea to support those initiatives and others like them. They honestly do A LOT in the way of trying to prevent abortions, regardless of their stance on the morality/legality of the procedure.

 

[MoonWater]

great post Wishful.

I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It''s frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM
Author: MoonWater
great post Wishful.


I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It''s frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

Do not even get me started on abstinence education. I''ve now written over 75 pages worth of thesis research on it, and it''s maddening. If the point is to prevent pregnancy we need to do it in a way that WORKS [actually, I''m arguing it''s not supposed to work, but I don''t think this thread is an appropriate place to discuss Foucauldian theory

]. This doesn''t work and we''ve known for years now that it doesn''t work, yet the government continues to fund it.


Actually, this is super important because realistically speaking our government does NOT pay for other peoples'' abortions, either citizens our outside of the us [reference my first few posts on this thread for more info] because measures such as the Hyde Amendment that forbid the use of govt. money to pay for abortions... what we DO pay for is abstinence sex education-- to the tune of billions of dollars every fiscal year for over a decade and the number has increased every year. Teaching kids that condoms spread aids [I swear this is in the texts- I HAVE READ THEM!] and never discussing other methods of birth control [or similarly lying about them] is not the way to go about preventing the need for abortion.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM
Author: MoonWater
great post Wishful.

I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It''s frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

Hey, why is Wishful''s post great and mine which said the same thing first with regard to birth control was apparently not?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:43:24 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/29/2009 9:18:30 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006


Wishful, thank you for acknowledging the Margaret Sanger problem with eugenics. I think that is kept pretty quiet these days!


I agree that it is a dilemma providing welfare for women with multiple children they cannot support. I support easy and free access to the best birth control available and free tubal ligations for those who want them. I just can''t in good conscience say I think it''s morally right to kill babies because they are being born into the home of a poor mother. But no easy solutions, I do agree.

I think you''d be surprised by how many people do know- feminists especially. I''ve certainly never heard anyone make excuses for her.

I think the birth control thing is key, and something that is SO OFTEN overlooked. This is the thing I think we should all try to keep in mind because it''s the thing that most of us are going to agree on: preventing unwanted pregnancies is the best thing for everyone. It is best for the women who do not want to be pregnant or cannot afford to raise children, it is the best thing for children who are already alive, it is the best thing for government assistance programs. If there were less unintended pregnancies there would by default be less abortions and although I am vehemently pro-choice I am most certainly NOT pro-abortion. No one is. If we can''t agree on that we should try to find common ground in figuring out the best, fastest, and most efficient means of making sure that both women and men have birth control available to them and they they know how to use it properly. We are not doing nearly enough to make that happen.

I do have to say that while we obviously still disagree, I think it''s great that so many people on PS who are against abortion are consistent and show compassion for families trying to care for unplanned or unwanted children. To be honest I see a lot of contradiction when it comes to some people who are against abortion but who do not show concern for the welfare of those fetuses once they become breathing, sentient human children, or who oppose birth control just as strongly as abortion. If we can agree on some things I think those things should be emphasized, you know? Rationality is key.

ETA: Since Margaret Sanger is loooong dead and Planned Parenthood conducts something like 90-95% of its office business providing free and low-cost contraceptives to people who might otherwise not be able to access them it might be a good idea to support those initiatives and others like them. They honestly do A LOT in the way of trying to prevent abortions, regardless of their stance on the morality/legality of the procedure.

Wishful, I SINCERELY appreciate your ability to have a civil discussion with people with opposing views.

I guess I am very fortunate to have many friends who are pro-life and volunteer at Crisis Pregnancy Centers or donate there or who have adopted children, etc. I agree that it is very contradictory to oppose abortion and not seek to provide help in some way to the women and babies in these difficult situations. While as a teacher I would prefer that the schools not turn into health clinics, I do want health clinics available to provide access to birth control for anyone who needs it. Prevention of unplanned pregnancy is absolutely the goal.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 10:22:59 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM

Author: MoonWater

great post Wishful.


I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It''s frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

Hey, why is Wishful''s post great and mine which said the same thing first with regard to birth control was apparently not?

