Pro-choice Vs Pro-life

[sinmantyx]

I remember when I was pregers I was sitting in the county health dept (I was poor, the care is free) and there was this lady in there filling out her questionaire. The lady behind the desk had to confirm how many pregnancies she was so shocked she couldn't believe it. This other lady had 18 abortions. WTF???? And she was pregnant.....and had only eaten potatoes for a month.

A lady who can't take care of herself and doesn't bother avoiding unplanned pregnancy is pretty horrifying. The fact that the county health lady was shocked tells me that this woman is a bizarre exception (thank goodness). It sounds more like this woman should be institutionalized and is probably having multiple pregnancies because she is being taken advantage of by like-wise irresponsible/incompetent men.

There is no law or social program that will completely eliminate those serious underlying issues. I am glad however, that we no longer live in a country that would force her to bring all her pregnancies to term when she is clearly incapable of doing so in a reasonable way.

[sinmantyx]

PS: Chidren should NOT be considered a "punishment" for irresponsible behavior.

I really felt the need to say that.

One piece of rhetoric that wears very thin with me is the idea that: YOU HAD SEX so you should be subjected to parenthood as some sort of horrible repercussion.

I totally agree that those who have sex and are not willing/able to deal with ALL the possible consequences of those actions might want to re-evaluate their behavior.

However, I don't believe in reinforcing or manufacting consequences in order to try to modify the behavior of others. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy shouldn't be in the same catagory as taking a driver's licence away, putting someone in jail or any other consequence for irresponsible behavior.

As Brassfusion pointed out: it's like disallowing dentures to encourage people to brush. However, in this case we're treating a CHILD like a spanking paddle...and not as a human being who deserves to be wanted.

[BrassFusion]

as for adoption, do you have numbers of how many orphans in third world countries who need parents? i mean, i'd MUCH rather abort an 8-week-old fetus (instead of putting it up for adoption) if it meant an 8-year-old cambodian child would have parents...

[Guest Megalicious]

I'm Pro-Choice. What a woman wants to do with her body is up to her and her alone, PERIOD!

Honestly, MOST of the girl that have know that have had abortions where not in a position to be good mothers. I feel (and I know this is fucked up to say but sometime the truth is brutal) The babies/fetuses that were due to be born were better off being aborted.

They thing that I can't stand is one Women use it as a form of birth control, I think they should limit the amount of abortions that state funding will pay for (meaning Medicaid/medical what ever the fuck they call it) . I can see if someone make the mistake once, but to made it twice is just both juvenile and irresponsible when there a plenty of options out there to prevent pregnancy.

[Absinthe]

joni, when you call yourself "anti-abortion" it implies that you support revision of current abortion laws

I am clearly aware of what I say when I say anti-abortion...and you are very correct... I am in support of law changes on many levels. Especially 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Though third trimester abortions are more rare, second trimester abortions are not...and they are ending a life at that point.

What I am trying to say however, is that I'm not here to convince any one of anything. I believe I am here to state my personal opinion. By the time most women that have abortions find out they are pregnant (typically after the 3rd month) and then decide to have the abortion the "fetus" is already a living breathing organism( typically nearing the 5th month). That is just a fact. And no I'm not going to spew out every place where I gained my knowledge because I am not here to flex my educational muscle in order to feel justified. I have gained enough proof to sway me toward this belief. To me, (my OPINION and ethical standards and how I choose to vote) if you are going to kill a living thing you should be within good reason. And the truth is that a growing statistical majority of woman that have abortions end up having more up the road. They use it as a form of birth control. To me that is wrong.

I love you, you are a brilliant woman as well as I am. I'm sure both our IQ's are off that charts (not that that is a good measure), and we are both fine as hell...But as I am not voting here, or making a debate, and not here to argue...I really don't feel I have to go on further with my point. My point has been stated. Like I said...not here to convince anyone of anything. This is the decision I came to after being pro-choice (and pro -abortion) and then doing mountains of research that swayed me in another direction. I'm going to go make pancakes now.

