|
Post by id82 on Apr 10, 2009 15:34:42 GMT -5
The thing that bugs me is that anti abortion speakers completely overlook the thoughts of the mother, and automatically demonize her without thinking about what the mother is actually going through.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 10, 2009 15:51:07 GMT -5
The thing that bugs me is that anti abortion speakers completely overlook the thoughts of the mother, and automatically demonize her without thinking about what the mother is actually going through. Also, not one thinks of the consequence of the mother going through one should their stance be made law. If a woman goes through an abortion, should she be punished? As far as I'm aware, they only want to punish the doctors, never the woman, even though the woman is directly responsible for deciding to undergo the procedure. It is a strange thing...
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Apr 10, 2009 19:20:51 GMT -5
My thoughts on abortion: Short answer: I'm a guy. I have no say in the matter. Long answer: Too many variables exist for me to take one side or another. It's each person's choice to make. What I Am against are people preaching, "Pro Life!" then shooting a doctor. I also agree with what Armand said a while back; that the people who push so much for the life of the child don't give a flying #%$@ about it once it's born. If it's not your 'kid,' you don't get a say in the matter. Simple as that. Using that logic, if it's not your 'kid' you don't get a say in the matter, wouldn't that apply to parents who kill their children outside the womb as well? If the basis for your argument is that nobody has a "say" about killing a baby (as they see it) because it's not their kid, then that reason should apply across the board. No it doesn't. If the kid's outside the womb, you know whether or not it's alive. Inside however is a different story. Whether you go by faith or theories, you don't know. The choice is not an easy one, but it should exist. And until they can say 100% when that fetus is alive, they don't get a say. It's that simple (Okay, it's never simple, but another person, especially a guy, shouldn't get to control what goes on in a woman's body.)
|
|
|
Post by jaydubs on Apr 10, 2009 21:23:37 GMT -5
I guess I should have clarified. I don't think we should outlaw it entirely (I think it's Nicaragua that did that). Health reasons, of course, and rape legitimize abortion. I also see no problem with the morning after pill. But after the first trimester, I DO think that only health reasons can justify abortion. Because honestly, who's to say when sentience begins? Babies cannot speak, yet we all assume that they are fully human. I think that just the risk of ending a life should give anyone pause. And as for the rarity, I think that many non-theists "zig" because so many theists "zag." The tongues-speaking crowd have done the pro-life movement more harm than Gloria Steinem and Peter Singer could ever hope to do. I'm curious, do you consider this just to be your opinion, and thus are willing to live by it, but fine with other people living by their own opinion on the matter, or would you want it banned outside of the areas you deemed, "justifiable"? Just curious, because one of the main problems I have with pro-lifers is the fact that they want their view to be enforced on those who disagree...Their opinion isn't good enough just for them, but everyone must follow their ideals...Although that tends to be the religious viewpoint as well, so maybe that's the relation. Yeah, I do have a problem with people who frame the argument that way. I don't think that this should be a religious issue, and the religious fanatics who adopt the pro-life label are frankly embarrassing. I'm male, so I can hardly "live by" my opposition to abortion. I do think that as a society, we should support women who do "choose life," (oh, how I hate that phrase. But you know what it means, so I'll use it) so that more women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies consider adoption. And the closest thing I can give to a concrete statement on abortion is that I think it is acceptable for rape victims (only in the first trimester, however) and to preserve the mother's health. Period. But I will admit that this raises problems. After all, many rape victims are so traumatized by their ordeals that they can't bring themselves to discuss it--certainly not with a stranger at a clinic. I'll admit that this is a problem for me, and every time I think that we should restrict abortion access, I remember this. If you can figure out a way around it, you're smarter than me.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 10, 2009 22:39:23 GMT -5
Well in Canada, you can buy the morning after pill at any pharmacy without a prescription. So that should help the rape victim that doesn't want to talk about it.
And how are women who "choose life" not supported? There are private/public adoption agencies, the government is supposed to step in to force the father to support the child, welfare.