I must have missed your post, what page was it on?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 10:04:24 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM

Author: MoonWater


Actually, this is super important because realistically speaking our government does NOT pay for other peoples'' abortions, either citizens our outside of the us [reference my first few posts on this thread for more info] because measures such as the Hyde Amendment that forbid the use of govt. money to pay for abortions... what we DO pay for is abstinence sex education-- to the tune of billions of dollars every fiscal year for over a decade and the number has increased every year. Teaching kids that condoms spread aids [I swear this is in the texts- I HAVE READ THEM!] and never discussing other methods of birth control [or similarly lying about them] is not the way to go about preventing the need for abortion.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/29/2009 11:29:40 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 10:22:59 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM

Author: MoonWater

great post Wishful.


I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It''s frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

Hey, why is Wishful''s post great and mine which said the same thing first with regard to birth control was apparently not?

I must have missed your post, what page was it on?

I was just teasing you a little.

But here is what I said:

"I agree that it is a dilemma providing welfare for women with multiple children they cannot support. I support easy and free access to the best birth control available and free tubal ligations for those who want them."

Wishful was replying to that and I really feel like we are pretty much in agreement on all the extraneous issues on this topic other than abortion itself.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 11:42:49 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/29/2009 11:29:40 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 10:22:59 PM

Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM


Author: MoonWater


great post Wishful.



I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It''s frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

Hey, why is Wishful''s post great and mine which said the same thing first with regard to birth control was apparently not?

I must have missed your post, what page was it on?

I was just teasing you a little.

But here is what I said:


''I agree that it is a dilemma providing welfare for women with multiple children they cannot support. I support easy and free access to the best birth control available and free tubal ligations for those who want them.''


Wishful was replying to that and I really feel like we are pretty much in agreement on all the extraneous issues on this topic other than abortion itself.

Oh, well the ''great post'' comment wasn''t simply based on her opinion, it was how she presented it. She wrote a convincing argument which I thought highlighted the issue with abstinence only education.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/29/2009 11:48:57 PM
Author: MoonWater


Oh, well the ''great post'' comment wasn''t simply based on her opinion, it was how she presented it. She wrote a convincing argument which I thought highlighted the issue with abstinence only education.

Oh, okay. I thought you were referring to her post that was right before the one where you said "great post", and that one was on birth control primarily. It was good, too.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:15:53 PM
Author: starsapphire
Actually, I really don''t care WHAT it is, whether it is ''healthcare'' or whatever that the US is funding. Why are we, as a BANKRUPT country, that is borrowing from other countries for our ''stimulus package'', funding ANYTHING AT ALL in another country, when we can''t even help ourselves???????

For the same reason we''ve gone so far afield of where we were when you asked the original question . . . . because we digress. And forget what we should focus on. On PS and as a nation.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/29/2009 10:22:59 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM
Author: MoonWater
great post Wishful.

I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It''s frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

Hey, why is Wishful''s post great and mine which said the same thing first with regard to birth control was apparently not?

Well, duh!

 

[risingsun]

Date: 1/30/2009 1:51:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/29/2009 10:22:59 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/29/2009 9:52:56 PM
Author: MoonWater
great post Wishful.

I would also add this is one of my biggest problems with abstinence only sex education. In my experience, the people that wish to insist on only this form of information are also people who are against abortion. It's frustrating for all the reasons you stated above, the best thing would be to avoid the pregnancy altogether.

Hey, why is Wishful's post great and mine which said the same thing first with regard to birth control was apparently not?

Well, duh!

I think if you spoke with many of us who are pro-choice, you find that we are not pro-abortion. We are pro-education, -birth control, -family planning, and -adoption; but also believe that women should have reproductive rights. I would fight just as hard for a woman to have a child, as not. Abortion is the last option on my list of choices. As a therapist, I have to be neutral about what I believe and assist my clients in making the best choice for themselves. I may not agree, but that is not my role.

 

[I Love My Sailor]

This is included in President Obama''s stimulus package. Some agree, some do not.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/30/2009 4:08:43 PM
Author: I Love My Sailor
This is included in President Obama''s stimulus package. Some agree, some do not.

What is included in the stimlus package?

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/30/2009 7:45:36 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/30/2009 4:08:43 PM

Author: I Love My Sailor

This is included in President Obama''s stimulus package. Some agree, some do not.

What is included in the stimlus package?