[Absinthe]

as for adoption, do you have numbers of how many orphans in third world countries who need parents? i mean, i'd MUCH rather abort an 8-week-old fetus (instead of putting it up for adoption) if it meant an 8-year-old cambodian child would have parents...

As long as Angelina Jolie is in this world...by God EVERY Cambodian child will one day have parents!!!

[Absinthe]

I have friends who have had multiple abortions, and I in no way support bashing someone for their decisions...this is just where I stand. Of those friends some of these girls constantly use no protection, and just go in for an abortion whenever they get pregnant. I just can't agree with that. That is lack of responsibility.

I agree with this.....accidents happen I guess but thats just sick. You have to value human life somewhat don't you?

I remember when I was pregers I was sitting in the county health dept (I was poor, the care is free) and there was this lady in there filling out her questionaire. The lady behind the desk had to confirm how many pregnancies she was so shocked she couldn't believe it. This other lady had 18 abortions. WTF???? And she was pregnant.....and had only eaten potatoes for a month.

Spiritually I believe the soul enters around 4 months and that if you get an abortion before 31/2 months it is not developed enough to be concious of whats happening anyway.....but still. Common. Think people should have some morals about it to some point at least.

But abortion is better than a coat hanger or trash can. And unfortunatly there will always be ignorant people in the world we have to accomidate.....because for whatever reason......it seems they get pregnant more.....don't want them taking over! (sorry, that was in bad taste.)

I agree.

[sass_in_the_pants]

There are two facts which I cannot get past.

1. A fetus IS a human being. It is not a giraffe, or a piano, or a Volkswagen. When two humans make an offspring it is, always, another human being. If it's not human, what is it? A clump of cells, right? It's the same clump of cells as well, all the other humans. I actually don't care when it starts to have a soul, or feel, or anything of that sort. It is, by all counts, human.

2. I respect and value ALL human life. Every. Last. Underserving. One. I don't think it is appropriate for any person to say 'Your life matters, yours doesn't. You have a right to be here. You don't.' I write letters on behalf of prisoners on death row for crissake! Men who have done very, very bad things, and I don't think their lives should be taken. Like I said, every last undeserving one.

Add these together and I have to be pro-life. HAFTA.

On the other hand....

I take a very strong stance against government intervention into private medicine. Medical decisions should be made between a doctor and a patient. I do not think Washington bureaucrats are qualified to make decisions about my medical needs.

With this, I HAFTA be pro-choice.

Which makes me stuck, and let me tell you, there is nothing in this world I hate more than fence sitters. And here I am, with a fence stuck up my ass.

I'm not looking for advice on which way to go, I've educated myself sufficiently on the topic. I simply have to make a decision as far as which issue matters to me more.

[Steven]

There are two facts which I cannot get past.

1. A fetus IS a human being. It is not a giraffe, or a piano, or a Volkswagen. When two humans make an offspring it is, always, another human being. If it's not human, what is it? A clump of cells, right? It's the same clump of cells as well, all the other humans. I actually don't care when it starts to have a soul, or feel, or anything of that sort. It is, by all counts, human.

2. I respect and value ALL human life. Every. Last. Underserving. One. I don't think it is appropriate for any person to say 'Your life matters, yours doesn't. You have a right to be here. You don't.' I write letters on behalf of prisoners on death row for crissake! Men who have done very, very bad things, and I don't think their lives should be taken. Like I said, every last undeserving one.

Add these together and I have to be pro-life. HAFTA.

On the other hand....

I take a very strong stance against government intervention into private medicine. Medical decisions should be made between a doctor and a patient. I do not think Washington bureaucrats are qualified to make decisions about my medical needs.

With this, I HAFTA be pro-choice.

Which makes me stuck, and let me tell you, there is nothing in this world I hate more than fence sitters. And here I am, with a fence stuck up my ass.

I'm not looking for advice on which way to go, I've educated myself sufficiently on the topic. I simply have to make a decision as far as which issue matters to me more.

this doesent make you a fence sitter.

it simply makes you a person with reverance for both points of view, which in turn is respectable.

