Aftermath of Abortion

I agree 100% with this statement.

Building a nation of strong families will ultimately solve our problems...all families. Not just white families or brown families...but all families. Fixing poverty will also go a long way (another thread). And you have every right to assist people using Religion as your basis to promote that. You run into grey areas when you try to affect public policy with your religious based morals but that is also another thread.

Let me further comment on education which you touched on. Teaching kids Sex Education alone will NOT solve anything. I agree. Instead, teaching kids EVERYTHING you can about life WILL solve many problems. That includes Sex Education. But a child's education needs to be whole. What you don't teach kids, they will learn on their own someday. Who would you rather teach it to them? You or drug dealers? The kids will learn about abortion, contraceptives, AIDS, etc. I would rather they learn it from somebody such as yourself that is willing to spend time with them to show them the full meaning of all this stuff? Rather than running from the subject, we need to act like adults with our children and confront the subject head on.

If you have a moral objection about teaching kids Sex Ed, where does it end? Somebody else may have a moral objections about teaching kids evolution. Others may object about Nazi prison camps. Others may object about...blah blah blah. fill in the blank.

You can't draw lines about education. You just have to teach people everything they're able to learn and prey that humanity is smart enough to proceed forward. Limiting knowledge because of moral objections is the wrong path...in America.

 

I guess I don't see my thoughts on abortion as opinions. Yes, I recognize that's dangerous.

But after seeing ultrasounds....after understanding the process of abortion, particularly after the 2nd trimester...i don't feel like i'm enforcing my views of morality on anyone, but rather society's own views of the protection of human life which are already clearly stated, and have been for eons now.

Maybe it's my opinion...maybe it's objective fact. They sky is blue, whether we want it to be or not. I know you believe in karma...can you imagine the cosmic kick in the ass we have coming if I'm right...if it is a life...and we've tolerated it this long on such a huge scale?

 

To any of the pro-choice crowd (if you don't mind answering):

What will you teach your children about sex? Will you teach them that should abstain until they are married/committed or will you teach them that pre-marital sex is O.K., but make sure you take the proper precautions? I am not asking what you expect to happen, but what will you teach your children.

 

anal

 

I'm coming late to this thread but here's a few comments.

I'm not surprised that abortion causes complications. It is an invasive medical procedure and there's always a chance of complications coming from invasive medical procedures. Getting a piercing or a tattoo there's a signifigant chance of getting a life threatening infection. Heck childbirth itself has a significant probability of complications. It wasn't that long ago that that childbirth was by far the leading cause of death among women. This is an argument going straight after abortion itself not about concern of for the health of the mother.

In regard to adoption it seems that most on the pro-life side are arguing that adoption should be the solution to unwanted children yet are almost consistently arguing that pro-lifers shouldn't be expected to adopt. Why? Because its too difficult. Well why do you think people consider abortion in the first place? Its exactly the same reasons that the pro-lifers are saying they don't want to adopt. Thus we're in a situation where the pro-life side is determined that the fetus in the womb is kept alive but when that fetus is born and turns into the 7 year old in foster care its just tough luck. If pro-lifers really believe that adoption is the panacea for abortion they should be working on making adoption easier and be willing to adopt even troubled older kids because if abortion is banned there will be a lot more of those troubled kids.

Regarding MadMax's point about the AMA agreement with the partial abortion ban according to the info he posted they aren't against late term abortions just that technique and even there their agreement is still qualified that doctors still have the option of performing them if they deam it necessary. As for MadMax's puzzlement over why the ban was struck down. Have you considered it's because it is a poorly written law hastily passed rather than just because its evil Liberal judges with an agenda?

On the subject of sex ed. In response to Rhester's contention that teaching kids sex ed leads to more reckless sex I have to point out that Western European countries that not only teach sex ed but also have more permissive sexual mores have less teen pregnancy and abortion than the US. IN a related note they also have less teen alchoholism and binge drinking even though they have lower drinking ages. The idea that we shouldn't teach sex ed because it will actually lead to more irresponsible sex seems to me to be the same as saying we shouldn't teach drivers ed since that might lead to reckless driving.

For abortion in general I think reasonable people can come to reasonable compromise. I agree totally with Andymoon, Meowgi and Krosfyah's point that prohibition will probably make the problem worse. There is a demand for abortion and putting doctors in prison will not solve that demand problem.

I think Krosfyah's point is the best that the goal should be reducing the need for abortion by addressing the root causes of why women get abortions in the first place. I think Conservatives here have really dropped the ball since for the most part they've turned this into a political problem to be solved by criminalization rather than considering it a social welfare and education problem. Also like many issues Conservatives have gone primarily to finger pointing moralization than what women contemplating abortion probably need the most, understanding.

 

Max:

You've always been respectful in your discussions on this topic, and I'll attempt to do the same. Your position seems (?) to have softened a little bit in that you are prepared to consider that an abortion may be not too unreasonable an option in the first trimester. You're also pretty good at steering the debate to the latter part of pregnancy -- where, of course, your postion is most strong. If we restrict the discussion to the very early stages of pregnancy, or the 'morning after pill' or even a discussion as to what happens to embryos that are created through fertility treatments then your position does not appear as clear cut.

