Abortion

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by greymare

Your mother would die and kill for you. thats how we are made. thats what happens when you become a mother. thats how we roll. I have a sticker on my car.....She Devil. its true.

Go Mum!!! Mum you're the best!!! Tip Top's the One....Good on you Mum.

[greymare]

damn straight.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

And we thought the threads on homosexuality tread on thin ice?

No matter what stance a person takes in this, they will be met rabidly by someone with an opposing view.

As much and as hard as I try to stay academic in my discussions, and have for years, this is one that immediately provokes emotion...intense emotion at that. And there is no way in hell to have a reasonable discussion while in the throes of intense emotion. It ain't gonna happen.

Something else I see, so frequently it scares the hell out of me, is how uneducated people are on the subject. Either a fetus is a living soul at conception, or not until after birth, with no possible middle ground whatsoever. Which is...to hell with tact for the moment...stupid.

This is another one of those subjects I already knew damn well and good, just like everyone else, up until I did a little research on Rowe v Wade for a Medical Law and Ethics class. And since Rowe is based in English Common Law, I am surprised to see how the misconceptions (pardon the pun) and deliberate ignorance still manages to rule the day even in the British Isles.

Anybody here familiar at all with the legal term "quickening?"

Rowe only allowed for abortion up until the time that a fetus became quickened. It is all the superfluous BS added on by lawyers and civil liberties groups afterwords that makes anybody think a fetus is not alive until birth.

I'm sorry but, I am not convinced that a fetus aborted *after* it is quickened does not feel pain. Dismemberment of a third trimester baby to abort when even younger fetuses are saved as *preemies* is murder of a living human being.

Of course, that's just my opinion. That opinion and a buck might still buy a cheap cup of coffee anyplace but starbucks. I don't have to personally make that heartwrenching decision. My heart goes out to anybody faced with such an awesome decision. It is the kind of decision that will haunt a person for life, always wondering what might have been, if only...

I cannot allow myself to pass my own personal judgment on someone else for the decision to abort. What I *can* do is vigorously oppose using aborted human flesh as a commodity, for sale to the highest bidder. *Get yer stem cells here, fresh stem cells, get 'em while they're hot!* There is something unnaturally counterproductive in killing the young to prolong the old.

[greymare]

Ill tell ya one thing for free, I knew the morning after each conception that I was pregnant. I cannot say for sure just that I knew. Regardless of my situation at the time. I WAS READY TO PROTECT THAT LIFE. That is me, maybe others are different. I cannot say for sure. my boys were not concieved in the ideal circumstances but a life is a life. My girls were taken from me, may be as punishment, I dont know.THE LIFE YOU CREATE IS MAGIC.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by greymare

Ill tell ya one thing for free, I knew the morning after each conception that I was pregnant... THE LIFE YOU CREATE IS MAGIC.

You are not the first I have heard say something like this, Grey.

What I was getting at is how people who really haven't a clue about the issues actually involved will take sides and line up to beat each other about the head with *Rowe v Wade* without knowing anything about the facts involved.

This particular law has become a billy club for both sides, neither one of which is willing to set the stick down long enough to take a good hard look at it.

I realize there are times and circumstances where aborting might be the best option available. I don't think those circumstances are or should be the norm. Regret is a lifelong companion one can't divorce, and drugs and alcohol don't make it go away either.

[greymare]

I know nothing on rowe vs wade. think about this...... if mrs rowe and mrs wade aborted..... there would not be a case about rowe vs wade. my mother had a choice I suppose.... she wasnt married,,, it was 40 years ago and god bless her,,, she didnt abort. I like to think that i turned out ok. Ive been in some sticky situations and thankfully abortion has never been an option. for me, it is murder.pureand simple. sorry, once again Ill probably lose some friends. my brother in law is downs and so was my aunt. these things do not count to me as reasons to murder. both were and are wonderful people. there are plenty of able minded people out there that shouldnt be here (in my opinion). we should all make the best out of out lives and just attempt to be better citizens of the planet. Fair dinkum, is that too much to ask???