I am in agreement with you by the way.

I think abortion overall is wrong. I think human life overall is sacred.

but it is YOUR choice. I would not attempt to take that choice away thur the courst system.

it is also MY choice, when to support or not support - additional offshoots inherint in the pro choice agenda.

[BrassFusion]

So every sperm is sacred, also?

[sinmantyx]

There are two facts which I cannot get past.

1. A fetus IS a human being. It is not a giraffe, or a piano, or a Volkswagen. When two humans make an offspring it is, always, another human being. If it's not human, what is it? A clump of cells, right? It's the same clump of cells as well, all the other humans. I actually don't care when it starts to have a soul, or feel, or anything of that sort. It is, by all counts, human.

In some cases, that's just not true. I can't believe that a zygote with undifferentiated cells is human or a mass of hair, teeth and skin. Those are relatively extreme situations, but they do exist. It's just not correct to assume that every "offspring" has the potential to become "human". I just can't see a mass of undifferentiated cells as "human". In that case, it certainly is very literally "a clump of cells" and doesn't even have the chance of becoming anything other than that.

I do understand your general point however. I'm pretty much in the same boat. There are only pretty extreme situations where I would consider an abortion or advising anyone to have an abortion. In that respect, I guess the "anti-abortion" label could be used for me. However, both practical and other ethical concerns put me in the "pro-choice" camp politically on most legal abortion issues.

[sinmantyx]

As long as Angelina Jolie is in this world...by God EVERY Cambodian child will one day have parents!!!

...and you know how much shit she got. Madonna also. There is no way in HELL a celebrity could possibly adopt an infant domestically...not with the laws that currently exist. Could you imagine certain people looking through adoptive parent profiles and seeing Angelina Jolie listed? It would be a circus.

I've been led to believe (and I would be EXTREMELY surprised if this were not the case) that both families did "home studies" just like everybody else...yet, those who adopt internationally are routinely accused of "buying babies" or getting an "exotic fad baby".

Grrrr.....

There are places where orphans and infants are in need of parents, but not because parents are unavailable, but because the agencies involved are corrupt and impossible to manage. To adopt in some places means running a very high risk of fraud. Agencies in the U.S. make connections with other agencies around the world, but only wish to deal with reputable people who are ethical and also follow the law - will not mislead the agency, ask for bribes, lie about the baby's medical history, etc.

If you wish to adopt an older child or an infant with certain medical problems, there are more children immediately available. However, even in the U.S. adopting from the foster care system is a bureaucratic nightmare, resulting in an emotional roller coaster, half the time.

It's not just healthy babies that are in demand however. If you look through profiles you will find potential adoptive parents looking for infants with disabilities as severe as Downs Syndrome and Autism. If you see ANY infants awaiting adoption in the U.S. 99 times out of 100, that infant needs to be placed with a sibling group which includes older children.

Bottom line: Having an abortion does not somehow give a baby from another country a family. Reputable agencies (such as agencies in China, Korea, and Russia) have very little trouble placing infants. Truthfully though, if a substantial amount of U.S. women did chose adoption instead of have abortions, theoretically it may begin creating a significant decline in international adoption.

Interestingly enough however, the reason that infants are in demand in the U.S. is not because of an increase in abortion rates (because abortion rates have been decreasing for quite some time), but because young people are (believe it or not) having less sex and being more responsible. Whether you want to "blame" it on sex ed or AIDS or whatever...teenaged pregnancy is down. Unplanned pregnancy is still a bit crazy --- but I tend to think that's because more woman don't PLAN to have children.

[Steven]

So every sperm is sacred, also?

stop.

you know this would just go round and round.....

[Mizuna]

So every sperm is sacred, also?

Not a very reasonable question, the argument was that a fetus was due to the cells within it was the majority of fully developed humans. However, theres a reason why there is a need for people of the two different sexes to reproduce, I don't know if you knew this but, half of the genes are from the male and half from the female. Basically:

0.5 + 0.5 = 1 and 0.5 = 0.5

Not a very reasonable question when taking it out of context to that extent.

