Metal Sludge Gossip Board

What do you think?
Is abortion a right?
Is abortion acceptable in society?

I don't think it's any of the government's business.

What angers me is the artificial distinction of the terms "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice". Most of the women that I know (some of whom have had abortions) do not consider themselves "pro-death", after all. Am I pro-choice? Damn right, I am. Thankfully, I have never been in a situation where I needed to have an abortion. I genuinely do not know what choice I would make in that situation, but I do not feel that it is the place of the government to declare what I can and cannot do with my body. And, yes, I do feel that until the child can survive on its own, it is still a part of the gestating woman's body.

What terrifies me is the hysteria/extremity. There are right-wing Christian organizations that even condemn certain birth control methods as abortifacients because they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. By the same token, there is much more media attention to "late-term" abortions (which are quite possibly the smallest number of abortions). Because the definition of when "life begins" is so very much a matter of individual perception, I do not think it right for the government to try to make that decision. I also don't really believe the reactionary attitudes of people who claim that when abortion is legal, many women use it as a form of birth control, rather than taking responsibility to PREVENT pregnancy.

Do I feel that public funds should be allocated for abortion? Not necessarily. Then again, I also feel very strongly against those women who have multiple children that they cannot afford. There are no easy answers, although there is a lot of truth in the old quote from Florence Kennedy that "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

So, yeah, in my opinion, it is a private choice and not a matter that should be decided by the government--just as with any other surgery.

Well that makes sense.

I was out earlier and there were a bunch of geriatrics at a pretty busy intersection waving at cars holding up "ABORTION IS MURDER" and "PRAY TO END ABORTION" signs and the like. I've never seen that shit here before but I guess that could be why.

Oh, but to the topic at hand.

It's such a complicated issue without black and white.

It's easy to stand here and say "make it illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or in risk of the mother's health."

I don't like the idea of irresponsible people using it as a form of birth control. But on the other hand if those same people are going to give birth to the dreck of society that's living off the government (erhm, taxpayer) tit anyway then fuck, do us a favor.

So long as the offspring of these people ARE the responsibility of the government, then I think the government DOES have a say, to some extent.

And then, if the government is involved and subisidizing these children OR the abortions, as awful as it sounds, there should be some sort of limit involved, say if you get 2 or 3 or however many abortions then your tubes are tied because clearly you shouldn't be having children and/or can't afford them anyway. Yeah, I know that's a totally separate issue.

The point is that there is NO way to make this black or white. I know I'm a man so in most women's opinion I have no business waxing poetic on the topic, but as a taxpayer I think I do. Furthermore I would absolutely support legislation that sets an arbitrary time period in which an abortion is completely legal - say, the first 10 weeks (prior to their being a heartbeat). That gives a prospective mother 3 months to figure her shit out. After that, no dice.

Eh, this is all making my head hurt.

In Polk County? I'm surprised you've never noticed it, because there have ALWAYS been very vocal protesters around the actual clinics (as opposed to the private practices).

JakeYonkel wrote:
I don't like the idea of irresponsible people using it as a form of birth control. But on the other hand if those same people are going to give birth to the dreck of society that's living off the government (erhm, taxpayer) tit anyway then fuck, do us a favor.

So long as the offspring of these people ARE the responsibility of the government, then I think the government DOES have a say, to some extent.

And then, if the government is involved and subisidizing these children OR the abortions, as awful as it sounds, there should be some sort of limit involved, say if you get 2 or 3 or however many abortions then your tubes are tied because clearly you shouldn't be having children and/or can't afford them anyway. Yeah, I know that's a totally separate issue.

The point is that there is NO way to make this black or white. I know I'm a man so in most women's opinion I have no business waxing poetic on the topic, but as a taxpayer I think I do. Furthermore I would absolutely support legislation that sets an arbitrary time period in which an abortion is completely legal - say, the first 10 weeks (prior to their being a heartbeat). That gives a prospective mother 3 months to figure her shit out. After that, no dice.