I think I Love My Sailor is confusing Obama''s executive order to rescind the global gag rule [the topic of this thread] with a different provision for family planning which was originally proposed as a rider to the economic stimulus plan. However, that provision has since been removed, so it will not be part of the stimulus package either. The two are not the same thing! I hope that helps to clarify.

 

[I Love My Sailor]

I was watching Bill O''Riley(or whatever his name is) , he mentioned the spending to be part of the Presidents stimulus package but I don''t keep up daily so I guess things changed.

Thanks for the update and sorry, didn''t mean to confuse anyone

I Love My Sailor

 

[WishfulThinking]

No problem, I just like everyone to be on the same page so we can have a discussion based on fact. The issue this thread was started about is an international issue [global gag rule, etc] whereas any social expenditures included in the stimulus bill has to do with domestic policy. The family planning bill that was originally a rider to the stimulus package has NOTHING to do with abortion, which is the subject of this thread. In the United States federal money [that is, tax money] has been prohibited from going toward performing abortion procedures since the 1976 Hyde Amendment.

What that also means is that all the waxing philosophical going on in this thread about whether tax money should go toward abortion is completely moot. It doesn't. It can't. There is federal legislation blocking that.

Here is a pretty good synopsis of what the family planning provision that was removed from the stimulus package would have done, and the history behind the issue. Sorry to prolong the off-topic tangent, but I thought it was an interesting read, and something that actually many of us can on both of the proverbial "sides" agree is a good way to go about handling the prevention of unwanted pregnancies without turning to abortion. It's become rather partisan in congress but I honestly don't think that many of the people who oppose it have done their homework, so to speak, because they're still talking about how they don't want money to go toward abortions, and this doesn't do that in the least. This includes Bill O'Reilly... the man could stand to read the legislation before he opens his mouth about it.

We all could.

ETA: For anyone interested in the Time article I linked above, the last section on the page discusses the topic of this particular thread, the more complex mechanisms behind Obama's global gag rule executive order and what it does and does not do. You will be happy to note that, as I said waaaaaay back in the beginning of this thread, federal money is still NOT going to fund abortions overseas. Not here, not there. Not anywhere. This is not a comment about what we ought to do, but I feel like the point that it's NOT what we do has been lost over the course of this thread. There is an appalling amount of misinformation floating around on this subject. We'd all get along much better if we were all getting the same information! When we do it's clear [and we honestly have seen that here even though I know it can be sporadic

] that we agree on far more counts than we disagree.

 

[miraclesrule]

I just want to say that I agree...Wishful...that was an excellent post (1/29). It warmed my heart.

(This is the first time I posted on PS through Firefox...man, what a difference....so many more options..woohooo)

 

[TravelingGal]

Just a note on Maria''s question on abortion vs invitro.

I can''t speak for myself because while personally, I am not sure I could have an abortion (I never say never) I am pro choice because I don''t feel the government should tell women what they can and can''t do with their bodies.

A good friend of mine is definitely pro life. She always has been and 6 years ago starting trying to have children. There is nothing wrong with either her or her hubby but they have not been able to conceive.

She has watched her best friend have three children by invitro and she of course adores her friend''s kids. Her BFF doesn''t understand why she doesn''t go through invitro. In fact, her entire circle of friends have questioned why she has not yet. My friend wants children desperately but she can''t get her self to go through it because she grapples with what would happen to the unused embryos. She can''t get herself to give them away, and is not sure about donating them to science.

Her BFF''s children is precisely why she has a hard time going through it. The eldest and the middle child were conceived at the same time. The middle obviously was implanted 3 years later. Knowing that frozen embryo ended up being a tangible beautiful child three years later was mind bogglin for my friend I think.

She''ll be 36 in May. Sometimes I wish she could figure it out and go for invitro, but I have to say, I respect her for her consistency of belief that life begins at conception.

I would think more pro lifers struggle with invitro than you would think.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 1/30/2009 9:53:59 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
No problem, I just like everyone to be on the same page so we can have a discussion based on fact. The issue this thread was started about is an international issue [global gag rule, etc] whereas any social expenditures included in the stimulus bill has to do with domestic policy. The family planning bill that was originally a rider to the stimulus package has NOTHING to do with abortion, which is the subject of this thread. In the United States federal money [that is, tax money] has been prohibited from going toward performing abortion procedures since the 1976 Hyde Amendment.