But again, I'm pro-birth control. If it was easy enough to get then abortion would become less of an issue.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 11, 2009 0:02:13 GMT -5
Well in Canada, you can buy the morning after pill at any pharmacy without a prescription. So that should help the rape victim that doesn't want to talk about it. And how are women who "choose life" not supported? There are private/public adoption agencies, the government is supposed to step in to force the father to support the child, welfare. But again, I'm pro-birth control. If it was easy enough to get then abortion would become less of an issue. In the US, the morning after pill is OTC or prescription, but they can refuse OTC sales and in some places, pharmacists can refuse a prescription on religious grounds. Seriously. Your belief in Jesus gives you the right to turn down a prescription. To the rest, Birth control and education. It disturbs me that there are people who would rather risk their kids getting AIDS or some other STD then risk their kids thinking sex is okay. That people would rather teach abstinence and leave them without knowledge of ways to avoid the worst possible mistakes than keep them safe. God, give the kids condoms and birth control. It'll reduce abortions and make them safer. Win win?
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 11, 2009 2:15:09 GMT -5
I'm curious, do you consider this just to be your opinion, and thus are willing to live by it, but fine with other people living by their own opinion on the matter, or would you want it banned outside of the areas you deemed, "justifiable"? Just curious, because one of the main problems I have with pro-lifers is the fact that they want their view to be enforced on those who disagree...Their opinion isn't good enough just for them, but everyone must follow their ideals...Although that tends to be the religious viewpoint as well, so maybe that's the relation. Yeah, I do have a problem with people who frame the argument that way. I don't think that this should be a religious issue, and the religious fanatics who adopt the pro-life label are frankly embarrassing. I'm male, so I can hardly "live by" my opposition to abortion. I do think that as a society, we should support women who do "choose life," (oh, how I hate that phrase. But you know what it means, so I'll use it) so that more women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies consider adoption. And the closest thing I can give to a concrete statement on abortion is that I think it is acceptable for rape victims (only in the first trimester, however) and to preserve the mother's health. Period. But I will admit that this raises problems. After all, many rape victims are so traumatized by their ordeals that they can't bring themselves to discuss it--certainly not with a stranger at a clinic. I'll admit that this is a problem for me, and every time I think that we should restrict abortion access, I remember this. If you can figure out a way around it, you're smarter than me. I don't disagree that we should always support those who choose to carry the child to term; but my question was if you supported a ban outside rape and health, which if I'm reading correctly you do (with the caveat that it doesn't impede people from doing it for the other reasons either physically or psychologically). The problem I find is that if you were to ban it for other reasons, this would be effectively saying that your opinion should override the women's who disagree with it. I understand that you personally can't make a decision being a man, but you can try to convince any partners you are with to keep the child, of course with them being the final say. While I do personally think that perhaps a certain time limit should be put on it for reasons outside of rape and health, (after all, they have plenty of time to make a decision and have it done before a certain trimester, not getting it done before that point is somewhat irresponsible on their part), I don't think that it would be particularly effective, considering the vast majority are already done fairly early on when I really can't say its a person.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 11, 2009 7:45:06 GMT -5
I understand that you personally can't make a decision being a man, but you can try to convince any partners you are with to keep the child, of course with them being the final say. We actually had a court case quite a few years ago now that pretty much said that that is the limit of the rights a father has. A boyfriend found out that his girlfriend was preggers and that she wanted an abortion so he filed an injunction to stop her. He was told to suck it up, her rights trumped his in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 11, 2009 10:27:45 GMT -5
^^ As well they should have. I know that it might be a controversial statement to make; but again, we're back to the ethical viewpoint and rights of women. I am the one who feeds the baby with my own body, the one who carries it for nine months, lives with its kicks and movements and constant reminders that it exists inside of me, suffers the abortion or miscarriage in a psychological way that men simply could never experience, and suffer the hours of labor it takes to make my body physically push out the baby. Not to mention the brunt of care an infant needs immediately after birth, which it is then biologically wired to smell for its mom and take comfort from it's mother's heartbeat. To have a man (or anyone else) come in and say that he should have an equal right to make the decision for me to continue or reject the pregnancy, when he could never possibly experience any of that, is NOT his right. To assert he somehow has an equal experience or say in the matter is to purposefully ignore that the bulk of the experience, physically, psychologically and emotionally, is the woman's to deal with. Her rights should trump his in this situation, just as it should trump that of his or her parents, or others who do not have to use their bodies to confirm or deny a baby. Claiming otherwise is negating a big part of the total body & mind experience of pregnancy--and that experience is only in the body of the woman who is pregnant. It's her call, because it's her body & mind that are affected by this. Anything else, as I said earlier, reduces that experience to one of a gestating womb. I can't support that.