Eh, this is all making my head hurt.

I don't actually disagree with what you've posted, even though our political attitudes are worlds apart, generally. I, too, believe that after a certain number of children OR abortions, those who are living a government-subsidized life shouldn't be able to continue to "profit". At the same time, I am leery of the government mandating sterility just as much as I am them mandating having a child.

And, yes, I find it horrible that the military will fight tooth and nail against a member or family member getting sterilized, yet will happily spend a grip of taxpayer money on fertility programs!

Calexxia wrote: And, yes, I find it horrible that the military will fight tooth and nail against a member or family member getting sterilized, yet will happily spend a grip of taxpayer money on fertility programs!

HUH?
We were routinely having women in for tubal ligation and men for vasectomy services.
I got MY vasectomy right before I got out, because I knew it was easy to do, and easy to get an appointment. Then again, that was 7 years ago, but I doubt it has really changed.

VinnieKulick wrote:What do you think?
Is abortion a right?
Is abortion acceptable in society?

"I'm gonna have an abortion and I CAN'T WAIT!" - the daughter in Polyester

It's none of the government's business, and if it's murder, hey that sucks but what are you gonna do. It's not pretty but you shouldn't be able to force a bitch to have a baby she doesn't want, whether it's from rape, a busted rubber, or a drunken orgy.

I love abortions.

VinnieKulick wrote:

Calexxia wrote: And, yes, I find it horrible that the military will fight tooth and nail against a member or family member getting sterilized, yet will happily spend a grip of taxpayer money on fertility programs!

HUH?
We were routinely having women in for tubal ligation and men for vasectomy services.
I got MY vasectomy right before I got out, because I knew it was easy to do, and easy to get an appointment. Then again, that was 7 years ago, but I doubt it has really changed.

My experience with the Air Force is a bit older than yours; however, while they were willing (after a year of "counseling") to give my first husband a vasectomy at the age of 25 (in the early Nineties), I had to argue my case for a tubal from 1992 until 2004/2005. I was told, from the start, "If you have two kids, then you don't have to jump through as many hoops." But, for some reason, if you have no children, they do (or did) tend to frown on you choosing sterility, if you are female.

Well, I actually got mine at Scott AFB in 2002. I was divorced, and they said the whole "You need to come in with your spouse for counseling" and I said "Well, she's in maryland, we're getting divorced and I don't want to have a kid with any of the sluts I am sleeping with."

The doc looked at me and says "you got a point".

I know at the Navy hospital in Portsmouth VA they did them left and right, and they did at Pax River hospital too.

must have been an air force thing.

Calexxia wrote:
My experience with the Air Force is a bit older than yours; however, while they were willing (after a year of "counseling") to give my first husband a vasectomy at the age of 25 (in the early Nineties), I had to argue my case for a tubal from 1992 until 2004/2005. I was told, from the start, "If you have two kids, then you don't have to jump through as many hoops." But, for some reason, if you have no children, they do (or did) tend to frown on you choosing sterility, if you are female.

Lord knows the world is dangerously underpopulated.

I had my vasectomy done at Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego. As I recall I didn't have to go through much to get it, other than signing multiple statements that I knew what I was doing was "permanent" and that the Navy wouldn't pay for a reversal.

Back on topic - the world needs more abortions. Keep 'em legal.

Calexxia wrote:What angers me is the artificial distinction of the terms "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice". Most of the women that I know (some of whom have had abortions) do not consider themselves "pro-death", after all. Am I pro-choice? Damn right, I am. Thankfully, I have never been in a situation where I needed to have an abortion. I genuinely do not know what choice I would make in that situation, but I do not feel that it is the place of the government to declare what I can and cannot do with my body. And, yes, I do feel that until the child can survive on its own, it is still a part of the gestating woman's body.

