I don’t even know where to begin with this post First off, I know women don’t deliberately get pregnant to have an abortion. That is a ridiculous assertion. But yes, I think you do view women who choose abortion as murderers. Shall I post the thousands of photos of pro-life advocates with their “Abortion is Murder” posters? Second, do you really believe the decision women have about choosing abortion is simply a matter of birth control? Sorry rhester, but being a pastor gives you no more clarity on the issue than a layman such as myself. And I have never asserted that the discussion or efforts to reduce abortions could not happen. In fact that would be a much more beneficial use of time than trying to criminalize abortion.
In cases where the woman chooses abortion, the fetus is not as valued by the woman as to a woman who wanted to bring the fetus to term. I would say that in the vast majority of these cases, the woman does not see the fetus as a "child." For that woman, it is the right thing to do at that moment. We all have coping mechanisms for the things we find distasteful in life (I hate disciplining employees, but that is a problem that all managers have), which isn't bad or wrong at all, it is what we do to get by.
You aren't arguing with those people. You are creating a strawman that you can easily knock down. Even giddyup hasn't used the "M" word (at least not in this thread), so attributing that to the posters in this thread is an example of you putting severely hateful language in their mouths. You are better than that, mark.
I guess it’s best that I bow out of this conversation as it appears than I cannot rationally discuss this without offending people. I apologize to anyone who I might have offended. Have a good weekend all
I'm not claiming it isn't a painful decision, nor one that women make lightly. They grieve because they have lost something, as we all grieve when we lose something. BTW, not ALL women grieve. I have known a few who didn't, who were exceptionally relieved after their procedure, and went on to find their soulmate, then got married and had kids. It isn't "life and death" to them, it is a quality of life decision for which you have no right to judge them.
... when we lose something of value. If they don't abort, a new human life will roam the earth soon and at some point (conception or beyond) a human being has been created. This is nothing judgmental, it is a fact display. Why are you so hung up on accusing me of judging; I'm concerned about the child.
Not every woman values the fetus. Sorry, much of your dialogue on this subject sounds very judgmental.
This is a legal technical question. If a woman could perform an abortion on herself without any help beyond the first trimester would the restrictions not apply?
I might qualify that to say "sufficiently" values otherwise we would not have nearly so many abortions as we do have. I don't disagree that a lot of selfish decisions are being made "in the moment" as you say. As I understand it, most women grieve after an abortion. That seems inconsistent with your suggestion that women who have abortions don't value the fetus-- that's why I altered it to "sufficiently" value... I think if you look at what I actually say rather than what you think I say, you'd find my position to be very non-judgmental if you are talking about judging someone as opposed to judging some action-- everyone has opinions about behavior. As the Christians say "Love the sinner; hate the sin."
Most is not all. You are correct that they do not "sufficiently" value the fetus, which I take to mean that they don't value the fetus enough to commit to bringing it to term. That is their value system and they should be allowed to act in accordance with it. That is certainly not the impression I have gotten. I try to read the words and comment on the ones that are said, but will be more assiduous about this in the future. Maybe you could commit to the same level of assiduousness in making sure that your language on the subject isn't judgmental, which will ensure far more productive conversations.
These are intriguing suggestions and my comments: This is a very interesting suggestion and I like it in theory but I have some doubts about how well this would work in practice. I know you are a small government guy but would you consider allowing women to be able to count a fetus as a dependent for the tax and welfare purposes? I don't think this is necessary as malpractice laws already cover this. I agree that the man should have some responsibility but I am very uneasy with calling it victimizing and criminalizing the man's behavior. Unless its rape the women consensually had sex. Now the man could've mislead her as in Finalsbound example but if just misleading someone counts as victimization you greatly expand the definition of rape. Its a good idea but I can see some practical problems to such a law. One question I'm wondering about is that a women might not realize she's pregnant until weeks after conception should support from the male extend retroactively to the point of conception? Also regarding DNA testing. What if a man doesn't voluntarily give a DNA sample could the women subpoena DNA from a man? One other potential problem could be the case of the welfare pregnancy. If child support payments, or other benefits, can be gained from just pregnancy there could be the potential of abuse from women who get pregnant collect benefits for a few weeks and then terminate the pregnancy. I have never heard of greedy abortion mills and the impression I get is that providing abortions is overall financially, and physically, hazardous. For example there are no abortion providers in North Dakota, the clinics that were doing so were shut down due to harrassment. So an Ob/Gyn from Minneapolis goes to Fargo once a week to provide them. The numbers and fees she gets from those services no way justifies financially doing so but she does so anyway. At the sametime for clinics that do provide abortions as part of their normal services insurance rates are very high and because of threats many have a hard time getting and retaining staff. Agree in principle but as I noted I am troubled by the expanding victimization. I think men should be responsible but at the same time this would lead to criminalizing a lot of what is currently considered consensual sex.
As long as they act in accordance with the law (whatever it says), I can't do much except plea... Given all the attacks I am under for my position, I think I've done an outstanding job of being nice.
I'm actually somewhat surprised at this line of replies from you, MM. You of all people should know what it's like for your position to be caricatured and lumped together with others' with which you may not agree. Indeed, in this very thread you've had to call out mc mark for fighting straw men. I'm really not intersted in following this derail at the moment, though I think there are some glaring misconceptions in your post. I would rather discuss the arguments I actually made. Of course, it's up to you if you want to join me in that discussion.
Max -- if you're OK with current federal legislation and the interpretations thereof-- and can accept abortion on demand in the first trimester, and health of the mother provisions after that --I think you're more in line with the Pro-Choice folks. Congrats and welcome to the club! You can pick up your membership card at the door! I agree -- there's no need for more restrictive legislation. How can we get those ProLifers to stop meddling? As an aside -- in previous threads you referenced groups you work or worked with that help young moms. Just wanted to give a "shout out" (is that what the kids do these days?). Great stuff. Much more important and effective (IMO)then the legislative battles.
