Roe ends at 12 weeks...first trimester. After that, there has to be a question of the woman's health for the baby to be aborted. That has been extended to mean mental health...which includes the idea that she's just worried about being a mother..or worrying about providing for the baby, etc. So essentially, an abortion doctor, who only gets paid if the procedure is complete, can find any reason in the world for an abortion just by talking to the patient and seeing if she has any fears about being a mother, no matter the term of pregnancy. There was an abortion provider in Dallas who owned like 5 clinics around town who did that very thing methodically...and then left the practice after she got in trouble. I can't dispute the stats you provide in the first link, because I'm not sure what the ultimate source is and I know I've seen different numbers. I'll try to dig up the Congressional testimony I mentioned,but I can't remember where I got it. Not sure what to make of the second website.
yes good points, and perhaps it is too abstract for this forum, but I don't think the argument of fairness is any less abstract than some of the other arguments here regarding religion, whether something is living, how to treat others etc. It seems the question of which rights we have control over and which ones we don't is equally difficult to understand or agree upon. Here's where it connects to reality, to the sides of both arguments. I don't think I'm arguing for anything, just asking people if they think its fair, simple enough. For the most part, people don't think its fair that women have to consent to pregnancy when they have sex, while men do not, others of course accept that its a fact and are glad that they don't have to bear equal burdens, fine. Pro-life may say its fair or unfair, but don't regard that as the point, the point is that they have to carry the burden because of the life inside them irregardless if the choice they made was the wrong one, there's no turning back. Pro-choice do recognize that its not fair that women do not have a choice and pity that, but at the same time accept that by going this route they have to get rid of something that could potentially be a human being. With both sides, there is sacrifice, the difference is that one side values the life more than the woman, and the other side values the woman more than the "life". I don't think anyone emphasizes enough that there is a huge amount of sacrifice no matter which route you take. But because a woman does not have the ability to choose when she becomes pregnant (although she can play with the percentages), that's why we have this problem to begin with, and it's important to recognize that a woman can be enslaved by her body when she doesn't want it to become pregnant and it does. This is something men will never understand or comprehend, but it is also an important aspect to consider in addition to the "is the fetus a living thing?", there are potentially two lives at stake and either way you choose there has to be sacrifice. Both sides spend too much time demonizing each other, and not enough time realizing that they are both arguing to save one life over another. I don't think either side is wrong, they just have different priorities.
2 thoughts come to mind immediately: 1. a woman can absolutely choose when she becomes pregnant. we play with fire and wonder why we get burned. my wife didn't want to get pregnant before she got married. there was a pretty full-proof way for her to insure that. was she tempted? absolutely. i didn't get anyone pregnant before i was married, either. wonder why? want to know what i REALLY think about why we have these "problems to begin with?" i'll take my chances with the numbers for abortions when they come from unintended pregnancies WITHIN a marriage. 2. if it's unfair that women have to worry about pregnancy and men don't....who do you hold that against? unfair? it just is. also...i don't think my wife feels it's unfair at all. she had an experience and an intimacy with our children that i'll never have. she can never be replaced because of that. we can't view pregnancy ONLY through the eyes of those who are unhappy with the fact they're pregnant, can we?? not if we want to think about big global abstract concepts related to pregnancy...i don't think, anyway. 3. by the way...men are every bit as obligated to the children after the birth as women. but i don't think that you're arguing that. in case i'm wrong, re-read the first sentence of this paragraph 3. repeat if necessary. oops...that's 3 thoughts..the 3rd one came late.
I think the side that believes the life of the mother is at stake is wrong. The vast majority of pregnancies constitute no significant risk to the life of the mother. The pro-choice side is not trying to save one life over another, they are sacrificing a human child on the alter of convienence.
ok, good thoughts, worth bringing up. 1. I think we differ on this completely, a lot of women choose to have sex but they don't consciously choose to become pregnant when they use protection. Likewise, when I step in my car to go somewhere and something unexpected happens, is it my choice to die just because I assume the risk of stepping in a car? yes you can argue that sex is for making babies, but in this society and culture, that's not in the forefront of people's minds when they do the act, and that's a huge problem, but it's not something that is going to disappear anytime soon. 2. you encompass my point, its a personal thing. 3. I think it should be true, but is it in reality? the way the system is, men don't have to go through the 9 months and have a lot of room to shirk and leave to only give money in the end. and SM, thanks for reiterating the pro-life side, but to reiterate the other side, they would argue that a woman's life is changed drastically when she becomes pregnant. It's perfectly fine and reasonable if you think the child's life is much more important than that, but to demonize the other side without trying to understand them doesn't make your thoughts any less of an opinion than theirs.