What terrifies me is the hysteria/extremity. There are right-wing Christian organizations that even condemn certain birth control methods as abortifacients because they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. By the same token, there is much more media attention to "late-term" abortions (which are quite possibly the smallest number of abortions). Because the definition of when "life begins" is so very much a matter of individual perception, I do not think it right for the government to try to make that decision. I also don't really believe the reactionary attitudes of people who claim that when abortion is legal, many women use it as a form of birth control, rather than taking responsibility to PREVENT pregnancy.

Do I feel that public funds should be allocated for abortion? Not necessarily. Then again, I also feel very strongly against those women who have multiple children that they cannot afford. There are no easy answers, although there is a lot of truth in the old quote from Florence Kennedy that "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

So, yeah, in my opinion, it is a private choice and not a matter that should be decided by the government--just as with any other surgery.

Your post is a cavalcade of split hairs. An abortion is not just "a surgery". An abortion is not the same thing as the government preventing women from getting breast implants or tattoos or any other elective surgery. Once you conceive, it isn't just about you anymore, it entails another life- your child's. And you can rationalize till the cows come home about how it's your choice. The question comes down to this: Is it wrong to destroy an innocent life?

If you can answer yes, then you have no more explaining to do. Radical feminists will tell you, if you ask them. They have no qualms and make no excuses. An abortion is a woman's right and they can have as many as they want and for whatever reason they want, without shame. But, if something in your heart tells you that, in a circumstance, abortion is wrong, then it is wrong across the board.

The abortion debate is a very simple choice, or in your words, it is an easy answer- either it's wrong or it isn't. If you're in for the penny, you're in for the pound.

Using the phrase "taking an innocent life" loads the question.

Do I feel life begins at conception? Nope.

Therefore, I do not feel abortion is wrong, morally, although even if I did, I recognize that not everyone shares that belief, which is why I think it inappropriate for the government to make that call.

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:

Calexxia wrote:What angers me is the artificial distinction of the terms "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice". Most of the women that I know (some of whom have had abortions) do not consider themselves "pro-death", after all. Am I pro-choice? Damn right, I am. Thankfully, I have never been in a situation where I needed to have an abortion. I genuinely do not know what choice I would make in that situation, but I do not feel that it is the place of the government to declare what I can and cannot do with my body. And, yes, I do feel that until the child can survive on its own, it is still a part of the gestating woman's body.

What terrifies me is the hysteria/extremity. There are right-wing Christian organizations that even condemn certain birth control methods as abortifacients because they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. By the same token, there is much more media attention to "late-term" abortions (which are quite possibly the smallest number of abortions). Because the definition of when "life begins" is so very much a matter of individual perception, I do not think it right for the government to try to make that decision. I also don't really believe the reactionary attitudes of people who claim that when abortion is legal, many women use it as a form of birth control, rather than taking responsibility to PREVENT pregnancy.

Do I feel that public funds should be allocated for abortion? Not necessarily. Then again, I also feel very strongly against those women who have multiple children that they cannot afford. There are no easy answers, although there is a lot of truth in the old quote from Florence Kennedy that "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

So, yeah, in my opinion, it is a private choice and not a matter that should be decided by the government--just as with any other surgery.

Your post is a cavalcade of split hairs. An abortion is not just "a surgery". An abortion is not the same thing as the government preventing women from getting breast implants or tattoos or any other elective surgery. Once you conceive, it isn't just about you anymore, it entails another life- your child's. And you can rationalize till the cows come home about how it's your choice. The question comes down to this: Is it wrong to destroy an innocent life?

If you can answer yes, then you have no more explaining to do. Radical feminists will tell you, if you ask them. They have no qualms and make no excuses. An abortion is a woman's right and they can have as many as they want and for whatever reason they want, without shame. But, if something in your heart tells you that, in a circumstance, abortion is wrong, then it is wrong across the board.

The abortion debate is a very simple choice, or in your words, it is an easy answer- either it's wrong or it isn't. If you're in for the penny, you're in for the pound.