[Francis king]

...the first time I was confronted with this issue, I was a teenager. My friend, at 16, fell pregnant. Her child was going to be mixed race- her family told her her decision was... keep the baby, alone, at 16, and be ostracised by the family, or abort. There was no grandmother here to help her, nowhere for her to live except the parental home. Having this baby meant she would have to move out, stay away from her large and generally supportive family, and go it alone. She would survive on about £50 a week, she would have to struggle, she would have to leave her college course... the dad wasn't going to hang around... she would have to struggle to survive on welfare and most likely never continue with her education, which would also mean she would always struggle, alone, poor, a scabby single mom, trailer trash on a sink estate....

We would have helped, of course, but we too were 16. We wanted to party and flirt with the boys, and although we would have helped, what help could we have given her, really? We tried our best to allow her to make her own decision, and vowed to be supportive whatever she decided, but in the end it was too bleak a future for her to contemplate, and she went off for an abortion.

Unfortunately, being forced into it meant she hated her family anyway, and soon moved out. She was traumatised by the process, and left college anyway. The child would have been about 16 today, and probably a handsome kid, too, as she was beautiful, and so too was the lad who she slept with.

In my minds eye, I can see her as a mum, older, wiser, with this beautiful son, he wears diamond earrings and a baseball cap and is a cheeky chap, a hit with the ladies, and wow, she is proud to be his mum...

I realise that, just as I think of this kid who never was, so too must she. I hope she went on to have lots of kids, and she doesn't feel much pain, but...

She probably has those same dreams too; of what the kid would have been like had he or she lived, remembering his or her birthday every year, and wow, she too must feel pain...

I can't hate her for making that decision. It's not an easy decision to make.

Recently I have had to reconsider the issue, for personal reasons.

My partner has a serious health condition and we have recently been offerred genetic counselling. We need to know if his condition will effect our potential
children, and if so, by how much. We can find out how our genes combine and what the likelihood of having potentially severely disabled children is. But it's only a percentage.

The only way we can prevent children being born with this same condition is to wait until they are already growing there, in my womb, and test them again. Then we have to make the descision to allow the potential child to live or not. If not, we can try again, hoping that this next time, we'll be lucky. Or, we can decide to skip this step, have children anyway, even though they might not survive long after birth, and even though we might then be subjecting the child to a lot of pain and misery and psychological harm if they do survive.

So, what do I do? Oh yes, I can have children. But they might be disabled. Of course, I'd love them regardless, but look at my situation. My partner will die early, perhaps in the next couple of years. I wouldn't actually have a life, if I have disabled children. Instead of being a great artist, my life will become a round of hospital appointments, consultants here and there and everywhere, everytime they get a cold or a cough, worry, knowing I won't probably have grandchildren, knowing that my children, who I will love, will also die early, could just drop down dead at any time, knowing they will never play sports, knowing that they will have so many problems just surviving. A lifetime of misery simply because I am told by society that I must endure this misery, as if enduring such makes me a better person, an authentic mother, a real woman.

It sucks.

Yes, maybe I am selfish to not want to endure such misery, but surely it would be equally selfish of me to allow these potential children to be born simply so I could say I had children, even when I know that potentially, their lives, and my own, will be miserable?

So, what do I do? Do I have disabled children simply because certain sections of society deem it wrong to consider termination? Do I, martyr-like, accept my cross, and see the end of my own life?

Okay, its a big decision. Yes, there are pluses and minuses on both sides.
But I am grateful that I am able to make that decision, for myself. I am grateful I have the option.

Take away my option, force my hand, make me have a disabled child? Then I throw myself downstairs, stick knitting needles into my cervix to induce my own abortion. I drink a bottle of gin and lie in a hot bath and pray it works. I find a woman who will perform a back street abortion. It might not work, I might even die, but I will be desperate, and past caring.

Take away my friends option. Submit her to a life of poverty. Maybe her parents will kill her, after all. They have threatened to. They have violent histories. Consign her to the sink estate. Send her child to a poorly funded state school, watch as the family gets the thin end of the wedge until they die.

It's not the choice of men in dresses who consider themselves holier than thou, men who don't even have sex. Men who are cosseted and kept well by the church should not be enforcing their silly opinions on women without that church protection. Women who might have to struggle and suffer simply because out of touch men think it's okay.

Yes, abortion is miserable. Abortion is horrifc. Psychologically disturbing. But sometimes it seems like the right decision to make. As adults, we are entitled to make our own decisions.

