RR - are you really trying to make a comparison between a guy's pcoketbook and what happens physically within a woman's body??? A little far out there, don't you think?
Break out the sexual education! There's a mistake that's being made nowadays, and that's TEACHING ABSTINENCE in public schools. In my high school, we had special abstinence programs come and tell us all the reasons not to have sex. And you know what? No amount of chlamydia pictures stopped kids from ****ing. I am a woman, I consider myself liberal, and I am 100% against abortions. Why? Because that's another human life at stake. A fetus is not a part of a woman's body, right at conception another human being is formed, a separate life and genetic code. I agree with RR completely, women may deserve to have control over THEIR bodies...but once another human being is formed inside the womb, we're not dealing with only her body anymore. That is a child -- and it is BOTH hers and the father's. Pregnancy is 98% of the time the result of consensual sex... the man should always have a say. I DO believe more needs to be done to aid single mothers, and from JUNIOR HIGH kids should be taught about safe sexual behavior. Kids are becoming active earlier and earlier, and they need to be fully aware of how important contraception is.
There are a lot of good points to be made against abortion, many of which have been laid out in this thread and a couple of which have been provided by RR, but this is just about the worst. The "she's a slut and pregnancy is the consequence" (if you'll excuse my bluntness) argument holds women to a higher standard than men, is by definition sexist, and should therefore be considered void. As finalsbound said, education, and reducing the need for abortions, is absolutely and definitively the answer. Adoption is a fine alternative, but we need to remember two things: that many people only want to adopt a cute white newborn, and that there is not exactly a shortage of orphaned children out there. People who wish to adopt are not being thwarted by a lack of available kids.
I'm waiting for andymoon to show up and tell you how invalid your position is... Contrary to what many say here, I'm all for sex education-- best from the home but you also have the scientific approach coming from school. At any rate, abortion is not justifiable because somebody thinks that society is not doing enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies. NOTHING is more important than the new life created.
Only if we allow them to re-define the argument away from right to life. They assert their preferred definition of life as if it were truth at the expense of what probably is and certainly will be human life. Something miraculous happened the moment that sperm fertilized that egg. Love it and leave it alone. Sorry for the "inconvenience" lady, but if andymoon can control the outcome of the activity of his little swimmers, you can do the same with your flotation devices.
I am not going to do that because she was speaking entirely for herself. She has not advocated for a legislative ban, which is what I am against, and has come out in favor of better access to both sex educaiton and contraception. I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion. There should not be the number of abortions there are today, but there should not be a ban on them either. There is room for reasonable compromise if we could all stop fighting long enough to figure something out that will appease all but the most hard core of the two extreme views. Sex education combined with universal access to contraception would be far more effective at reducing abortion than a legislative ban. That is not the reason it is justified, true. Yes, there are many things that are more important than a fetus that the woman does not want to carry.
As opposed to YOU re-defining of when "life" begins? You fail to see that you are twisting definitions to fit your position as much as I am using a definition you don't like to justify my position. You may believe that a "miracle" happened, but you have no right to force your beliefs on another person. Mandating that a woman carry a fetus that they do not want is far more than an "inconvenience."
According to statistics, 91% of all abortions occur in the first trimester (up to 12 weeks), almost 9% up to 24 weeks and very few (0.1%) in the third trimester. The compromise andymoon is for would eliminate less than 9% of abortions since he has a 12-15 week limit (unless I am understanding that wrong). My guess is it would probably be closer to 6%. In exchange for pro-lifers to back off wanting 0 abortions, andymoon's compromise agrees to stop 6-9% of them. Is that really a good compromise?
It would be if the pro-life crowd would focus all of their money and efforts instead on targeting the actual cause of abortion: unwanted pregnancy. Through education and contraception, we could make real progress if we could stop fighting each other and instead work together toward a common goal.