What that also means is that all the waxing philosophical going on in this thread about whether tax money should go toward abortion is completely moot. It doesn''t. It can''t. There is federal legislation blocking that.

Here is a pretty good synopsis of what the family planning provision that was removed from the stimulus package would have done, and the history behind the issue. Sorry to prolong the off-topic tangent, but I thought it was an interesting read, and something that actually many of us can on both of the proverbial ''sides'' agree is a good way to go about handling the prevention of unwanted pregnancies without turning to abortion. It''s become rather partisan in congress but I honestly don''t think that many of the people who oppose it have done their homework, so to speak, because they''re still talking about how they don''t want money to go toward abortions, and this doesn''t do that in the least. This includes Bill O''Reilly... the man could stand to read the legislation before he opens his mouth about it.

We all could.

ETA: For anyone interested in the Time article I linked above, the last section on the page discusses the topic of this particular thread, the more complex mechanisms behind Obama''s global gag rule executive order and what it does and does not do. You will be happy to note that, as I said waaaaaay back in the beginning of this thread, federal money is still NOT going to fund abortions overseas. Not here, not there. Not anywhere. This is not a comment about what we ought to do, but I feel like the point that it''s NOT what we do has been lost over the course of this thread. There is an appalling amount of misinformation floating around on this subject. We''d all get along much better if we were all getting the same information! When we do it''s clear [and we honestly have seen that here even though I know it can be sporadic

] that we agree on far more counts than we disagree.

Thank you for the clarification, Wishful. The OP''s initial information was incorrect and we''ve been going on for nine pages about a canard, a tempest in a teapot, a fools errand...I''ll stop now

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/30/2009 9:53:59 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
No problem, I just like everyone to be on the same page so we can have a discussion based on fact. The issue this thread was started about is an international issue [global gag rule, etc] whereas any social expenditures included in the stimulus bill has to do with domestic policy. The family planning bill that was originally a rider to the stimulus package has NOTHING to do with abortion, which is the subject of this thread. In the United States federal money [that is, tax money] has been prohibited from going toward performing abortion procedures since the 1976 Hyde Amendment.

What that also means is that all the waxing philosophical going on in this thread about whether tax money should go toward abortion is completely moot. It doesn''t. It can''t. There is federal legislation blocking that.

Here is a pretty good synopsis of what the family planning provision that was removed from the stimulus package would have done, and the history behind the issue. Sorry to prolong the off-topic tangent, but I thought it was an interesting read, and something that actually many of us can on both of the proverbial ''sides'' agree is a good way to go about handling the prevention of unwanted pregnancies without turning to abortion. It''s become rather partisan in congress but I honestly don''t think that many of the people who oppose it have done their homework, so to speak, because they''re still talking about how they don''t want money to go toward abortions, and this doesn''t do that in the least. This includes Bill O''Reilly... the man could stand to read the legislation before he opens his mouth about it.

We all could.

ETA: For anyone interested in the Time article I linked above, the last section on the page discusses the topic of this particular thread, the more complex mechanisms behind Obama''s global gag rule executive order and what it does and does not do. You will be happy to note that, as I said waaaaaay back in the beginning of this thread, federal money is still NOT going to fund abortions overseas. Not here, not there. Not anywhere. This is not a comment about what we ought to do, but I feel like the point that it''s NOT what we do has been lost over the course of this thread. There is an appalling amount of misinformation floating around on this subject. We''d all get along much better if we were all getting the same information! When we do it''s clear [and we honestly have seen that here even though I know it can be sporadic

] that we agree on far more counts than we disagree.

Thank you so much, Wishful! This is immensely helpful! I have appreciated discussing this topic with you and am glad you clarified the error.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 1/30/2009 11:20:13 PM
Author: TravelingGal
Just a note on Maria''s question on abortion vs invitro.


**snip**


I would think more pro lifers struggle with invitro than you would think.

Actually, I agree that pro-lifers would struggle with it. What does it mean to be pro-life anyway? I have one child, conceived when b.c. failed. At the time I definitely wasn''t planning to have a child (hence the use of b.c.) but I didn''t choose to abort. When we were sure our family was complete my husband had a vasectomy so I would never have to worry about another unplanned pregnancy. I don''t believe in the death penalty. I would have a very difficult time rationalizing in-vitro conception because of my beliefs. So I guess I''m pro-life.