Except it ISN'T so black and white, and if you can sit there with a straight face and say it is, that every individual situation doesn't fall somewhere on a spectrum of grays, no matter how high your IQ is or how much you think you know, no further proof is required that you are a sheltered, judgmental child.

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.

Money is another deciding issue - is it really responsible or right to bring another person in the world who's doomed to at the very least a childhood spent living below the poverty line? And what about a mentally ill or disabled parent with a hereditary condition? Or a baby who will be born with incapacitating defects right from the start?

You are a very smart guy. Smarter than most people on here. Lord knows you like to remind everyone of that every time you post. But you think in too many absolute terms when there are VERY few absolutes in the real world. It's kind of ironic that you invoke the "what your heart tells you" card, given that you appear to have very little connection with your "heart" such as it is.

Abortion is one hot-button issue that I just do not seem to care about. I don't know if that's selfish or what, but it's one of those things I cannot be bothered debating. Me personally, if I got some chick preggo and she wanted to abort, I think that might possibly scar me for life (not that I want a kid or anything), but as a political issue it just doesn't interest me.

Ugmo wrote:Abortion is one hot-button issue that I just do not seem to care about. I don't know if that's selfish or what, but it's one of those things I cannot be bothered debating. Me personally, if I got some chick preggo and she wanted to abort, I think that might possibly scar me for life (not that I want a kid or anything), but as a political issue it just doesn't interest me.

A friend of mine frequently says, "It meant a lot more to me when I was 19 and there was a stronger chance of me accidentally knocking someone up. Now that I'm older, not so much."

That said, I completely respect that your personal beliefs don't really support abortion, and thank you for not trying to foist that ethical code on those of us who disagree.

My personal opinion.....chances are highly likely that I'd have to get an abortion if I ever got pregnant again, and I wouldn't want the government stepping in and telling me I couldn't make that choice.

Abortions should be legal until the child in question is 18. That is all.

KneelandBobDylan wrote:Abortions should be legal until the child in question is 18. That is all.

Calexxia wrote:Using the phrase "taking an innocent life" loads the question.

Do I feel life begins at conception? Nope.

Therefore, I do not feel abortion is wrong, morally, although even if I did, I recognize that not everyone shares that belief, which is why I think it inappropriate for the government to make that call.

Just playing devil's advocate here: Once an egg is fertilized, it has every piece of DNA needed to bring a person to life. It's just a matter of time of when the cells divide and form a body. So, doesn't life BEGIN at conception?

chickenona wrote: 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'?

Money is another deciding issue - is it really responsible or right to bring another person in the world who's doomed to at the very least a childhood spent living below the poverty line?

Surely you can't be serious. Right? There's a man in the White House who spent his entire childhood well below the poverty line. Should we make all people who don't make over a certain dollar amount per year get sterilized so that no child should be born into poverty?

And what about a mentally ill or disabled parent with a hereditary condition? Or a baby who will be born with incapacitating defects right from the start?

Why does a parents mental state negate the baby's right to be born? What about people with NO hereditary conditions that have children with birth defects? Heredity can give us an indication of the LIKELIHOOD that the child MAY be born with a 'defect' but it is not a guarantee.

I have no hereditary issues that should be passed to either of my children, nor did my ex wife. However my son was born with pulmonary hypertenstion (both lungs filled with fluid, instead of being clear). A month in the NICU, 15 days on ECMO (heart/lunch bypass machine that cleans and oxygenates blood outside of the body) three years of physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and monthly blood tests later, he's 13 and will never me 'normal'. But never once did we ever say "no, let him go" when he was born and was sick.

And, not to be cruel, but not WANTING a baby simply isn't a good enough reason to kill it. I've never heard a single instance where a pregnant woman was unable to give her baby away for adoption.

VinnieKulick wrote:

Calexxia wrote:Using the phrase "taking an innocent life" loads the question.

Do I feel life begins at conception? Nope.