It is a very bad compromise. It would stop the killing of about 135,000 children out of the 1.5 million abortions annually. It is where I would begin if I was offered it today. As far as backing off of wanting 0 abortions. I think of it this way- once we determine that the unborn child has life, value, and human rights (it's a baby) we can begin to communicate the position to women and our youth. I have talked to many young girls who understand sex from a very good perspective simply because they see abortion as killing an unborn baby. The young girls I talk to who favor abortions are convinced it is only a birth control procedure, removing tissue (fetus) and there is no danger or consequences from the procedure. (it does not take long to find out this is purely from an indoctrination process- most that I know that have had abortions will admit they were pressured into the decision.) I talk to many women on this issue just because I am a pastor and it is very relevant today. In over 20 yrs. I have never talked to one woman who has had an abortion that didn't have regret, trauma and guilt over the procedure. Not one. Even those who still support 'choice' after discussing their own past express pain. That has been my experience and I am sure others who counsel women have found similar response. The church I pastor is in a very low income part of a very low income city. Most of the young people in high school I talk to deal with this issue alot. They are in and out of detention and they are very sexually active. Most view abortion as birth control. I really have seen the damage of abortion up front and personal. It's so nice the way politicians push through special interest group agendas on the youth of our country without getting out into the barrios, wards, hoods, suburbs, etc and facing the issues in the lives of the people affected the most. This issue just ruins my day thinking about it. In our church alone I know that over half the women have had abortions in the past. If I could get them all to post it would be helpful for the pro-choice folks to hear the stories. But I respect every one of those ladies and they are trying to focus on their future with Christ, who forgives all who come to Him.
I was a little confused by your offer to accept andymoon's compromise "in a heartbeat". It sounded like you were backing off your strong pro-life stance for only a 6-9% reduction in abortions. Granted, it may be a starting point, but I don't see it as a good compromise.
I'm definitely for sex education, but I don't buy this argument at all. It's just a diversion from the issue at had. You can't tell me that the overwhelming majority of the women getting abortions don't know how to prevent a pregnancy (and likely multiple ways). Because of passion, inebriation, whatever, they decide sex without contraceptives is worth the risk of pregnancy.
Not even if it meant that 90-95% of us could go forward with the common goal of reducing abortion rates through means other than prohibition?
i think what we need to do is start with the fact that all of us believe that abortions are a bad thing and go from there. arguing about when life begins is polarizing as there wil always be those who want/don't want the right to abort.
A few random comments to point out. You are a pastor, so obviously who you talk to, and their views, are certainly biased. It would be very very very very very wierd to say the least if women were coming to a pastor to talk about abortion experiences they've had and start doing cartwheels and saying "Abortions is great...goooo abortion!" Also, there is basically no opportunity to have a different discussion on abortion. What I mean is, you are unlikely to find significant numbers of woman who went to the abortion clinic, then changed their mind, to talk to to see how they feel years later. And if you did find some of those women, there is a very very very small likelihood any of them would regret the fact that they decided to have a baby. "Man, I really wished I went ahead and got that abortion!" It's the nature of the situation and the decision. But I think you'd find similiar reactions from woman who have undergone tubal ligation (permanently ending their ability to reproduce) before they wanted to, or before having any kids. Or even just from older women who never had kids. Regret. And some would still support their decisions, obviously, too, despite that potential regret. I just think that pro-choice doesn't imply a lack of understanding of the issues at play, the impact on a woman's life, the seriousness and importance of such a personal choice. To me, my pro-choice decision is entirely based on my definition of human life.
this is the problem. we need, on either side of the fence, base our decisions/policies based on how can can prevent abortions, period.
No, you're completely missing the point. Yes, I'd love to see fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer teen pregnancies, fewer rape pregnancies, etc., etc. But I don't think abortion is immoral or unethical. To me, it is completely hypocritical to only be pro-choice because you think there are no better solutions. If you truly think the act of abortion is killing an innocent human's life, than how can you not be pro-life. That is not, however, what I believe.
no, you are missing my point. we cannot base abortion policy on moral or ethical issues. we have to be practical, we are divided as a nation about wether it is right or wrong. our focus, our dollars and this conversation, should focus solely on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. otherwise we are just pissing into the wind.
Ok, but how does that focus impact abortion policy? We should be doing taking measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies for sure...but we should be doing that regardless of abortion policy, right?