Clearly, there is disagreement as to when life begins. Could we all agree on this, then, as you've stated, the debate would end. But we can't. I think you've said that the potential that life may have begun is enough for you to 'err on the side of caution.' Hope I'm not mischaracterizing your position. But that's not enough for everyone.

I think that the pro-life crowd underplays the emotional, and physical strain on a woman of carrying a child to term. As your wife will attest (and as I'm sure you're aware) childbearing is not simply a nine-month inconvenience. Women go through tremendous physical and psychological changes during this time. Imagine the added strain if you were unprepared, unwilling, or unable to care for the child. Or alone. Adoption is an option for the child. And there are an abundance of people looking to adopt. But, as Andy stated, women should not be forced to carry the child just because someone else would love to adopt that child.

So we're back to who should make the decison as to whether she should have to do that. You're quite comfortable making that decision for her. (Sorry if this sounds personal -- it's not meant to ). I know your focus is the child. But lets not forget the mother. Should she be forced to accept the opinion of the pro-lifers as to when life begins even if it's simply that -- an opinion?

The pro-lifers lose credibility because they are often so confrontational, and seeped in religeous or moral dogma. The Choicers refuse to give an inch for fear of the old slippery slope. Wouldn't it be better to take the polarization out of the debate so that we could establish better guidelines and standards of care. And so that the alternatives to abortion, including the outstanding support that's offered for pregnant women by some of the groups affiliated with the prolife organizations could be better received.

"Progressive" is always a loaded word. It seems, however, that abortion is an accepted practice in most of the western world. Are the Lifer's really that much more informed than them? Or should their focus be on genuine education and support rather than imposing their beliefs through legislation?

 

The "Outlawing abortion would not elmiminate abortion." argument is more r****ded than the "Why don't the pro-lifers adopt everyone?" argument. Just because outlawing something does not completely eliminate it, does not mean that we don't outlaw it. People still murder fully grown adults, but that doesn't mean that we repeal laws against murder. Perhaps more murders could be eliminated if we could somehow teach everyone to have more respect for human life. In fact, we should be doing that, but we should still have prohibitions against murder. Likewise, we should be educating children about the facts of sex. In addition to doing that, we can also outlaw the murder of unborn children. It does not have to be an either or proposition. Now, it is some sex-ed and no restrictions on abortion. It should be total sex-ed and total restriction of abortion.

DWI is a crime precisely because it harms other people. I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it may be the worst one in this whole thread full of bad ideas.

 

i'm bothered by a statement like this. who? which conservatives? do you know their hearts? are you talking about me, too? are you talking about those i know who've spent assloads of their own time and resources to provide alternatives to women from abortion?? do you have the first clue of what you're talking about, or are you speaking entirely out of generalizations? do you think your approach is the enlightened one, because it's sympathetic to have a society where abortion on demand is all good?

as for whether or not i considered the law was written poorly. no. i never did. i always assume it's evil judges. i'm assumign you're evil for covering up for them. i'm organizing the creation of a clone army to march on you and all of your liberal friends who murder babies. so there.

 

Not as long as you don't try to force those views on others.

You won't get any dissention from me regarding late term abortions. I would draw the line at about 26 weeks if I had the power now because that is when survival rates for preemies start to get pretty good. However, I do not believe that a fetus that cannot possibly live outside the womb can be considered a "life." That just doesn't compute for me and as such, I believe the woman has the right to choose what happens to it.

Personally, I don't see it as one huge karmic debt to be repaid by society (since when does society have a soul?), I see it as a debt owed by the women who have the abortions if there is a debt at all. All indications are that many of these women pay that debt by carrying burdens of guilt, some may repay it by having children later in life or by adopting children.

Still, nobody has the right to force their opinion on someone who doesn't believe the same thing. It would be wrong to force a Muslim to be a Christian, it would be wrong to force a Vegan to eat meat, and it is wrong to mandate that a woman who doesn't believe that a fetuses rights trump her own bear a child she does not want to bear.

 

I can appreciate all of that.

How many abortions are conducted in just the US each year? 2 million? 1 million? 5 million? I don't know the number. But let's assume it's close to any one of the 3 i just mentioned.

Now assume you believe that a fetus is a life worthy of protection. What then does that look like to you? What does the snuffing out of 1/2/5 million lives a year look like? THAT is why you get an emotional response...and, frankly, it seems validated when you see Congressional testimony from abortion doctors saying they perform abortions whenever, whereever. No restrictions.

Will I be happy if we're down to just aborting babies in the first term. Hell falcon no. Not even a little bit. But at least we'll be consistent. At least we'll have some modicum of respect for whatever it is that's developing inside the womb.

And yeah...my wife had 2 kids. She had tons of support, so maybe her opinion is marginalized. But she'd come across hellastronger than I would on this. So would a ton of women who actually went through the process...including many who once considered abortion, and now love beyond belief the child they would have aborted. I've talked to those people...I've seen them with their children. The same children that started as a mass of cells, just like you and me.

