Its the anniversary of Roe V Wade

[VinnieKulick]

I've been through a few really complicated scenarios involving abortion in my life. A couple of family members had crisis pregnancies that ended in termination, I had one that I brought to term.
There is a lot of agony and many deciding factors when you're talking about carrying a pregnancy to term and bringing another human life into the world. Age being the predominant deciding factor. I was almost thirty when I got pregnant unexpectedly, both relatives in question were fifteen when it happened to them.

First, I am NOT trying to put you down, or anything, but how is being 15 and pregnant a 'crisis'?

What would YOU call it?

Unfortunate. But not a "crisis". To me, crisis is something that's life or death. Something that might bring long term, lasting injuries to the mother, something that is devastating to the mother's health. Being 15, while unfortunate is none of these.

Huh? I didn't say that. I said that money is often a deciding factor when a woman chooses to get an abortion. You're overreacting to what I posted.

Well, what you said came across as "the child will be poor, so we should kill it". A mother's ability to provide for a child shouldn't be a consideration on whether the child should be born or not.

My entire POINT was that there are gray areas in every individual case for abortion, and you're responding to my post in a slightly hysterical manner and behaving as though I was speaking in absolutes.

Well, I didn't read your comments as gray areas, i read them as you thinking that what you said was a reasonable reason to terminate a pregnancy.

[thejuggernaut]

Well, what you said came across as "the child will be poor, so we should kill it". A mother's ability to provide for a child shouldn't be a consideration on whether the child should be born or not.

Be reasonable will you. We both know her ability to "take care of it" has little bearing. That's why the "right to choose" is one of the most laughable terms in the history of wedge issues.

Yeah, your body your choice. OK then. Just remember that when you are screaming that the government or the daddy has no business offering an opinion on what to do when you ask the government to pay for the procedure and/or to force the baby daddy to give you money for the next 18 years.

No say, no pay. Seems simple enough.

[MurrayFiend]

Well, what you said came across as "the child will be poor, so we should kill it". A mother's ability to provide for a child shouldn't be a consideration on whether the child should be born or not.

Be reasonable will you. We both know her ability to "take care of it" has little bearing. That's why the "right to choose" is one of the most laughable terms in the history of wedge issues.

Yeah, your body your choice. OK then. Just remember that when you are screaming that the government or the daddy has no business offering an opinion on what to do when you ask the government to pay for the procedure and/or to force the baby daddy to give you money for the next 18 years.

No say, no pay. Seems simple enough.

Fuck you.

[thejuggernaut]

Well, what you said came across as "the child will be poor, so we should kill it". A mother's ability to provide for a child shouldn't be a consideration on whether the child should be born or not.

Be reasonable will you. We both know her ability to "take care of it" has little bearing. That's why the "right to choose" is one of the most laughable terms in the history of wedge issues.

Yeah, your body your choice. OK then. Just remember that when you are screaming that the government or the daddy has no business offering an opinion on what to do when you ask the government to pay for the procedure and/or to force the baby daddy to give you money for the next 18 years.

No say, no pay. Seems simple enough.

Fuck you.

Impressive.

[MurrayFiend]

It would've looked like a real statement if I'd used a larger font.

[thejuggernaut]

It would've looked like a real statement if I'd used a larger font.

No doubt.

[chickenona]

Well, what you said came across as "the child will be poor, so we should kill it".

I have no idea where you could have gotten that from my post. I posed it as a question a person weighs when they are confronted with a crisis pregnancy. You're utterly hysterical to have read something so gruesome into what I posted.

My entire POINT was that there are gray areas in every individual case for abortion, and you're responding to my post in a slightly hysterical manner and behaving as though I was speaking in absolutes.

Well, I didn't read your comments as gray areas, i read them as you thinking that what you said was a reasonable reason to terminate a pregnancy.

Well, then, I'm sorry, you either have poor comprehension or you just have an ax to grind with me.

[VinnieKulick]

I don't have an axe to grind.
You said is it fair to bring a child into the world when he'll be born into poverty.


So, if that's a legit reason to have an abortion, SHOULD WE sterilize people who are poor?

Money shouldn't be the determining factor on whether a person should be allowed to be born or not.

The bottom line is, there is no logical reason that a baby shouldn't be allowed to be born. It's the selfishness of the women who make the choice to terminate the life inside of her. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Calexxia]

It's the selfishness of the women who make the choice to terminate the life inside of her. Nothing more, nothing less.