[path_of_one]

Francis,

I would add, in alignment with your post, that I have known women whose families more or less pressured them into getting an abortion. I find it appalling that parents push their girls to do this, compared to supporting her for a year or so and getting the child to a good adoptive family. To do so puts their own social standing above life itself and their daughter's feelings, and I find it awful. Many girls who are pregnant teens are frantic about the pregnancy not because they feel incapable of waiting it out for nine months, but rather because they are afraid of their parents. I think that's incredibly sad.

On another note, I think one thing that really needs to change is people's opinions about adoption. The adoption system needs to change to make it easier and get adoptive parents more support, but the other problem is cultural. People often think of adoption as the "last ditch effort" if they can't have "their own kids." Here in the US we have tons of couples who can't have children, and they pay tens of thousands of dollars for infertility treatments that can come with considerable health risks to the mother and the babies involved, yet they don't want to adopt. And I know a lot of couples where the woman is willing, but the man "wants his own kids." "I don't want to raise another man's kids." They say.

I find it all terribly selfish, quite frankly. There are so many children in the world that need homes, and yet here people are willing to spend tons of money on forcing the creation of an unborn one rather than adopting one that already is here. Furthermore, they are willing to play the lottery with that unborn child- gambling that it will be carried to term, that they won't have so many multiples that they must abort some to save the others, that the child won't have the respiratory and other illnesses and weaknesses that come with the infertility treatment route. And now, people are even outsourcing their pregnancy to India- hiring surrogate moms from other countries to carry "their own child." Meanwhile, there are countless Indian children who need loving homes and are left to fend for themselves.

I realize I'm in the minority on this view, but I firmly believe I'm in the right minority. I feel *a child deserves a home.* If people want to be pro-life, they should also be adopting kids. It really makes me frustrated to see fundamentalist and evangelical parents talk on and on about being pro-life and all, and then they've had eight kids of "their own" and not adopted a single unwanted child. In the same breath, they typically condemn gay people and single people as adopters. It's easy enough to *say* one is pro-life and "pro-child." The question is if you live your position. And I put forth that if you just say those things but fail to help the unwanted children in some way, you're contributing to the problem and not the solution. If someone has enough money to support a bunch of kids, why would they not open their home to an unwanted child?

We need a better adoption system. We need a better cultural outlook that sees adopted children not as "second best" kids, but as equal to anything we can produce. Let me tell ya, the odds are that your (and my) genes aren't any more special than those of the kids that already exist out there without a home. It's not like anyone does the world a favor by reproducing. We have plenty of people on earth, and while new babies are wonderful, so are the babies that already exist and need help.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not against reproduction. I love kids. I hope to have a kid one day. But I also hope to adopt a kid one day. You can have one or two and adopt one or two and have a nice big family- getting your pregnancy experience and still helping the children who are already out there waiting for love. I just strongly dislike the pervasive attitude that adoption is some sort of last resort, especially among Christians. We are called by Christ to serve the people who most need it, and there isn't anyone who needs it more than an unwanted, family-less child.

Tao,

I see what your saying, but I disagree. On its own, the pro-choice movement becomes complacent and ignores the real problems that result in unwanted kids and abortions. I do not sit on the fence. I rip the fence down. I'm not a "middle" position- I'm a different position. I want a course of action that will *work*. Not a bunch of lip-service by pro-lifers who are unwilling to adopt the unwanted. Not a bunch of lip-service by pro-choicers who are able to sweep the unwanted under the rug by shoving the entirety of the decision (and therefore the responsibility) into the lap of women who have been unsupported by their wider family and community. Society should care for its most vulnerable- and pregnant women and unwanted children certainly fall into this category.

That said, I would never be for criminalizing abortion. That just punishes women unfairly. First, it is wrong because it puts the entire responsibility for reproduction on the woman. Half that unwanted child is the man's. And many, many times part of the reason the woman is getting the abortion is because the man won't stick around and help her with that responsibility. Furthermore, I believe it takes a village to raise a child. That is, when a woman gets an abortion, it is often in part due to her family and community not supporting her, not encouraging her. Finally, there are cases where abortion is the best option. These are just very, very rare. There are very few cases where a child would really have a life of physical suffering due to extensive birth defects that do not result in spontaneous miscarriage. But in those cases, where a child would experience a life of physical torment, I think it is an appropriate choice. I am thinking particularly of some of the children born after radiological exposure in the US territories- some had horrific birth defects such as an open skull or spine and they died shortly after birth in a lot of pain.

