[PUG] Abortion

[Satya]

you speak from personal experience, you can't definitively say this is or is not. And I'm definitley not saying that there poeple out there that want abortions, but there could be.

I feel safe in assuming they are a fringe minority if they do indeed exist.

bad wording(not yours), but if abortion is wrong then there should be a correctional method involved, not neccasarly jail. But some form of education mandated and community service fined. That is if it were ilegal, on second thought maybe none at all to the mother but instead a fine to the doctor. I the women has commited a self endused abortion, she's probably hurt herself enough.

Even if every doctor chose not to perform abortions, it doesn't mean women wouldn't perform abortions on themselves. Women did so for centuries. What you want seems to be less of a punishment for abortion, but rather a public condemnation of it. And as I said before, abortion is less than glorified already. The government certainly doesn't sanction it by simply choosing to recognize a women's right to choose, and there are other ways to condemn abortion without making yourself an adversary against a women's right to choose. You can respect a women's right to choose to have an abortion without supporting abortion. Seek to respect women's right to choose by increasing the choices they have or decreasing the likelihood that they will ever have to make that choice.

 

[slant]

I'm trying to think of a way for a woman to make sure she will never have to have a child if she does not want one. Normally the answer would be that she just doesn't have intercourse, but since she must carry a the child that is a result of a rape then....well, Barnabas, what would you suggest a woman does that does not want a child and would like to eliminate any possible risk? It is her responsibility anyway, right?

I don't want children so I'm just trying to assess what I should do to prepare....?

I suppose removing the uterus would eliminate all chances but I heard that comes with a lot of health complications, would you suggest this or some other method?

And another thought: women will typically get their first menstruation at the age of about 13 or so. Sometimes earlier, and they are able to become pregnant months before their first mensuration. How do we protect these women who are mere children? I think there would be a pretty negative effect on a female's body if she had to carry a pregnancy at that point as a result of a rape.

 

[alcyone]

Well, let's not turn it into a sexist divide. There are plenty of women who would agree with Barnabas (in position, if not entirely in arguments), and plenty of men who would agree with you. If the reasoning can be accurately expressed in text, then people of either sex can understand it, and can therefore base legislation upon it.

This is the kind of topic that is impossible to be gender neutral about. It would be different if both human males and females could get pregnant and carry a child to term, but at this time, it isn't. It is so much easier for a male to spout off these things because they will never know how it feels (emotionally and physically) to be pregnant.

 

[slant]

This is the kind of topic that is impossible to be gender neutral about. It would be different if both human males and females could get pregnant and carry a child to term, but at this time, it isn't. It is so much easier for a male to spout off these things because they will never know how it feels (emotionally and physically) to be pregnant.

I think that the opening paragraph is a bit sexist in the sense that...well, there's no equal situation for a man. If a woman rapes a man....he doesn't get the baby. So I guess...hmm, I don't know how to further that point so I'll leave it there.

 

[alcyone]

To come out and say it, I have no experience with rape victims except for just one. Personally speaking I dont look at my nephew and think oh look a guy raped my sister at anytime I see him. I see my favorite person of all time. But I am very very very glad he didnt get aborted.

And your sister is one of those women who are the exceptions. But not all women have that kind of strength.

 

[the]

This is the kind of topic that is impossible to be gender neutral about. It would be different if both human males and females could get pregnant and carry a child to term, but at this time, it isn't. It is so much easier for a male to spout off these things because they will never know how it feels (emotionally and physically) to be pregnant.

He just illustrated why it is possible to be gender neutral!!!!

 

[SpaceCowgirl]

All sperm and egg cells have the potential to become human beings, just like a fetus. I realize the the ridiculous difference but my point is you have to draw the line somewhere, and it cant be to far on either side. In the early stages of development a potential person slowly becomes a person, and at a certain point it is conscious enough to be considered human, and killing it would be wrong. No one is qualified to make this differentiation, which is why it must be made based on the personal belief of the mother.
I wouldn't abort a baby after the first trimester. I don't see how I possibly wouldn't have decided to by then if there was a reason to anyways. In the very late stages of development getting an abortion is almost as bad as leaving your baby in the dumpster, which is why most doctors wont. BUT that's just my opinion.
Legally it's hard to say "you can't abort your fetus after its been in your uterus for however many weeks", because it's to subjective. And it wouldn't make sense to say "you can't ever abort a baby as soon as it is conceived". Then what about the morning after pill? The only logical law is for woman to have the choice, and to be well informed so they don't make this kind of decision rashly.

 

[Barnabas]

your arguments based on the idea that I am a man and therfore can't have an opinion, little lone a correct one. That is terribly sexist.