 

Driving while intoxicated, in and of itself, does not hurt anyone. The possibility that the drunk driver will hurt someone as a result is elevated, which is the reason we have laws against it.

If I get drunk in the middle of Montana on Tom Brokaw's ranch, how would I be hurting anyone by driving around on the ranch? I agree that DWI is not the best example, but it is an example.

 

but that's EXACTLY what you want to do at week 26. you want to impose your morality...as you see it....to tell her she can't. are you sure about that??

this is where it all breaks down for me, andy. all of the "logic" on the other side loses me here. 26 weeks...2 weeks...10 weeks...we can all find reasons for any one of these. a heart starts beating pretty early. real early. that's a test for some. for others it's viability outside of the womb, but what happens when technology catches up and we end up with artificial wombs for premies that can go even further back than 26 weeks?

 

That is mine, viability outside the womb. Once the fetus can survive outside the womb, it qualifies as a "life" to me and as such, that is where I draw the line.

AFAIC, that is when we can outlaw abortions. Once the doctor can remove the fetus and have it artificially incubated, abortion will be an outdated medical procedure just like leeches to suck out the evil spirits.

 

Sorry if i pissed you off max. T'was not my intent!

 

1. right which is imposing your morality and telling a woman what to do with her body...why is that different from my take on it? just because we disagree on a particular date?

2. interesting. we'll see. of course, it's still "the woman's body" right? so she can't be FORCED to go through the procedure to remove the fetus...can she???

 

Good question.

I will teach my kids, about any topic, that they have free will and any decsion they make has consequences that only they can fulfill. If people FULLY (and I can't stress that enough) understand the consquences of their behavior, then they will be much more apt to behave in way that won't be self-destructive.

If a child steals from the candy shop they need to understand they face penalties for that. etc etc etc.

Sexual behavior in an immature person often is destructive because they do not fully understand the consquences of their behavior. I say "immature" and not "child" because I know plenty of adults who are incapable of making rational decsions. I also know young adults who very much have a grip on things.

This starts at a young age. When the time is right, you bet your ass I'll be talking to my kid about sex. I'd rather they hear it from me than Budweiser comercials. If the kid FULLY understands the consquences of sex, drugs and alcohol, the kid will be better equiped to so NO to peer pressure and abstain. If the kid decides to have sex anyway, I hope the kid doesn't ruin their life by not using contraceptives.

BTW, abortion will not be an option in my family. But that is my family's choice. I don't feel you have the right to mandate that on me.

We live in America where free choice is celebrated and I will always fight for the civil liberties that our constitution protects. But again, if you want to stop abortion...attack poverty and unwanted pregnancies. That's your best bet. If you are attacking abortion directly, you got in the game too late.

 

not at all...it's "my thing" i suppose. i'm too close to it because of involvement in non-profits who help provide alternatives...and I hear the stories from the women who show up there.

 

Mad Max;

First off let me apologize for causing you any offense I've respected your view points but like everyone else get occasionally heated.

That said I will stand by that statement. Yes, it is a generalization but not one without support and I think many of the responses we are seeing here show that. The argument that seems to be coming from pro-lifers is that adoption is an option but pro-lifers shouldn't be expected to adopt more because it is difficult is exactly an example of a moralistic simplistic answer but then a failure to back that up. At the same time we've seen many of the self-same Conservatives thundering about abortion cut the very things that might cut down on why people have abortions, providing better health and education opportunities. At the sametime the reason why there are restraining orders keeping pro-life protestors away from clinics is because most of those protests were harrassing women and doctors by calling them 'Murderers' and 'Baby Killers." Since Pro-Lifers do consider abortion to be murder I can understand why they would say that but how is that going to make a woman contemplating an abortion feel better about themselves enough to decide they can care for a child.

Also has been pointed out the reason why this issue is so hot button is that it has been politicized. Both sides share the blame for this but I would say in the last 10 years far more blame is on the Conservative side since many politicians have openly said this issue is one that will bring them political victory and so they should push it as much as possible.

So while I'm sure that there are a lot of pro-lifers out there who do a lot to help women but there also are many who aren't. Whether you or anyone else here are one or the other I can't say until I got to know you from something other than an Internet discussion board.

I will apologize that I read this thread pretty quickly so I may have missed your more detailed discussion on the topic but from what you bolded that seemed to be what you were saying. Still from reading the rulings overturning the law it does seem to be far more that it was a badly written law than anything else.

 

As with any issue, there are certainly blowhards out there who scream and shout without any real contribution. But let me back up Max on this one. (even if he's pissed at me!)

I can unequivically state that there is a ton of genuine work being done by groups that are often affiliated with the prolifers to help the women. There are also a ton of people out there who would love to do more, including opening their homes to expectant mothers and offering financial and emotional support. I've met some of these people and, i'll admit, they did not conform to my stereotype of the prolifer. It was eye-opening.

And frustrating.

Because here were people looking to help, yet being typecast by our preconceived notions. And rather than being seen as a viable alternative by the groups who support choice, they were seen as a threat.

The idea that Lifers offer no help, or that they only care about the child until he is born is simply not valid.

But as long as the Lifers push legislation rather than alternatives...I can understand the Choice positon. Crazy.