For most conditions, however, I think it is a mistake to assume we know if the child would have a quality of life. Most of the handicapped have wonderful gifts of their own to give, and I personally think, once again, that it is a matter of providing support to the parents so they feel they can better care for their handicapped child. If a person is not in constant pain or vegetative state, it is likely that they can have a good life if we would but support them in it and open our hearts to their abilities, gifts, and love. My uncle has been a great blessing to our family and he is a model of a child's faith in God. His love for my grandparents, our family, and Jesus is never wavering, and in a fifty-year-old body, he reminds us about the simple joy of a child. He has suffered, but he has also had a lot of joy. He enjoys going to school with the other "kids" and going to a baseball game. He loves it when his brothers (my dad and uncle) and I visit. He looks forward all week to my grandma bringing him homemade goodies and a burrito from his favorite Mexican restaurant. His life is simple and he's had many surgeries and pain. But he's happy most of the time, and it's a lesson to everyone around about the human spirit.

[greymare]

Ijust wanted to stress that I am not juddging those who have or will have an abortion. Im glad it has never been a consideration for me. thats it.

[Tao_Equus]

Path of One,

And I too see what you are saying and feel you miss the point I was trying to make. The issues you raise about the pro-choice and the pro-life side failing to adequately address the need for swifter, more sympathetic adoption practices is a valid point but not why pro-choicers have had to mobilize. Pro-choice proponents only exist because of the fanatical antics of the so called pro-lifers. Their fight is simply to counter an extreme that threatens their human rights.
I am 110% behind what both you and Francis, and GreyMare for that matter, say on this issue. I could not give my own consent to abortion for frivolous convenience but would walk over hot coals for the right to the safe termination for those that choose that option.

Why I responded to this thread in the first place is because I feel it wrong that an openly sexist idiot, cut and pasting some plagiarised patriarchal Victorian nonsense across many forums, should get away with it unchallenged. And the reaction on this forum and others, the sheer humanity of all the responses show that he is an isolated, mindless bigot. And that is what he needs shown. These people must be faced off with the compassion and understanding normal people have for their fellow woman in a tight spot. If they are the only ones making any noise they will win the fight. That is the way politics works. What you are saying on the wider issue is a separate fight. That is the right of the child to compassionate and expeditious support from the community. A noble fight that not enough people are engaged in.

Tao

[path_of_one]

Tao-

I understand better what you are saying now. And certainly, as I've said, I do not support criminalizing abortion. I think, though, that if people on both sides could see the ultimate goal of children having loving families and society supporting pregnant women, a lot of the bitterness toward each other could be overcome and more people could join the fight for the kids (rather than the pro-life vs. pro-choice fight, which is against each other). I don't think the issues are entirely separate from each other. Because people get so wrapped up in the pro-life/pro-choice debate they completely forget to think of the kids at all it seems (as evidenced by the number of people actually working toward change in that arena).

It's kind of like the research I've done with environmentalists and ranchers. They get so busy fighting each other, they fail to band together to fight off development. And then they both lose the real goal- open space and halting sprawl.

Perhaps I'm just simple, or too rational. But I look out on any number of political debates and feel deeply that people just don't "get it." They get so wrapped up in their own position that they sacrifice the real goal for the temporary fight. I see examples of the cut/paste extreme pro-life OP as an example of this. Either the person is just trying to cause argument, or the person really cares about the issue. Many times, it actually is the latter but they've sacrificed (generally unknowingly) the real goal for what politics has dictated the two positions to be- picking one over the other.

I find that stupid and unlikely to go anywhere. I understand the need to protect legal abortion, because I'm against criminalizing it. But most pro-choicers I know don't spend oodles and tons of their time on pro-choice efforts. They could afford to give a little time and money to the cause of adoption and support of the women whose rights they are protecting. I think if they did, and also adopted children into their own families, they would clearly show the pro-life movement who is really pro-woman and pro-child. The pro-lifers could not claim they are against children and families if many pro-choicers were adopting children and working for better options. It is not as if they couldn't still take their small amount of time necessary to vote against criminalizing abortion and slapping a bumper sticker on their car, which seems to be the two ways most ordinary pro-choice folk support the cause.