But I am fervently and ardently pro-choice. I believe it is a woman''s right to struggle (or not) with the decision of how to conceive or whether to terminate a pregnancy.

It''s one thing to struggle with your own decision and quite another to be part of a movement that aims to take the decision away from others. For some anti-choicers, the movement is very organized. For others, it''s not. Maybe they just start a thread that asks why their tax dollars fund abortion (which is actually inaccurate). Or maybe they feel compelled to post a response telling others that their views on "when life begins" are wrong. But notice how they always feel compelled to spout these views when the topic is abortion? No one goes on a TTC thread and feels compelled to "speak for the unborn babies." Organized movements don''t target fertility clinics to anywhere near the same extent that abortion clinics are targeted. People considering in-vitro aren''t badgered to adopt instead the way a woman considering an abortion is badgered to consider carrying out the pregnancy to full-term only to give up a baby.

I still think that when you are fretting about *someone else''s decision* -- and this is the original topic -- it isn''t so much that you are so concerned with unborn babies -- it''s a bias against female sexuality.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/31/2009 12:28:19 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 1/30/2009 11:20:13 PM

Author: TravelingGal

Just a note on Maria''s question on abortion vs invitro.



**snip**



I would think more pro lifers struggle with invitro than you would think.

Actually, I agree that pro-lifers would struggle with it. What does it mean to be pro-life anyway? I have one child, conceived when b.c. failed. At the time I definitely wasn''t planning to have a child (hence the use of b.c.) but I didn''t choose to abort. When we were sure our family was complete my husband had a vasectomy so I would never have to worry about another unplanned pregnancy. I don''t believe in the death penalty. I would have a very difficult time rationalizing in-vitro conception because of my beliefs. So I guess I''m pro-life.


But I am fervently and ardently pro-choice. I believe it is a woman''s right to struggle (or not) with the decision of how to conceive or whether to terminate a pregnancy.


It''s one thing to struggle with your own decision and quite another to be part of a movement that aims to take the decision away from others. For some anti-choicers, the movement is very organized. For others, it''s not. Maybe they just start a thread that asks why their tax dollars fund abortion (which is actually inaccurate). Or maybe they feel compelled to post a response telling others that their views on ''when life begins'' are wrong. But notice how they always feel compelled to spout these views when the topic is abortion? No one goes on a TTC thread and feels compelled to ''speak for the unborn babies.'' Organized movements don''t target fertility clinics to anywhere near the same extent that abortion clinics are targeted. People considering in-vitro aren''t badgered to adopt instead the way a woman considering an abortion is badgered to consider carrying out the pregnancy to full-term only to give up a baby.


I still think that when you are fretting about *someone else''s decision* -- and this is the original topic -- it isn''t so much that you are so concerned with unborn babies -- it''s a bias against female sexuality.

and for the record, I *personally* can not see myself ever having an abortion. although if I were ever raped, i could possibly revise that choice.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/31/2009 12:28:19 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 1/30/2009 11:20:13 PM
Author: TravelingGal
Just a note on Maria''s question on abortion vs invitro.


**snip**


I would think more pro lifers struggle with invitro than you would think.

Actually, I agree that pro-lifers would struggle with it. What does it mean to be pro-life anyway? I have one child, conceived when b.c. failed. At the time I definitely wasn''t planning to have a child (hence the use of b.c.) but I didn''t choose to abort. When we were sure our family was complete my husband had a vasectomy so I would never have to worry about another unplanned pregnancy. I don''t believe in the death penalty. I would have a very difficult time rationalizing in-vitro conception because of my beliefs. So I guess I''m pro-life.

But I am fervently and ardently pro-choice. I believe it is a woman''s right to struggle (or not) with the decision of how to conceive or whether to terminate a pregnancy.

It''s one thing to struggle with your own decision and quite another to be part of a movement that aims to take the decision away from others. For some anti-choicers, the movement is very organized. For others, it''s not. Maybe they just start a thread that asks why their tax dollars fund abortion (which is actually inaccurate). Or maybe they feel compelled to post a response telling others that their views on ''when life begins'' are wrong. But notice how they always feel compelled to spout these views when the topic is abortion? No one goes on a TTC thread and feels compelled to ''speak for the unborn babies.'' Organized movements don''t target fertility clinics to anywhere near the same extent that abortion clinics are targeted. People considering in-vitro aren''t badgered to adopt instead the way a woman considering an abortion is badgered to consider carrying out the pregnancy to full-term only to give up a baby.