What about when a man requests the abortion? Is it still, then, the selfishness of the woman?

[chickenona]

The bottom line is, there is no logical reason that a baby shouldn't be allowed to be born. It's the selfishness of the women who make the choice to terminate the life inside of her. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, fuck you. Really.

I was recently on the opposite side of this divide. Someone got pregnant, a minor. The men in the equation - the father of the baby, his father, and the mother's father - were all pushing to terminate the pregnancy. The women - the father's mom and the mother's mom - wanted to take the pregnancy to term. The mother felt pressured by the men to terminate the pregnancy and that was what ultimately happened.

This subject is getting a little personal for me and I'm getting frustrated with your holier-than-thou, you-want-to-kill-the-baby, it's-always-the-bitch's-selfish-fault attitude. I guess I'd better shut up.

[lerxstcat]

He brings up an interesting point though; maybe the government shouldn't have a right in the choice, but the father really should. Unless it endangers the woman, the father should have the right to have the baby brought to term, then take it and raise it himself if she doesn't want it.

It's her body, but both their DNA. Granted in many cases the father will be relieved, but if a mother can decide to keep the child, and invoke 21 years of child support on the father, then why does the father get no say in whether HIS child lives?

I think when you make the considered decision to fuck somebody, you accept this risk, and both parents should have a say in whether the child is terminated or not.

As soon as medicine supports transplanting the embryo from the mother's womb into the father's body for gestation, I agree the father should have the right to say "no abortion", since he will then have the ability to carry the child himself, and the surgery to remove the embryo would likely be no more invasive than the abortion the mother wants.

But I also agree that if a woman chooses to have a child against the expressed wishes of the male that the pregnancy be terminated, then it doesn't seem fair that he is on the hook for child support, particularly if he offers to subsidize the abortion. Of course, the problem comes when it devolves into "he said/she said", and I can't think of any easy answer for that.

It shouldn't matter whether a male can carry the child or not. Again, it's 9 months out of a woman's life to carry the child, versus a lifetime lost for the child and for the father. I don't think it's that much to ask to suck it up for 9 months, frankly. Your right to use your body as you see fit dos have limits.

For example, if I rob a bank, then when I'm caught I can't use the right to do with my body as I wish - as in, leave the courtroom and walk free - as a defense.

It's a bit of a ludicrous example, but the fact is, your action resulted in creating a life. If the father wants that child, you should have to take at least enough responsibility to serve a 9-month "sentence" so the child and its father can enjoy that 70+ year average lifespan.

Requiring her to spend 9 months gestating the child is way different than the idea of requiring her to change her entire life by having AND RAISING a child. The negative effects of 9 months versus a lifetime are minimal.

Plus if this was a possible result, more women might be conscientious about taking their BC pills or whatever other BC method they use, than using abortion as their method of birth control. Preventing is different than killing, and whether you like it or not, abortion is the termination of a being's life. It's not a tumor, it's another individual, whether it can yet live outside of its mother or not.

If you're going to do it, call it what it is - homicide. The law does recognize cases of justifiable homicide, such as self-defense. Our society has created this specific catgegory of justifiable homicide, but calls it something else, to ease the consciences of the killers.

So, back to the original point - seeing that society HAS legalized this kind of homicide, if both parents want to do it, so be it. But if one parent wants it - whether the mother OR the father - the other parent should have to accomodate that desire.

If a father can be forced to pay child support for 18 years, against his wish to have a child, then a woman can "pay" for 9 months with the use of her body to finish what she started so the father can raise HIS child. Seems a way to make that whole dynamic more equitable. In fact, to REALLY make it equal, she'd have to give up the baby to the dad AND pay him child support. THAT would make the two situations fully equal, but let's say that 9 months of inconvenience will offset 18 years of monthly payments and call it good. Seems fair.

[Calexxia]

Sorry, lerx, we have to agree to disagree on this one. Since I don't believe that life begins at conception, I can't call it homicide. My batter analogy is the one I'm sticking to.

And, NO, until a man can actually carry the child, I don't think it right for him to be able to demand the child be brought to term. "Only 9 months"? Sure, but there CAN be lifelong implications, and women DO die in childbirth, even now.

I don't think women's so-called laxness in using birth control results in abortions, btw. I know more men who refuse to wear condoms than I do women who refuse to take the pill. And since ONLY abstinence is 100% fool-proof...unplanned pregnancies DO happen.