[BrassFusion]

omgwtfbbq i understand math now

edit for lack of meaningful content: one sperm is practically worthless. one egg, out of context, also practically worthless. i slough one on an almost monthly basis, myself.

let's assign a value of .5 to my term "practically worthless." .5 + .5 = 1, still, incredibly, but twice small potatoes is still small potatoes. in this case, 1 = a zygote, obviously.

still worthless.

it's not until you start adding proteins and other nutrients to that zygote that it actually becomes something viable and not-so-worthless, did you know? cells can divide and divide and divide but without outside materials gleaned from a host, they won't grow. the sperm and the egg aren't the child, they're the blueprint and workbench for an embryo of a fetus of a child. first step is putting the blueprint on the workbench, but you can't do shit till you get some lumber and nails and screws and tools

and i notice you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. stoppit. that's my job.

Edited May 20, 2007 by BrassFusion

[Homicidalheathen]

I am just glad I am steril. If I had to raise another one I would probably shoot myself.

[sass_in_the_pants]

this doesent make you a fence sitter.

it simply makes you a person with reverance for both points of view, which in turn is respectable.

Thank you, Steven. I appreciate that.

So every sperm is sacred, also?

Of course. As a matter of fact, I save them. They're in a jar by my bed. I've named them all, too, which is tricky, becuase there's 40 billion of them.

Anyway...

A sperm, if nothing is done with it, will become nothing. An egg, if nothing is done with, will also become nothing.

A sperm and an egg, combined in a uterus will have one of two outcomes. Either it forms incorrectly and it is not viable, as sin points out. Or, in 9 months, if left to it's own devices, it's born, and everyone talks about how cute it is when in fact, we all know that newborns look alot like Winston Churchill.

So, that's my differentiation. Sperm and eggs, on their own, don't become anything. So, alone, they are, as you pointed out, worthless. Combined, though, they will eventually become an entirely new human life. A small, unformed life, but a life nonetheless.

Interestingly enough however, the reason that infants are in demand in the U.S. is not because of an increase in abortion rates (because abortion rates have been decreasing for quite some time), but because young people are (believe it or not) having less sex and being more responsible.

There is also the very prevalent trend of women starting their families later, and in many cases, finding out that it is in fact, too late to start a biological family (ALL eggs, apparently, have an expiration date). So, at the same time, you have more people looking to adopt.

I see your frustration with the US adoptive system and I couldn't agree with you more. How in the world does it make sense that it is EASIER for my friends to adopt a kid from CHINA than it is to adopt the foster child they've had LIVING IN THEIR HOME for three years? How is THAT possible? The adoption system here is just cracked. And if we really do care about children and their welfare, I would think that we would place a higher priority on making the adoptive system more parent AND child friendly.

[BrassFusion]

The adoption system here is just cracked. And if we really do care about children and their welfare, I would think that we would place a higher priority on making the adoptive system more parent AND child friendly.

AGREED! That should receive way more priority in terms of funding and legislation than making sure women don't abort their fetuses, or only abort them in Christian ways.

[sinmantyx]

Anyway...

A sperm, if nothing is done with it, will become nothing. An egg, if nothing is done with, will also become nothing.

A sperm and an egg, combined in a uterus will have one of two outcomes. Either it forms incorrectly and it is not viable, as sin points out. Or, in 9 months, if left to it's own devices, it's born, and everyone talks about how cute it is when in fact, we all know that newborns look alot like Winston Churchill.

So, that's my differentiation. Sperm and eggs, on their own, don't become anything. So, alone, they are, as you pointed out, worthless. Combined, though, they will eventually become an entirely new human life. A small, unformed life, but a life nonetheless.

That is not true. If "left to it's own devices" it will die. Only until about 30 weeks of development inside a woman does it even have a reasonable chance of surviving as a separate entity.

