Great post. I can see you do have compassion for those with differing views. I agree, something does need to be done to reduce abortions. Both extremes will only exacerbate the issue and cause more harm to the unborn. Rep given.
I am pro-choice and I approve the above message... It is my opinion that if both sides of this debate came up with a reasonable compromise and then took all the resources (time, money, energy, effort) being used to fight this battle and used those resources to attack the root cause of abortions (unwanted pregnancies), that we would be able to make a measurable difference in the number of abortions carried out in this country. I know it is possible. As a result of a LOOOOOOONG debate years ago on this very board, MadMax and I were able to be very reasonable despite being on the opposite sides of this issue. Both sides need to pull up the stakes for their tents, erase the lines in the sand, and come to the table to do something that might actually reduce abortions, which a paper ban will not in the age of RU-486.
I didn't name the sides: they are pro-Choice and pro-Life. Obviously pro-Choice has nothing to do with hair color and pro-Life has nothing to do with the death penalty... in this discussion.
do you really not know the answer to this? you may disagree with the answer, but stop acting like we don't know the various sides to the argument.
Because a woman should have the right to choose what her biological processes are used for. If she does not want her womb to be used to bear a child, that is a question that should remain between her, her doctor, and her God. That isn't to say that we can't have reasonable restrictions, but ultimately, the choice is the woman's and hers only.
I'm pro-Life, but I don't see a solution to stopping abortions entirely that provide solid alternatives for those that choose to deliver the baby. Statistically a lot of these women are single, young, raped, or are in abusive relationships with their SO. They are without or are still in the process of finishing their education (are most likely in debt because of this), poor, are having a hard enough time taking care of themselves (even if the baby wasn't in this scenario) and feel there is nowhere else to turn. Not everyone has a supportive family or friends to assist them. I applaud women that go for adoption, but I can easily understand why some women choose to have an abortion. A lot of times its not economically feasible, and while there are charitable organizations that agree to assist single mothers if they choose to raise it on their own, there simply are not enough of them (including adoption agencies), or it comes at the cost of committing to something a mother-to-be may not want to. There are some religious institutions that are willing to assist single mother's at the cost of joining their parish (not all.) Regardless of anyone's opinion, religion isn't for everyone. Relying on the government to assist in this department isn't a good idea either. I think its proven often that the government doesn't do a very good job with its programs. The added expenses of treating a baby with a terminal illness diagnosed in the womb that a single mother most likely would be unable to afford, and the choice of abortion starts to make more sense. I'm a Democrat but I understand the reluctance to institutionalize National Healthcare because of its inevitable faults, and I say this knowing that the medical expenses of having the baby and taking care of it would actually benefit these women. But lets assume the mother-to-be decides to have the child. On top of delivering the baby, the mother is forced to choose adoption or raising the child which is extremely expensive. A married couple with a home and a stable income has a tough enough time raising a child, and thats under an ideal scenario. Imagine a single mother that is poor, hasn't started or finished their education, is in debt and without a stable job that can progress to better benefits and wages. Not to mention most parents under an ideal scenario put their social lives on hold to raise a child. Do you expect a teenager or young adult woman to avoid having a social life until they're in their 30s or 40s (most likely until the kid is 18)? While I'm anticipating the response of "you reap what you sew", that's basically admitting that raising a child isn't always a blessing and that its not for everyone. Again for most people starting their lives, it's tough enough for these people to take care of themselves, much less another child. It is going to take an increasing effort to try and cover cheaper education, better parental assistance, cheaper medical care that doesn't suck, and a larger number of opportunities to rise up the economic ladder while still having the time to be a good parent. As Obama said, we have to come up with more common ground to try cover these bases and provide more alternatives if we truly want to lessen the number of abortions and ultimately stop them. Killing the remaining few doctors that perform late term abortion isn't going to aid radical Pro-Lifer's cause. It will continue to damage it.
Agreed. London'sBurning, you pretty much articulated all the thoughts whirling around in my head. Great post.
I agree, if she doesn't want her biological process to be used to bear a child she should use birth control or some other method that prevents bearing a child- it is her choice and responsibility to use her biological process to conceive a child or to prevent conception. A doctor can do a procedure that would prevent pregnancy. I haven't heard that most abortions occur because women don't want their womb to be used to bear a child, I understand it to be about whether the pregnancy was welcome or not. Use common sense, a woman can't just choose to conceive a child, some women try for years and fail. The only choice a woman can legally make after she conceives a child is whether the child should live or die, at that point it is too late to make a choice about conceiving a child in her womb- done deal. It is legal for a woman to make the choice whether the child can live, but that doesn't make it right. I am all for women preventing pregnancy. I am opposed to terminating a child's life inside or outside the womb.
Great argument for a more in-depth, frank approach to sexual education as well as distribution of contraceptives. Planned Parenthood does a great job sponsoring awareness events and distributing birth control pills and condoms to low-income individuals and others who don't feel they have the means of obtaining them. (Many times people are just too embarrassed to ask their doctor or their parents). We still have a lot of people burying their heads in the sand on both sides, which will get absolutely nothing accomplished.
I think it is tragic that many women are condemned for getting abortions without understanding the hardship, pressure and lack of support they receive. so many times people just attack abortion without understanding the difficult circumstances that also need to be addressed. I am opposed to the termination of a pregnancy but there is so much that needs to be done to find the most loving answer to this issue- not just blanket condemnations- what good is that? I believe we need to all help in some way to support healthy choices for women and children
It was a personal question to her not some academic argument. She doesn't have to answer it. Unlike a baby in utero, she doesn't need you to protect her.
That's for her to decide. Part of the process here is to truly face the enormity of our choices not just re-define them in some comfortable way. Did you watch the Kathy Ireland video? ... and it's not nearly the crux of the debate. Nice try though!
That's about as blunt a pro-Life/anti-Abortion or -Choice position taken in this thread. I'm not sure where everyone sees all these "phantom" blanket condemnations coming from. I was married to 13 years to a woman who had had two abortions. I know a little bit about the painful decision and the painful aftermath. I saw abortion for what it was a dozen years before I darkened the door of a church as a follower of Christ. I've not quoted the Bible to buttress my position. To me it is but a loving, sensible conclusion. Frankly I find the pro-Choice crowd more blunt and unimaginative in their criticism than pro-Lifers here.
Sure it is That’s the essence of the whole debate. Someone having an abortion has nothing to do with you. Why should you have influence over someone else's life that doesn’t ask or want it?
Let's pro-lifers argue they are trying to save lives! death penalty advocates are trying to TAKE lives. so you are saying the death penalty has nothing to do with life and death? I think you might want to wikipedia that my friend.
It's not the essence of the whole debate although you would limit it, I understand. Take a look at that part I highlighted and tell me why the baby is not given that consideration when his/her very existence is at stake?