BTW, I already said that I don't necessarily agree with how child support payments are mandated, either And while I realize that you were likely using "your" as a collective phrase for women in general, I do want to make it clear that I, personally, have never made the choice to have an abortion.

[chickenona]

The whole "father's rights" end of it does create a sticky wicket and morally there is certainly an obligation to include the wishes of the father in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. In the situation I just spoke of, the father's wishes, favoring termination, were served rather than the mother's, which were to carry the pregnancy to term.

However, legally, the Supreme Court defined the issue of abortion as a privacy issue, which renders "father's rights" a moot point.

[lerxstcat]

The whole "father's rights" end of it does create a sticky wicket and morally there is certainly an obligation to include the wishes of the father in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. In the situation I just spoke of, the father's wishes, favoring termination, were served rather than the mother's, which were to carry the pregnancy to term.

However, legally, the Supreme Court defined the issue of abortion as a privacy issue, which renders "father's rights" a moot point.

Right, but all it takes is the Supreme Court revisiting the issue for that to change - because ultimately, the law and the Constitution are whatever the SCOTUS says it is.

And I think it's horrific that that mother was pressured into having an abortion, but she stil had the choice, ultimately.

[Bridget]

And I think it's horrific that that mother was pressured into having an abortion, but she stil had the choice, ultimately.

That's a pretty dickish thing to say. Young girls are really easily swayed by those they love, especially the men in their lives. Don't you think she'll be haunted by that choice her whole life?

[Calexxia]

Oh, and speaking of "loaded"!

Even the people on this thread who are referring to "innocent lives" are supportive of the right of a rape victim to have an abortion. Now, obviously, I don't feel that a rape victim who gets pregnant should be required to carry the child to term--but for those who feel that life begins at conception, doesn't that child deserve the same shot at life?

(I hate the "innocent lives" concept. Look how many evil people there are in the world, each of THEM started out as a so-called "innocent life", right?)

[Bridget]

Even the people on this thread who are referring to "innocent lives" are supportive of the right of a rape victim to have an abortion. Now, obviously, I don't feel that a rape victim who gets pregnant should be required to carry the child to term--but for those who feel that life begins at conception, doesn't that child deserve the same shot at life?

I agree.

Really, abortion isn't ever going to go away. Keep it legal, keep it safe(r) for the woman going through with it. It's a horrible decision to have to make regardless of the circumstances, but it's not going anywhere.

[lerxstcat]

And I think it's horrific that that mother was pressured into having an abortion, but she stil had the choice, ultimately.

That's a pretty dickish thing to say. Young girls are really easily swayed by those they love, especially the men in their lives. Don't you think she'll be haunted by that choice her whole life?

Not dickish whatsoever. And I am sure she WILL be haunted, which is why I said it was horrific - or didn't you notice that in your rush to dick-judgment?

The fact remains that unless he kidnapped her and forcibly aborted the child, it was in her hands to decide whether to abort or not. You can't have it both ways, if it's your right to choose, the decision is on you.

[VinnieKulick]

The bottom line is, there is no logical reason that a baby shouldn't be allowed to be born. It's the selfishness of the women who make the choice to terminate the life inside of her. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, fuck you. Really.

I was recently on the opposite side of this divide. Someone got pregnant, a minor. The men in the equation - the father of the baby, his father, and the mother's father - were all pushing to terminate the pregnancy. The women - the father's mom and the mother's mom - wanted to take the pregnancy to term. The mother felt pressured by the men to terminate the pregnancy and that was what ultimately happened.

This subject is getting a little personal for me and I'm getting frustrated with your holier-than-thou, you-want-to-kill-the-baby, it's-always-the-bitch's-selfish-fault attitude. I guess I'd better shut up.

Well, I'm sorry that your teenage relative, who isn't old enough to drive, decided to allow a person, who wouldn't be a decent human being, to dump a load of semen inside of her, and then badgered her to abort it, so that he would not have be a responsible individual.

Really, you want to say a woman should be able to choose, but according to your account, SHE WASN'T.

Plain and simple.

And, I am not holier than thou, I am just pointing out what I see as the facts.

Keep it legal, keep it safe(r) for the woman going through with it.

You do know that people die from legal abortions, right? That it does happen. And, that the procedure can leave women sterile. Not to mention the physical and emotional toll it can have on the woman who decides to have one.
Plus, woman who have abortions are more likely to develop breast cancer.
Not to mention the risk of infections.