I still think that when you are fretting about *someone else''s decision* -- and this is the original topic -- it isn''t so much that you are so concerned with unborn babies -- it''s a bias against female sexuality.

Maria, this could not be further from the truth. I have already stated on this thread that I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not. Once that decision is made, and if the woman becomes pregnant, then yes, at that point I will speak for the unborn baby.

I don''t really see anything wrong with in vitro, although I can''t say I have done extensive study on that topic. I would have a problem with creating too many embryos and subsequently killing them. Create only as many embryos as you are prepared to implant. In that, I am totally consistent with my view of the protection of innocent human life.

I can''t see why I should "spout my views" on a TTC thread. I hope for all those girls that they will be able to have a baby. Wouldn''t that be what everyone would say on a TTC thread???? I''d certainly encourage them to consider adoption if they can''t conceive because adoption was as great a blessing in my life as giving birth was. But if they want to try medical treatment to conceive, I am 100% supportive of them doing so.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 2/1/2009 9:18:40 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Maria, this could not be further from the truth. I have already stated on this thread that I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not. Once that decision is made, and if the woman becomes pregnant, then yes, at that point I will speak for the unborn baby.

I don''t really see anything wrong with in vitro, although I can''t say I have done extensive study on that topic. I would have a problem with creating too many embryos and subsequently killing them. Create only as many embryos as you are prepared to implant. In that, I am totally consistent with my view of the protection of innocent human life.

I can''t see why I should ''spout my views'' on a TTC thread. I hope for all those girls that they will be able to have a baby. Wouldn''t that be what everyone would say on a TTC thread???? I''d certainly encourage them to consider adoption if they can''t conceive because adoption was as great a blessing in my life as giving birth was. But if they want to try medical treatment to conceive, I am 100% supportive of them doing so.

Diamondseeker, in my opinion you should NOT spout your views on a TTC thread. No one who is considering in-vitro needs to hear about YOUR problems with creating too many embryos that might then need to be destroyed. But go right ahead and keep on speaking for these "unborn babies" when the topic of abortion comes up. That way any woman who has had one, who is considering one, or who would consider one in the event of an unplanned pregnancy can be rightfully offended by your views and the way that you''ll come right out and say that HER views are wrong. Those woman deserve it anyway. It''s not like they want to become mothers, they just want to have sex without necessarily having children, shame! It doesn''t matter if THEY don''t believe that sacred life begins at conception; it''s all about what YOU believe.

By the way, your definition of pro-choice had me laughing out loud. "I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not." Wow! You should read the report that Luckystar cited. It said that the vast majority of women who have repeat abortions consistently use birth control. It''s not about irresponsibility. It''s about a back-up plan for women who don''t equate zygotes and embryos with babies.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 2/1/2009 10:54:32 PM
Author: Maria D

Diamondseeker, in my opinion you should NOT spout your views on a TTC thread. No one who is considering in-vitro needs to hear about YOUR problems with creating too many embryos that might then need to be destroyed. But go right ahead and keep on speaking for these ''unborn babies'' when the topic of abortion comes up. That way any woman who has had one, who is considering one, or who would consider one in the event of an unplanned pregnancy can be rightfully offended by your views and the way that you''ll come right out and say that HER views are wrong. Those woman deserve it anyway. It''s not like they want to become mothers, they just want to have sex without necessarily having children, shame! It doesn''t matter if THEY don''t believe that sacred life begins at conception; it''s all about what YOU believe.

By the way, your definition of pro-choice had me laughing out loud. ''I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not.'' Wow! You should read the report that Luckystar cited. It said that the vast majority of women who have repeat abortions consistently use birth control. It''s not about irresponsibility. It''s about a back-up plan for women who don''t equate zygotes and embryos with babies.

Great post, Maria. I agree 100%!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/1/2009 10:54:32 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 2/1/2009 9:18:40 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Maria, this could not be further from the truth. I have already stated on this thread that I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not. Once that decision is made, and if the woman becomes pregnant, then yes, at that point I will speak for the unborn baby.