Considering that you are male and will never EVER be able to be pregnant how can you be so positive that a fetus that is inside and attached to a pregnant woman is 'not part of her body'? Considering that until the 32nd week of pregnancy it is very unlikely that a fetus can survive outside of the womb on its own without extensive medical intervention, the fetus certainly fits under the Merriam Webster definition of a parasite.

how many kids do you have?

If it is not a permanent part of a females body, but that doesn't make it any less a part when there is a pregnancy. .

by your standard of the child being a parasite, is a ring worm part of your body, what about a tape worm. they do everything a that infant will do.

the only difference is that you didn't get pregnant to have a worm, and that the worm won't grow into a fully grown human.

Since you'll never be in the position to carry a rapists child. How are you even qualified to take a stance like this? How is forcing a woman to bear her assailants child NOT punishing her for the attack? I see that you are very young, and naive in the way of young things. I wonder if you would stand next to your wife for 10 months if she were raped and forced to bear her attackers child. That would be a year of reminders every moment of every day of what happened. I won't ever start wondering about the emotional and mental trauma of the woman. But for you....the hypothetical husband...that is over a year of reminders that your wife was violated in the most intimate way possible and is bearing the fruit of it.
There is nothing more wondrous than feeling a baby inside the womb wiggle and kick, and every time you felt that there would be the thrill of feeling that life followed by the bitter reminder that it isn't your child moving...it was a rapists. I wonder, would you be able to face the well meaning strangers on the street who'd be gushing all unknowingly about how wonderful it is going to be.....with the mocking voice in your head reminding you that it isn't yours....Or the doctor appointments...would you be there with your wife for these appointments? .

you, would dare call me naive over this, I would not have to tell my wife to have the child as she would know the value of life. We would gladly watch God turn a tradgedy into a miracle. do you think I would forget that my wife was raped just because there is no child you call me naive.

how dare you act like you can make personal inference to my charachter. how could you know me?

It is SO easy to sit back on your soapbox and make blithe generalistic statements about how 'bothersome' it would be to carry a rapists child to term. You have no empathy. You have no idea what it feels like to be raped. For you to post something so ignorant about a subject like this is indicative about the complete bubble you operate in..

To think i operate in a bubble when all you do is act like you know person you've never met, like you know what i've been through.

'Simply'????.......there is nothing simple about pregnancy or childbirth. Do you know anything about the physiological effects pregnancy/childbirth has on a woman's body?

My apologies, that was a rhetorical question as you have no clue. And you never will.

All your OP arguments did for me was reinforce my belief that anyone with a penis has no business dictating legislation mandating that a pregnant woman must bear her child.

How many women go away mad from having a child. How many die from giving birth, I'm not saying anything to the pain or the strain it casues. But I am saying that death from child birth is utterly uncommon in modern society.

 

[Barnabas]

I'm trying to think of a way for a woman to make sure she will never have to have a child if she does not want one. Normally the answer would be that she just doesn't have intercourse, but since she must carry a the child that is a result of a rape then....well, Barnabas, what would you suggest a woman does that does not want a child and would like to eliminate any possible risk? It is her responsibility anyway, right?

I don't want children so I'm just trying to assess what I should do to prepare....?

I suppose removing the uterus would eliminate all chances but I heard that comes with a lot of health complications, would you suggest this or some other method?

And another thought: women will typically get their first menstruation at the age of about 13 or so. Sometimes earlier, and they are able to become pregnant months before their first mensuration. How do we protect these women who are mere children? I think there would be a pretty negative effect on a female's body if she had to carry a pregnancy at that point as a result of a rape.

If you don't want children entirley get your tubes tiedfrom what I know it can be undone at later time if the woman wishes (correct me if i'm wrong please). My mother did after my birth. Maternal death from child birth is so unlikley that it is barley an a factor in a modern society. And as I said, if the birth forces risk, then it is the mothers decision.

 

[slant]

If you don't want children entirley get your tubes tiedfrom what I know it can be undone at later time if the woman wishes (correct me if i'm wrong please). My mother did after my birth. Maternal death from child birth is so unlikley that it is barley an a factor in a modern society. And as I said, if the birth forces risk, then it is the mothers decision.

You cannot legally do this until you are eighteen, and the procedure is not fool proof; you can still become impregnated after this is done.

Does this mean that I am completely unprotected until I am 18? This leaves our 11-17 year old females very vulnerable, Barnabas.


edit: apparently the age is 21.


extra edit: I should also note that according to online articles it's hard to get a doctor to perform the procedure even though it is legal at 21; usually the surgery is aimed towards people 40 or over and so you'll be searching for quite a while to find a doctor who will even touch the subject- what if during searching for a doctor to 'fix' you, you get raped?