The thing you are missing is that choice is in both. The current war we are fighting in Iraq is one of choice and wasn't forced upon this country. Given that you are a war supporter and from previous posts you think the war is still right even with no evidence that the former Iraqi regime was even remotely a threat to the US you agree with that choice. So while you condemn individual choices made by women who abort fetuses you willing support a decision that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of live people. As I said before in regards to your question of lifestyle over life , as a supporter of voluntary war then the answer would be that lifestyle wins. To be fair to you I don't know your stands on many issues so this may not apply to you: The reason why I brought up the issue that many self-proclaimded pro-lifers seem to care more about the unborn the born is that so that while they thunder righteously about protecting the lives of the innocent children they'll also advocate cutting programs that overwhelmingly benefit poor women infants and children. So while they argue about the sancticty of life and demand that the state preserve that life they will also argue that the state shouldn't help at all with making sure that life grows up healthy, well fed or educated. Apparently to conservative pro-lifers the only thing as bad as ending a pregnancy is to have government programs helping that child after its born.
MadMax; Would you support abortion where a woman has been raped since obviously there she didn't choose to get pregnant? I don't have time to go through the whole thread so I apologize ahead of time if you've answered that already. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your posts and just want to get the sense of where you draw the lines.
<b>Originally posted by Sishir Chang The thing you are missing is that choice is in both. The current war we are fighting in Iraq is one of choice and wasn't forced upon this country. Given that you are a war supporter and from previous posts you think the war is still right even with no evidence that the former Iraqi regime was even remotely a threat to the US you agree with that choice.</B> What made the war right was the reasoable expectation (expressed by both the US Congress and the UN and even John Kerry and Bill Clinton by-God) that Saddam was believed to have the capacity to perform or at least assist a terrorist attack against the US... and he was a known enemy of the US and the UN as he had defied UN sanctions for more than a dozen years since the end of Gulf War I. That it turned out not to be such a strong likelihood is very unfortunate, but all these I-told-you-sos are self-serving for the most part. Some people were genuinely opposed to the war from the get-go (even a broken clock is right 60 or so times a month) but people from both sides of the argument who were in a position to have special knowledge concluded differently and when it comes to terrorism I think it was the prudent thing to be pro-active-- especially on the heels of 9/11. In other words, we made a prudent CHOICE which was proven not to be as necessary to make as we thought but hindsight is so razor-sharp and so useless in situations like this... other than as a learning experience. <b>So while you condemn individual choices made by women who abort fetuses you willing support a decision that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of live people.</b> Decision "A" is motivated by national self-interest which was also an issue of self-defense of American lives and the cost of many foreign lives. Decision "B" is most likely a decision of self-interest and involves the termination of an innocent life. How many of those Iraqis were not happy but were willing to die if it meant that their children would lead a better life in Iraq? How many of those dead Iraqis were the enemy who were in sympathy with the insurgents who are TO THIS DAY deliberately killing innocent Iraqi men, women, and children-- even unborn probably? <b>As I said before in regards to your question of lifestyle over life , as a supporter of voluntary war then the answer would be that lifestyle wins.</B> In that case, yeah, although calling it lifestyle seems a little shallow. The victims of 9/11 would argue that it was about Life and that we had better regard the struggle as about Life. Your argumentation about the Lifestyle issue was really eye-opening. It showed just how complex all this is and how tough the choices are. (Tongue in Cheek) I hope you don't think that just because I can definitely make the pro-War choice that I am eager for Iraqis to die. Likewise, just because you are anti-War, I don't think that you are eager for Americans to die. It is far more complex than that. <b>To be fair to you I don't know your stands on many issues so this may not apply to you: The reason why I brought up the issue that many self-proclaimded pro-lifers seem to care more about the unborn the born is that so that while they thunder righteously about protecting the lives of the innocent children they'll also advocate cutting programs that overwhelmingly benefit poor women infants and children. So while they argue about the sancticty of life and demand that the state preserve that life they will also argue that the state shouldn't help at all with making sure that life grows up healthy, well fed or educated. Apparently to conservative pro-lifers the only thing as bad as ending a pregnancy is to have government programs helping that child after its born.</b> I find it odd how some turn this "unexpected" care for the unborn into a neglect of the born. People's spirits need to shout out where they see a travesty. We don't all see the same travesties and we don't all see the same things as travesties. That one is hard to explain but it is most certainly true. The government does plenty for the needy. Could they do more? Yes. Should they do more? Here's where it gets complicated. Some problems are easier to solve than others. Some problems are more compelling. That unwanted child has a moment approaching rapidly where nothing else will matter when that moment passes and that mother makes a decision to end the child's life. People struggling with life have many, many chances to do-over, start-over, get a break, fix their situation et al. Thier very existence is not immediately in danger. Perhaps that's why the issue of abortion seems all out of whack to you. There are no do-overs for that dead child. Most other situations are redeemable or can wait on a solution. Someone scheduled to die doesn't have the luxury of waiting.