I don''t really see anything wrong with in vitro, although I can''t say I have done extensive study on that topic. I would have a problem with creating too many embryos and subsequently killing them. Create only as many embryos as you are prepared to implant. In that, I am totally consistent with my view of the protection of innocent human life.

I can''t see why I should ''spout my views'' on a TTC thread. I hope for all those girls that they will be able to have a baby. Wouldn''t that be what everyone would say on a TTC thread???? I''d certainly encourage them to consider adoption if they can''t conceive because adoption was as great a blessing in my life as giving birth was. But if they want to try medical treatment to conceive, I am 100% supportive of them doing so.

Diamondseeker, in my opinion you should NOT spout your views on a TTC thread. No one who is considering in-vitro needs to hear about YOUR problems with creating too many embryos that might then need to be destroyed. But go right ahead and keep on speaking for these ''unborn babies'' when the topic of abortion comes up. That way any woman who has had one, who is considering one, or who would consider one in the event of an unplanned pregnancy can be rightfully offended by your views and the way that you''ll come right out and say that HER views are wrong. Those woman deserve it anyway. It''s not like they want to become mothers, they just want to have sex without necessarily having children, shame! It doesn''t matter if THEY don''t believe that sacred life begins at conception; it''s all about what YOU believe.

By the way, your definition of pro-choice had me laughing out loud. ''I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not.'' Wow! You should read the report that Luckystar cited. It said that the vast majority of women who have repeat abortions consistently use birth control. It''s not about irresponsibility. It''s about a back-up plan for women who don''t equate zygotes and embryos with babies.

Maria, I am not sure why you choose to use such a condescending tone to me, but I DID already say that I saw no reason to "spout my views" (to use your terms) on a TTC thread. I said I would encourage them JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.

Any woman who is 100% sure of her views on abortion and chooses to have one shouldn''t be in the least offended or even care if I have another view. If they see it is as the perfect option for them and the mass of cells not a baby, so be it. But I have just as much right to have an opinion as does anyone else, and I have every right to express it.

I love how liberals love to promote tolerance except when people disagree with them.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 1/31/2009 12:28:19 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 1/30/2009 11:20:13 PM
Author: TravelingGal
Just a note on Maria''s question on abortion vs invitro.


**snip**


I would think more pro lifers struggle with invitro than you would think.

Actually, I agree that pro-lifers would struggle with it. What does it mean to be pro-life anyway? I have one child, conceived when b.c. failed. At the time I definitely wasn''t planning to have a child (hence the use of b.c.) but I didn''t choose to abort. When we were sure our family was complete my husband had a vasectomy so I would never have to worry about another unplanned pregnancy. I don''t believe in the death penalty. I would have a very difficult time rationalizing in-vitro conception because of my beliefs. So I guess I''m pro-life.

But I am fervently and ardently pro-choice. I believe it is a woman''s right to struggle (or not) with the decision of how to conceive or whether to terminate a pregnancy.

It''s one thing to struggle with your own decision and quite another to be part of a movement that aims to take the decision away from others. For some anti-choicers, the movement is very organized. For others, it''s not. Maybe they just start a thread that asks why their tax dollars fund abortion (which is actually inaccurate). Or maybe they feel compelled to post a response telling others that their views on ''when life begins'' are wrong. But notice how they always feel compelled to spout these views when the topic is abortion? No one goes on a TTC thread and feels compelled to ''speak for the unborn babies.'' Organized movements don''t target fertility clinics to anywhere near the same extent that abortion clinics are targeted. People considering in-vitro aren''t badgered to adopt instead the way a woman considering an abortion is badgered to consider carrying out the pregnancy to full-term only to give up a baby.

I still think that when you are fretting about *someone else''s decision* -- and this is the original topic -- it isn''t so much that you are so concerned with unborn babies -- it''s a bias against female sexuality.

Well, as I said, my personal views align with yours, so I''m probably not the person to do the reasoning. But if I had to take a stab at it, it probably is because invitro inherently is about creating life while abortion is about terminating it (let''s use the argument that "life" begins at conception). So if one only created as many embryos needed to implant, all of them would be given a shot at life. If they didn''t take, it wouldn''t be because they were terminated.

However, that''s an oversimplication and doesn''t tackle the issues that make this whole thing so divisive.

Again, my very strong view that my own personal beliefs should not be forced upon others is why I am pro choice.