 

[Satya]

the should the other mother have the right, Let's face facts most of the abortions arn't because of rape or incest in America, they come from women whom aget pregnant and decide the child is unwanted or inconvient. More or less there try to remove a mistake.

That is most likely true.

As for a choice the women has one, to abort the child. That is what this debate is about if that choice should be legal or not.

A choice does not disappear just because you make it illegal. The question is whether the consequences of making it illegal will be less detrimental to individuals and society than continuing to allow women to make that choice.

kinda answered this in another post. but that goes again along the lines of any other crime, if I murder some one and get sent to prison that doesn bring the victim back to life, it serves justice to the killer.

That is retribution, not justice. Justice locks people up because they have demonstrated they are a threat to the community, not for any sort of "feel good" feeling of seeing someone being punished. Justice seeks to hold the offender accountable to their victims, and just locking them up does not serve that interest.

semantics, why should it matter if the child is inside the woman.

That is the point of the whole debate. If the child was outside the mother, then there would be no issue. But since the fetus is inside the mother, it is dependent upon the mother's body, and the mother has no choice whether or not she provides it sustenance. If tomorrow they invented a machine in which a fetus could be transferred and kept alive until it could live on its own, then abortions would virtually cease to exist in time. You have gotten into the mentality that people want abortions, but really all people want are choices. If you develop a better choice, then people will make that choice.

why not both?

The reality is that humans don't work that way. Once you make yourself an adversary of women's right to choose by seeking to eliminate one of their choices, you have no longer made it an issue of choice, you have made it an issue of abortion. People are simply going to be less inclined to listen to you when you argue alternative options.

I certainly don't support abortion, but I will always support a women's right to choose what she does with her own body. If she chooses abortion, then that will likely change how I view her, because I do feel it is a poor choice in most circumstances. However, in good conscience, I could never ask a woman to consider adoption if I am not willing to respect her right to make that other choice. I will even ask her to consider all the facts of the choice she is making, but I will not seek to make the choice for her. I respect my fellow human beings right to self determination, particularly when it involves their own body. I hate to see a life end as a result, but it isn't my choice that that life ends. It is only my choice to respect the choice of others when it comes to their body.

 

[Satya]

If you don't want children entirley get your tubes tiedfrom what I know it can be undone at later time if the woman wishes (correct me if i'm wrong please). My mother did after my birth. Maternal death from child birth is so unlikley that it is barley an a factor in a modern society. And as I said, if the birth forces risk, then it is the mothers decision.

That is a very complicated procedure compared to a vasectomy and can be pretty pricey. Are you advocating on the government paying for it?

 

[Barnabas]

You cannot legally do this until you are eighteen, and the procedure is not fool proof; you can still become impregnated after this is done.

Does this mean that I am completely unprotected until I am 18? This leaves our 11-17 year old females very vulnerable, Barnabas.


edit: apparently the age is 21.

women under the age of 15 count for less then 1.2% of abortions, rape and incest acount for 1% of abortions. Take classes on self protection, learn to prevent it from happening in the first place. I know 4 year old who take martial arts.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html website for your viewing pleasure

 

[Barnabas]

That is a very complicated procedure compared to a vasectomy and can be pretty pricey. Are you advocating on the government paying for it?

If they would outlaw abortion then yes.

 

[slant]

Hmmm...maybe I'm just paranoid but I will not take birth control and I have decided against in the future taking part in this surgery because of the hormonal effects it can have; a lot of the time, both of these things will alter the woman's natural hormonal chemistry and that worries me.

 

[Barnabas]

That is most likely true.

A choice does not disappear just because you make it illegal. The question is whether the consequences of making it illegal will be less detrimental to individuals and society than continuing to allow women to make that choice.

That is retribution, not justice. Justice locks people up because they have demonstrated they are a threat to the community, not for any sort of "feel good" feeling of seeing someone being punished. Justice seeks to hold the offender accountable to their victims, and just locking them up does not serve that interest.

That is the point of the whole debate. If the child was outside the mother, then there would be no issue. But since the fetus is inside the mother, it is dependent upon the mother's body, and the mother has no choice whether or not she provides it sustenance. If tomorrow they invented a machine in which a fetus could be transferred and kept alive until it could live on its own, then abortions would virtually cease to exist in time. You have gotten into the mentality that people want abortions, but really all people want are choices. If you develop a better choice, then people will make that choice.