The truth of the matter is, if people are only willing to support the cause of children by donating some money to an organization, putting a bumper sticker on their car, voting, and complaining to other people... it isn't supporting children (whether they are pro-choice or pro-life). Children need people, a sense of family and community. They need our time. And neither the pro-life or pro-choice people tackle that issue much at all. Either camp could still maintain their position and their measley individual efforts at supporting it (which mostly means voting, for all practical purposes) and meanwhile give time and effort to the real goal and cause.

I have a feeling if both sides did, they'd meet on common ground.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

As much and as hard as I try to stay academic in my discussions, and have for years, this is one that immediately provokes emotion...intense emotion at that. And there is no way in hell to have a reasonable discussion while in the throes of intense emotion. It ain't gonna happen.

Something else I see, so frequently it scares the hell out of me, is how uneducated people are on the subject. Either a fetus is a living soul at conception, or not until after birth, with no possible middle ground whatsoever. Which is...to hell with tact for the moment...stupid.

Hey, that's cool, juantoo. It's actually really heartening for me to see you get emotional and use colorful language! I encourage you to put passion into your posts more often!

As a side note, I came across the idea of "quickening" in my reading as well, recently:

Originally Posted by Barbara Walker

In the east, however, abortion was perfectly legal at any time before the fifth month, when "quickening" was felt. After that, according to Brahman screiptures, a woman who destroyed her fetus was held guilty of murder...

She goes on to describe how this opinion also parallels the Doctrine of Passive Conception of the Catholic Church, which was revised in 1869 by Pope Pius X who "announced that the soul was received at conception after all."

My personal stance is that abortion is a complex civil and human rights issue. When exactly a fetus is "quickened" is subjective. Each individual woman, as a matter of liberty, must be able to make that decision for herself, and not have it imposed on her by any man-made law, religious or secular.



quotes from:
Walker, Barbara G. The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (Entry on Abortion)

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK

On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

.

Would you..?

I'll go make some coffee then, as this is one subject that has never been discussed before. Ever. No place.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Something else I see, so frequently it scares the hell out of me, is how uneducated people are on the subject. Either a fetus is a living soul at conception, or not until after birth, with no possible middle ground whatsoever. Which is...to hell with tact for the moment...stupid.

i believe judaism takes a rather more unusual view that *life* begins at conception, but that the fetus is, for the first 40 days, at any rate, considered to be "like water" - the soul, then, presumably arrives after this period. this doesn't mean abortion before then is OK, judaism is quite "pro-life" about this stuff, it just means that if the woman has for whatever reason to have an abortion, there exist grounds to be lenient if one acts quickly. it is pretty unusual for a woman to want or need to be rid of a child so badly for this to be necessary, but at least it can be done if it has to be done. either way, it seems clear that what is agreed to happen when is almost entirely a matter of belief, which makes it essentially ideological and therefore not up for rational debate.

on the question of the "right to life" of the unborn child, the halakhah is, i believe, however, very clear. the fetus' right to life is overruled by the mother's right to life and, possibly, even health (by virtue of her life being threatened) up until the point that the head of the baby emerges. until then, if the mother is in danger, then you save the mother over the baby *every* time.

Originally Posted by Tao Equus

Pro-choice proponents only exist because of the fanatical antics of the so called pro-lifers. Their fight is simply to counter an extreme that threatens their human rights.

no doubt pro-lifers would respond that pro-life proponents only exist because of the fanatical antics of the so-called pro-choicers; their fight is simply to counter an extreme that threatens the lives of unborn babies. see what i mean about "ideological"?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

On its own, the pro-choice movement becomes complacent and ignores the real problems that result in unwanted kids and abortions. I do not sit on the fence. I rip the fence down. I'm not a "middle" position- I'm a different position. I want a course of action that will *work*. Not a bunch of lip-service by pro-lifers who are unwilling to adopt the unwanted. Not a bunch of lip-service by pro-choicers who are able to sweep the unwanted under the rug by shoving the entirety of the decision (and therefore the responsibility) into the lap of women who have been unsupported by their wider family and community. Society should care for its most vulnerable- and pregnant women and unwanted children certainly fall into this category.

with this i can most certainly agree.

Children need people, a sense of family and community. They need our time. And neither the pro-life or pro-choice people tackle that issue much at all. Either camp could still maintain their position and their measley individual efforts at supporting it (which mostly means voting, for all practical purposes) and meanwhile give time and effort to the real goal and cause.

*claps loudly*

b'shalom

bananabrain

[JOEBIALEK]

good points