I think men like to think they are a full HALF of the equation, but that's just not true. My fetus is part of my body. For most of the development of the fetus, it's life was completely dependent on me. If I died: it would die. Without a mother, the zygote would have no hope whatsoever of becoming a newborn.

I tried not to "count my chickens before they were hatched" until I was getting into my second trimester. I just can't wrap my head around the implications of treating fertilized eggs like humans. I mean (I'm not sure if you are in this camp) but what does that really imply?!

The only way to actually HAVE a baby is to run the risk of KILLING several fertilized eggs along the way. Half the time they don't implant. So, if you are trying to have a baby...there is a really good chance that you are going to kill fertilized eggs. If we really treated fertilized eggs like human beings --- we'd have to give every maxi pad of a woman trying to get pregnant a proper burial.

To convince women that every zygote = baby is just emotional abuse. Most women who plan to have children will have a miscarriage (even if they don't realize it). Chances are, I had one a couple months before a pregnancy actually "took".

Seriously, if every zygote is a human being --- woman's bodies are natural born murderers, tubal pregnancies are death sentences, and mothers are nothing more than safe deposit boxes.

[sinmantyx]

There is also the very prevalent trend of women starting their families later, and in many cases, finding out that it is in fact, too late to start a biological family (ALL eggs, apparently, have an expiration date). So, at the same time, you have more people looking to adopt.

That is an assumption that I had as well, however, I'm not sure if that is actually true. Of course, that is the situation in some circumstances, but I don't think it comes close to accounting for the current trends. Also, your implication that it's the woman who loses fertility isn't actually reasonable. It is true that women have a smaller window of opportunity due to menopause, but more than 80% of the time, it is the man who has a fertility problem. So, if a couple is wishing to adopt because of infertility, there is a very good chance that the *sperm* is to blame - not the eggs.

One other reason that infants are in such demand is because policies are a lot more egalitarian than they used to be. Now, it is much easier to be approved for adoption because many of the restrictions have been lifted. One interesting restriction was that, in the past, you had to be a member of a church in order to adopt a child. There is one couple in the UU church that became members many years ago just so they could adopt. So there are many more families waiting for adoption: not necessarily because more families WANT to adopt now days, but because more families have the possibility to adopt now days.

[sass_in_the_pants]

That is not true. If "left to it's own devices" it will die. Only until about 30 weeks of development inside a woman does it even have a reasonable chance of surviving as a separate entity.

I think men like to think they are a full HALF of the equation, but that's just not true. My fetus is part of my body. For most of the development of the fetus, it's life was completely dependent on me. If I died: it would die. Without a mother, the zygote would have no hope whatsoever of becoming a newborn.

I tried not to "count my chickens before they were hatched" until I was getting into my second trimester. I just can't wrap my head around the implications of treating fertilized eggs like humans. I mean (I'm not sure if you are in this camp) but what does that really imply?!

The only way to actually HAVE a baby is to run the risk of KILLING several fertilized eggs along the way. Half the time they don't implant. So, if you are trying to have a baby...there is a really good chance that you are going to kill fertilized eggs. If we really treated fertilized eggs like human beings --- we'd have to give every maxi pad of a woman trying to get pregnant a proper burial.

To convince women that every zygote = baby is just emotional abuse. Most women who plan to have children will have a miscarriage (even if they don't realize it). Chances are, I had one a couple months before a pregnancy actually "took".

Seriously, if every zygote is a human being --- woman's bodies are natural born murderers, tubal pregnancies are death sentences, and mothers are nothing more than safe deposit boxes.

By "left to their own devices", I meant left alone to do what it would do anyway. Like, in the uterus. I didn't mean left outside of a woman's body. That would be absurd. Do you really and honestly think I am suggesting that we have funerals for maxi-pads? I know you are trying to take what I am saying to its logical conclusion, but I don't really think that's the logical conclusion. I am only saying that when pregnant, you cannot deny that what is growing inside of you is fully human in nature.