Therefore, I do not feel abortion is wrong, morally, although even if I did, I recognize that not everyone shares that belief, which is why I think it inappropriate for the government to make that call.

Just playing devil's advocate here: Once an egg is fertilized, it has every piece of DNA needed to bring a person to life. It's just a matter of time of when the cells divide and form a body. So, doesn't life BEGIN at conception?

No more so than eggs, flour, milk, sugar, and butter is cake. It's still batter till ya bake it

Calexxia wrote:

Ugmo wrote:Abortion is one hot-button issue that I just do not seem to care about. I don't know if that's selfish or what, but it's one of those things I cannot be bothered debating. Me personally, if I got some chick preggo and she wanted to abort, I think that might possibly scar me for life (not that I want a kid or anything), but as a political issue it just doesn't interest me.

A friend of mine frequently says, "It meant a lot more to me when I was 19 and there was a stronger chance of me accidentally knocking someone up. Now that I'm older, not so much."

That said, I completely respect that your personal beliefs don't really support abortion, and thank you for not trying to foist that ethical code on those of us who disagree.

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.

lerxstcat wrote:
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.

lerxstcat wrote:...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.

The day someone figures out how to allow the male to carry, gestate & then give birth to that embryo...

...you actually might have a chance of getting a majority of women to agree with ya on that proposition of yours, Lerx.

But until then, I'm thinkin' the old sperm are facin' a very steep uphill swim.

pooldude wrote:

lerxstcat wrote:...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.

The day someone figures out how to allow the male to carry, gestate & then give birth to that embryo...

...you actually might have a chance of getting a majority of women to agree with ya on that proposition of yours, Lerx.

But until then, I'm thinkin' the old sperm are facin' a very steep uphill swim.

I mentioned this concept in my last post: Medical science advances at such a rate that I'm sure it will soon be possible to remove the embryo from the mother, implant it in the father, and then give him the total right to "bring the child to term."

Calexxia wrote:I mentioned this concept in my last post: Medical science advances at such a rate that I'm sure it will soon be possible to remove the embryo from the mother, implant it in the father, and then give him the total right to "bring the child to term."

And I shall give my blessing to Lerx to be among the 1st to exercise his right to utilize the new technology.

VinnieKulick wrote:

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?

Money is another deciding issue - is it really responsible or right to bring another person in the world who's doomed to at the very least a childhood spent living below the poverty line?

Surely you can't be serious. Right? There's a man in the White House who spent his entire childhood well below the poverty line. Should we make all people who don't make over a certain dollar amount per year get sterilized so that no child should be born into poverty?

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.

And what about a mentally ill or disabled parent with a hereditary condition? Or a baby who will be born with incapacitating defects right from the start?

Why does a parents mental state negate the baby's right to be born? What about people with NO hereditary conditions that have children with birth defects? Heredity can give us an indication of the LIKELIHOOD that the child MAY be born with a 'defect' but it is not a guarantee.

I have no hereditary issues that should be passed to either of my children, nor did my ex wife. However my son was born with pulmonary hypertenstion (both lungs filled with fluid, instead of being clear). A month in the NICU, 15 days on ECMO (heart/lunch bypass machine that cleans and oxygenates blood outside of the body) three years of physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and monthly blood tests later, he's 13 and will never me 'normal'. But never once did we ever say "no, let him go" when he was born and was sick.

And, not to be cruel, but not WANTING a baby simply isn't a good enough reason to kill it. I've never heard a single instance where a pregnant woman was unable to give her baby away for adoption.

I used this as one example of when someone might decide an abortion would be justified. There are some defects where it's known the fetus will not be viable.

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.

VinnieKulick wrote:
Just playing devil's advocate here: Once an egg is fertilized, it has every piece of DNA needed to bring a person to life. It's just a matter of time of when the cells divide and form a body. So, doesn't life BEGIN at conception?

That's one argument. There are others that say it starts with a heartbeat. For me, personally, that question is the end all and be all of the abortion argument.