I respect pro-lifers, but only to the extent that their beliefs are individual; as in that old slogan you see at rallies "Don't want an abortion, don't have one." You can try to convince your girlfriend, you can create support groups to help pregnant women make a different decision other than abortion. But you cannot force by legal means or otherwise, what is an incredibly intense personal experience and decision with the use of a blanket law that promotes your own ethical viewpoint, one that by its very nature removes some of the rights a woman has to control of her own body.
I can't abort anyone else's fetus but my own. I can't have your baby for you (well I can, but you know what I mean). It's a decision that woman has to make and carry out on her own. So it should be left up to her--not to a group of people who do not have to go through with it.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 11, 2009 10:53:30 GMT -5
Well he should of used a condom if he didn't want to be a daddy.
Simple, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 11, 2009 11:23:21 GMT -5
I understand that you personally can't make a decision being a man, but you can try to convince any partners you are with to keep the child, of course with them being the final say. We actually had a court case quite a few years ago now that pretty much said that that is the limit of the rights a father has. A boyfriend found out that his girlfriend was preggers and that she wanted an abortion so he filed an injunction to stop her. He was told to suck it up, her rights trumped his in this situation. As a man, I say they should. It's her body, not his. Granted, because he's close to her I'm sure he has influence over her decisions, but it is ultimately her body and not his. At this point he's invested, what, the time spent fucking and a few sperm. What has she invested?
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 11, 2009 12:13:40 GMT -5
I think the big reason secular pro-lifers seem so rare is that we are neither A) as vociferous, or B) as inflexible as religious pro-lifers.
I'm morally against abortion. However, I recognize that taking legal action to outlaw it would only drive up the number of women who die or suffer medical complications from illegal abortions performed in less-than-adequate conditions. Therefore, the solution is to educate people better about birth control techniques, and invent better techniques, such that abortion could (hopefully) be rendered unnecessary except to protect the mother's life.
For the record, my above statement is NOT to imply that rape and incest victims should carry the perpetrator's child to term. My hope is that at some point, there will be a drug or some other technique that would prevent such crimes from resulting in pregnancies at all. It wouldn't solve the problem of those crimes in itself, but it would be one less thing to burden the victim.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 11, 2009 12:37:48 GMT -5
The only people--ONLY ONES--I can accept as being pro-life are the ones that THEMSELVES would not have an abortion but are politically and socially pro-choice, meaning that they would never take away a woman's right to chose to have an abortion. The very nanosecond you start imposing your "ABORTION IS BAD!" views onto me or any other woman, I hate you and I want you dead. Full stop, end of story. I have no tolerance for people who try to manipulate, con, guilt, or in any other way dissuade a woman from deciding something for herself.
Secular anti-choicers are so rare, I think, because a) there aren't too many non-religious reasons for opposing a woman's right to choose, and b) 'pro-life' as a label tends to carry with it religious connotations. When someone says 'pro-life' the very first image that pops into most people's heads is crazy Christian protesters outside of Planned Parenthoods screaming, "GOD WANTS YOU TO HAVE YOUR BABY!!!" Plus, even if you're atheist/agnostic/whatever and PERSONALLY wouldn't have an abortion, you're still pro-choice because you still believe the option should be there for those that want it--that makes you pro-CHOICE.