The reality is that humans don't work that way. Once you make yourself an adversary of women's right to choose by seeking to eliminate one of their choices, you have no longer made it an issue of choice, you have made it an issue of abortion. People are simply going to be less inclined to listen to you when you argue alternative options.

I certainly don't support abortion, but I will always support a women's right to choose what she does with her own body. If she chooses abortion, then that will likely change how I view her, because I do feel it is a poor choice in most circumstances. However, in good conscience, I could never ask a woman to consider adoption if I am not willing to respect her right to make that other choice. I will even ask her to consider all the facts of the choice she is making, but I will not seek to make the choice for her. I respect my fellow human beings right to self determination, particularly when it involves their own body. I hate to see a life end as a result, but it isn't my choice that that life ends. It is only my choice to respect the choice of others when it comes to their body.

No but making the choice illegal will make those who would do it out of convience think twice.

I also noted that I wouldn't actualy have women be punished ofr having an abortion but instead have doctors whom are found to do them fined.

I disagree with the idea that it's about being inside or outside of the mother. If a mother chooses to not feed her child it would be neglect and ilegal, we take away that choice. The difference is the abortion is more then neglect it's murder.

Am I an adversary to mens rights when I say they can't beat there wives or molest there children, what is the difference here?

 

[Barnabas]

Hmmm...maybe I'm just paranoid but I will not take birth control and I have decided against in the future taking part in this surgery because of the hormonal effects it can have; a lot of the time, both of these things will alter the woman's natural hormonal chemistry and that worries me.

your choice, martial arts on the other hand very healthy.

 

[bamf]

women under the age of 15 count for less then 1.2% of abortions, rape and incest acount for 1% of abortions. Take classes on self protection, learn to prevent it from happening in the first place. I know 4 year old who take martial arts.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html website for your viewing pleasure

So the few that it happens to are screwed, and it's up to the woman to prevent rape?

 

[alcyone]

your arguments based on the idea that I am a man and therfore can't have an opinion, little lone a correct one. That is terribly sexist.
how many kids do you have?

4.

by your standard of the child being a parasite, is a ring worm part of your body, what about a tape worm. they do everything a that infant will do.

the only difference is that you didn't get pregnant to have a worm, and that the worm won't grow into a fully grown human.

Actually, both ring worms and tape worms come to maturity inside the body of their host. Having a host is a requirement for their survival and the continuation of their separate species. And being that both of them are completely different species makes it impossible for them to be human to begin with and to compare them to a human pregnancy. What is your point?

No one wants a tape worm or ring worm so it's okay to go to a doctor and get something to remove it from your body. If a woman doesn't want a pregnancy she should be allowed the same right. To remove the parasite from her body. Legally sanctioned and medically safe.

you, would dare call me naive over this, I would not have to tell my wife to have the child as she would know the value of life. We would gladly watch God turn a tradgedy into a miracle. do you think I would forget that my wife was raped just because there is no child you call me naive.

how dare you act like you can make personal inference to my charachter. how could you know me?

I know you based on what you say. And I've been reading what you say in this forum for a while now. And it is naive to tell me you'd view a rape pregnancy as a miracle in the hypothetical without actually living the situation. It is very easy to say what you would do hypothetically (i.e. talk the talk), what would end up doing in real life is something you won't know until it happens....and I hope that you NEVER find yourself in this situation.

To think i operate in a bubble when all you do is act like you know person you've never met, like you know what i've been through.

Isn't that what you are doing with this topic? You are acting like you know all the people who need to make life altering decisions like abortions. These topics you post are you acting like you know what is best for everyone is every situation. You started this topic telling women basically....'Unless there is the chance you could lose your life in pregnancy or childbirth, you must carry your pregnancy to term!'. How is that NOT acting like you are omniscient about every pregnancy situation?

How many women go away mad from having a child. How many die from giving birth, I'm not saying anything to the pain or the strain it casues. But I am saying that death from child birth is utterly uncommon in modern society.

Angry from childbirth? Seriously? The most universal emotion I've encountered immediately following childbirth is relief that it is freaking OVER! Naive wasn't the proper term for your comprehension for the totality of the experience of pregnancy and childbirth.....the proper term should be 'clueless'.

Death from childbirth rates in civilized countries are low certainly. But physically, how many women walk away from childbirth unaltered? Zero. The physical alternations that take place on the body are permanent and never go away.

 

[Barnabas]

So the few that it happens to are screwed, and it's up to the woman to prevent rape?

yes people are responsible for there own saftey. Rape is already ilegal, and it's not an easy thing to police until it's already happened.