But, if it prevents somebody from being inconvenienced, I guess it's a good thing, right?

[Bridget]

Keep it legal, keep it safe(r) for the woman going through with it.

You do know that people die from legal abortions, right? That it does happen. And, that the procedure can leave women sterile. Not to mention the physical and emotional toll it can have on the woman who decides to have one.
Plus, woman who have abortions are more likely to develop breast cancer.
Not to mention the risk of infections.

Of course I know those things. But, the odds are that an abortion performed by a doctor is still safer than the coat hanger variety, which is why I said safER.

[VinnieKulick]

That's an argument that people have been making forever, yet otherwise healthy women still die after "safe" abortions, along with all the rest. it's a terrible situation all around.

[Calexxia]

But, if it prevents somebody from being inconvenienced, I guess it's a good thing, right?

And I suppose there's never been a man who encouraged a woman to have an abortion for his own convenience? Or, conversely, a man who encouraged the woman to have the child, but bailed when it was born, because he found it "inconvenient"?

Not to mention that having an abortion isn't exactly convenient, either.

Seriously, the "convenience" argument doesn't have legs.

[Calexxia]

That's an argument that people have been making forever, yet otherwise healthy women still die after "safe" abortions, along with all the rest. it's a terrible situation all around.

They also die after "safe" childbirth. As do their children. And let's not even go there about all the "prom babies" found in garbage cans, either. It's a terrible situation all around.

Here's something I genuinely do NOT understand, as well. (Not to mention that no one was willing to answer why the "innocent life" comments don't seem to apply to the product of rape) What is it that makes the potential life more inherently valuable to pro-lifers than a life already being lived?

[VinnieKulick]

And I suppose there's never been a man who encouraged a woman to have an abortion for his own convenience? Or, conversely, a man who encouraged the woman to have the child, but bailed when it was born, because he found it "inconvenient"?

Not to mention that having an abortion isn't exactly convenient, either.

Seriously, the "convenience" argument doesn't have legs.

Yes, there have been men who wanted the mother of his child to have abortions. But if you are clinging to the "it's a woman's choice" then a man has no real say, does he?

And, if a man wanted the baby to not be aborted, and then ditched the mom, at least the child wasn't aborted.
An abortion isn't convenient? i am sure I could make a call tomorrow, and be in a clinic by Tuesday. That's pretty convenient when I have to wait a week to get in to see my primary care doctor.

[Calexxia]

I don't see ANY type of invasive surgery as "convenient".

And I will grant you that when it does boil down to the woman's body, it was unfair of me to point out that men ALSO sometimes have spurious reasons for abortion, even though when I pointed out that I'm fully supportive of men carrying children to term, the argument made was that a woman should be "inconvenienced" by the gestation, rather than accepting of my suggestion that a man (when scientifically possible) gestate the child instead.

[bane]

This thread has degenerated into the exact same thing that every abortion discussion degenerates into. One side vs the other with no middle ground and no hope for any = complete waste of time. I do have to say that while I maintain a pro choice attitude, I think there's some credence to that no say - no pay argument. I don't think there's any realistic way to bridge that gap though. At the end of the day, it's still a woman's body.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Oh, and speaking of "loaded"!

Even the people on this thread who are referring to "innocent lives" are supportive of the right of a rape victim to have an abortion. Now, obviously, I don't feel that a rape victim who gets pregnant should be required to carry the child to term--but for those who feel that life begins at conception, doesn't that child deserve the same shot at life?

You're damn right the child deserves the same shot. I am one of the people using the term "innocent lives" and I don't think any child deserves to be aborted, even ones that are the product of rape or incest. The value of a single human being cannot qualified by the manner by which they were conceived. A child that is born of incest has as much worth as a child that isn't.

To say it is only the woman's fault for committing an abortion is not something I can go along with. Many men have historically pressured women into abortions. That was a major concern of First Wave Feminists; they thought that legal abortions would allow that flourish, which it has. Half of the women that I have personally known that have had abortions, had the piece of shit father goading them. They are accessories.

With that being said, all excuses you can come up with to have an abortion, to interfering with your career, or can't afford the child, or the father doesn't want the child, or you just don't want him or her are exactly that, excuses. All of those concerns are subordinate to a human being's right to live.