Like others here, I know the key in reducing abortions is increasing comprehensive sex-education and ready contraception availability (free or reduced-cost and confidential to anybody who wants it). Making abortion illegal will make women instead seek back-alley abortions or use dangerous abortion-inducing drugs/chemicals. Then the girls and women themselves will die horrible deaths. Anybody who thinks that making abortion illegal will stop abortions from happening is an idiot and needs to be whallopped over the head with the clue-by-four.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 11, 2009 15:06:33 GMT -5
^^ As well they should have. I know that it might be a controversial statement to make; but again, we're back to the ethical viewpoint and rights of women. I am the one who feeds the baby with my own body, the one who carries it for nine months, lives with its kicks and movements and constant reminders that it exists inside of me, suffers the abortion or miscarriage in a psychological way that men simply could never experience, and suffer the hours of labor it takes to make my body physically push out the baby. Not to mention the brunt of care an infant needs immediately after birth, which it is then biologically wired to smell for its mom and take comfort from it's mother's heartbeat. To have a man (or anyone else) come in and say that he should have an equal right to make the decision for me to continue or reject the pregnancy, when he could never possibly experience any of that, is NOT his right. To assert he somehow has an equal experience or say in the matter is to purposefully ignore that the bulk of the experience, physically, psychologically and emotionally, is the woman's to deal with. Her rights should trump his in this situation, just as it should trump that of his or her parents, or others who do not have to use their bodies to confirm or deny a baby. Claiming otherwise is negating a big part of the total body & mind experience of pregnancy--and that experience is only in the body of the woman who is pregnant. It's her call, because it's her body & mind that are affected by this. Anything else, as I said earlier, reduces that experience to one of a gestating womb. I can't support that. I respect pro-lifers, but only to the extent that their beliefs are individual; as in that old slogan you see at rallies "Don't want an abortion, don't have one." You can try to convince your girlfriend, you can create support groups to help pregnant women make a different decision other than abortion. But you cannot force by legal means or otherwise, what is an incredibly intense personal experience and decision with the use of a blanket law that promotes your own ethical viewpoint, one that by its very nature removes some of the rights a woman has to control of her own body. I can't abort anyone else's fetus but my own. I can't have your baby for you (well I can, but you know what I mean). It's a decision that woman has to make and carry out on her own. So it should be left up to her--not to a group of people who do not have to go through with it. Until the guy can carry the child to term, or at the very least we have artificial wombs, completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 11, 2009 15:22:28 GMT -5
The only people--ONLY ONES--I can accept as being pro-life are the ones that THEMSELVES would not have an abortion but are politically and socially pro-choice, meaning that they would never take away a woman's right to chose to have an abortion. The very nanosecond you start imposing your "ABORTION IS BAD!" views onto me or any other woman, I hate you and I want you dead. Full stop, end of story. I have no tolerance for people who try to manipulate, con, guilt, or in any other way dissuade a woman from deciding something for herself. Secular anti-choicers are so rare, I think, because a) there aren't too many non-religious reasons for opposing a woman's right to choose, and b) 'pro-life' as a label tends to carry with it religious connotations. When someone says 'pro-life' the very first image that pops into most people's heads is crazy Christian protesters outside of Planned Parenthoods screaming, "GOD WANTS YOU TO HAVE YOUR BABY!!!" Plus, even if you're atheist/agnostic/whatever and PERSONALLY wouldn't have an abortion, you're still pro-choice because you still believe the option should be there for those that want it--that makes you pro-CHOICE. Like others here, I know the key in reducing abortions is increasing comprehensive sex-education and ready contraception availability (free or reduced-cost and confidential to anybody who wants it). Making abortion illegal will make women instead seek back-alley abortions or use dangerous abortion-inducing drugs/chemicals. Then the girls and women themselves will die horrible deaths. Anybody who thinks that making abortion illegal will stop abortions from happening is an idiot and needs to be whallopped over the head with the clue-by-four. Add to that, the PL's who actually, uh, *adopt* the babies who are "given up" (read: abandoned) for adoption. While I certainly don't think abortion should be used as birth control, I think it should remain LEGAL and SAFE, because a woman's body is HERS, and HERS ALONE. (Bodily autonomy is also the reason I'm pro-legalization, within reason. Obviously, if you're doing something that endangers others, under the influence of any substance, you ought to be held in the custody of a sober person that you trust *at least* until you've sobered up.)
|
|