In my first twelve weeks, sure, I could have miscarried. The possibility is still there. My baby is a hope, not a guarantee. I'm not suggesting that anyone think otherwise. And yes, my own body probably killed a few fertilized eggs. That's not exactly news, and I don't think it's damaging to a woman's psyche for her to understand how her own body works.

That is an assumption that I had as well, however, I'm not sure if that is actually true. Of course, that is the situation in some circumstances, but I don't think it comes close to accounting for the current trends. Also, your implication that it's the woman who loses fertility isn't actually reasonable. It is true that women have a smaller window of opportunity due to menopause, but more than 80% of the time, it is the man who has a fertility problem.

That's funny, all the research that I've read suggests about 30% of fertility problems are due to men, 30% to women, and the rest are due to the combination of that particular man and woman. I am only pointing to aging women as a factor in increased adoption because of their smaller window of opportunity due to menopause, as you pointed out, but of course, men have their own problems, too.

Edited May 20, 2007 by sass_in_the_pants

[Mizuna]

All I was saying is that your argument wasn't resonable. I admit it was a witty one, but had no plausable argument to it. It is like saying a gun can shoot people without ammunition, its not logical or rational, however it can shoot with ammunition so it is still techniqually a gun. Trying to argue against a point of your argument was unreasonable is a waste of time, especially when you attack their argument instead of defending your own.

[sinmantyx]

By "left to their own devices", I meant left alone to do what it would do anyway. Like, in the uterus. I didn't mean left outside of a woman's body. That would be absurd. Do you really and honestly think I am suggesting that we have funerals for maxi-pads? I know you are trying to take what I am saying to its logical conclusion, but I don't really think that's the logical conclusion. I am only saying that when pregnant, you cannot deny that what is growing inside of you is fully human in nature.

In my first twelve weeks, sure, I could have miscarried. The possibility is still there. My baby is a hope, not a guarantee. I'm not suggesting that anyone think otherwise. And yes, my own body probably killed a few fertilized eggs. That's not exactly news, and I don't think it's damaging to a woman's psyche for her to understand how her own body works.

That's funny, all the research that I've read suggests about 30% of fertility problems are due to men, 30% to women, and the rest are due to the combination of that particular man and woman. I am only pointing to aging women as a factor in increased adoption because of their smaller window of opportunity due to menopause, as you pointed out, but of course, men have their own problems, too.

I'm saying that we don't treat fertilized eggs like human beings. If we did, we would go crazy. Just like it's completely unreasonable to think of a fertilized egg being discarded by the body as a corpse...it's unreasonable to think of a fertilized egg as a human life with as much value as a person. Not very many people actually believe that. However, lots of people SAY they believe that as a matter of rhetoric. When you say "fully human" what exactly do you actually mean? You certainly wouldn't find it acceptable to flush a human being down the toilet or throw one into the garbage. You certainly wouldn't actively engage in activities that would most likely kill human beings.

There are people in this world who think discarding fertilized eggs from fertility clinics is paramount to murder, even though no one plans to implant those fertilized eggs. I have students who will actually refer to them as "children" who have a right to exist and any scientific work done on these cells as being sick and twisted.

They ARE taking the "life begins as conception" rhetoric to it's logical extreme. It's not absurd to think about fertilized eggs outside of a woman's body. Some people think fertility treatments are sick and wrong because the treatments don't always "take" - as if "natural" ways of becoming pregnant always "take". You might not think this is news -- but to an amazing number of people (even those with biological children) it IS news.

My take is this: the woman who bears the child is instrumental in transforming a "clump of cells" into a human being. To say that the fertilized egg is "fully human" before developing inside a woman is acting as though after conception, she contributes nothing that actually defines the potential child as "fully human".

The 80% statistic was something I was told from one of my doctors a while ago. I'm not sure where she gained this information and it is possible that she may have simply been trying to make me feel better; and stop me from assuming that I was the problem. Men certainly have their issues with fertility. I certainly wanted to make it clear that blaming "expired eggs" was oversimplified. There is a strong history of always blaming a woman for fertility issues, so it also struck a bit of a nerve.