[Calexxia]

With that being said, all excuses you can come up with to have an abortion, to interfering with your career, or can't afford the child, or the father doesn't want the child, or you just don't want him or her are exactly that, excuses. All of those concerns are subordinate to a human being's right to live. [/size][/b]

With all due respect, as I've stated previously on this thread, I am not "pro-abortion." However, I do not feel it is logical nor correct for other people to be held by my moral code, thus why I *am* pro-choice. I realize that y'all are using "you" as a convenience, but let's try to keep the debate neutral, ok?

BTW, even though you and I clearly do disagree, I do respect that you are willing to say that even in the case of rape, you do not approve of abortion. Most people are not willing to state an absolute such as thatt.

[chickenona]

This just illustrates the point I was trying to make. No matter what the decision is in any individual case, it's not made lightly and more than one person has a say in it. It's not just a matter of some "selfish woman" coldly terminating an "innocent life". And because so many gray areas do exist, legal access to abortion is the only practical compromise that can be reached here.

As for the teenage couple I cited earlier - whom I NEVER stated were relatives - ultimately the heartbreaking decision that they ended up making turned out to be the best solution for them. They were a conscientious couple who were using birth control that happened to fail. Both of them have gotten their lives back on track, and they're still together. I can't paint a picture of some horrible nightmare scenario of brutality and badgering and endless despair just because it fit's Vinnie Kulick's rather melodramatic take on this subject matter. It's a sad thing, but an abortion - a "do-over" as it were - turned out to be a necessary evil in these kids' lives.

[lerxstcat]

This just illustrates the point I was trying to make. No matter what the decision is in any individual case, it's not made lightly and more than one person has a say in it. It's not just a matter of some "selfish woman" coldly terminating an "innocent life". And because so many gray areas do exist, legal access to abortion is the only practical compromise that can be reached here.

As for the teenage couple I cited earlier - whom I NEVER stated were relatives - ultimately the heartbreaking decision that they ended up making turned out to be the best solution for them. They were a conscientious couple who were using birth control that happened to fail. Both of them have gotten their lives back on track, and they're still together. I can't paint a picture of some horrible nightmare scenario of brutality and badgering and endless despair just because it fit's Vinnie Kulick's rather melodramatic take on this subject matter. It's a sad thing, but an abortion - a "do-over" as it were - turned out to be a necessary evil in these kids' lives.

I hope I didn't say anything hurtful to you, Chicke. I got PMed about it and I have the utmost respect for you - I think you know that, but it bears repeating. That goes for most here, whether I disagree with you on a topic or not. Nor do I expect to convert anyone's long-held beliefs - I am just expressing my own in turn.

My personal view is that abortion is abhorrent and almost never NECESSARY. It's a matter of degrees of inconvenience, because anyone can give up a baby for adoption anywhere in this country AFAIK. So it's 9 months' inconvenience per occurrence. Not a life-breaker. Kids flunk and spend an extra year in highschool all the time. It doesn't destroy their lives.

But I think the pro-life aproach is to minimize what's being done to a "procedure" rather than an ending of a life. Grade-school biology class taught us that when human sperm fertilizes a human egg, that zygote is a human life. Scientifically, by definition, life DOES begin at conception. It's not anyone's opinion, it's empirical fact.

Now if society is going to decide that this form of pre-euthanasia is acceptable, for whatever reason - in China it's population control, and is forced - then at least call it what it is, don't sugarcoat it or use euphemisms to minimize it.

Because those euphemisms lull young mothers into thinking that it's all right, in particular the grownups are saying it's okay, no big thing, and that convinces them to take the easy way out. But then, they have to thnk about it for the rest of their lives - no post-abortion counselors to deal with that, at least not free like the pre-sale.

I just find it intellectualy dishonest to deny the fact that a life is being taken when an abortion is performed. The zygote thing proves it and any 7-year-old understands that.

It's her body? Like I said, if I used my body to rob that bank, or kill that fucker that pissed me off, would anybody buy that justification? Hey, it's MY body, I can do what I want with it. Right? Yeah, right....

See how ridiculous it sounds when you put it that way? If I can kill an unborn baby because it's inconvenient to me, why can't I kill the bank guard who's inconveniently keeping me from getting the money I want?

Exactly, BOTH defenses are ridiculous. But again, if society is going to make it legal, call it what it is. Homicide. Society recognizes the idea of justifiable homicide, in effect legal abortion is another category of justifiable homicide. Think of it as self-defense against the inconvenience.

Because that is exactly what it is.