I don't know...I struggle with that theoretically. why is that life worth any less?? but on the other hand, i certainly understand and sympathize with the horror that woman must be going through. i don't find answers in the world for that kind of stuff. i just don't know. Frankly, I know in the real world there will not be a full out ban on abortion. I'd be happy if we'd just go back to enforcing Roe the way it were written. Well, not happy...but that would be a major improvement.
andy -- you contradict yourself sometimes when you say that, though. you've said before you could live with Roe. most at 4 months are not viable. but Roe already says you can't have abortions in month 4 unless there's a health reason. not even Roe goes as far as to say that if the baby can't survive outside the womb it's not a life. and that's a moving target anyway...we're defining life then by our advances in science to keep premature babies alive artificially. what happens when science advances to a point where they could be brought to term even after 2 weeks?
... and from my personal experience: like the cat dumping in the litter box just moments after it has been cleaned. "Cavalier" is a word that has a wide range of meaning that ranged from dismissive to arrogant. I have no problem using the word to describe someone's attitude when a personal preference has been opted for over a person's life. I love your analogy of going to get an abortion to going to Sunday School. The legislation would be to protect innocent lives.
Giddyup; I totally agree but when debating an issue like this on a forum like this we largely have to reduce the complexity of the issue to simple comparisons. That means to a certain extent we engage in hyperbolic and extremist rhetoric now and then but I think thats really just to get a sense of where we stand on the issues. I'm glad you recognize the complexity of the issues and for the record I don't think you're a hypocritical zealot when it comes to concern for life either born or unborn but am challenging your views by throwing you contradictions in your positions in regards to a pro-life position. I understand that the issues and your views are much complex than that.
We have different templates. As someone else pointed out, pro-life is a term which has been co-opted for the abortion debate. That is the way that I was using it in the context of this abortion debate. If by pro-life you mean I have to not eat meat, be a pacifist and be vehemently opposed to the death penalty then, yes, by those standards I'm not pro-life. But that's not what I mean when I use the term and, without passion, I object to anyone citing those things as contradictory to their meaning of pro-life. I'm a very life-affirming guy but I know people who wouldn't kill intruders who threatned their families. I'm not that pro-life; are you?
For all interested in Life in the Womb: Sunday night, 8 PM ET, National Geographic Channel http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/
That's an interesting question and thankfully I've never been in that position. I once punched a guy trying to break into my house. He was trying to climb into the window above my bed. In regards to self-defense whether I could kill somebody all I can say is that I probably would if my life was threatened or others but I think would have a very hard time living with it. I think I can better mentally better accept my own death than I could killing someone else. In general though I shy away from the term, pro-life precisely because it has been politicized to only embrace a narrow definition which you follow rather than a whole range of what could be considered pro-life even just human life. I think if someone is going to embrace such a term as like pro-life I think its only fair to challenge the extent to which they abide by all implications of that term as should any other political term even pro-choice which also could imply a range of views. For that matter I wouldn't consider myself pro-choice since I too would support a range of restrictions on abortion and all sorts of behaviors. As a side note I was going to challenge your views regarding the Iraq war but that's something that's been covered specifically ad nauseum.
