Abortion

[nclib]

My parents divorced when I was six and my father hardly raised me.  He didn't help with schoolwork, nothing.  which is much of the reason I didn't get an education past a high school diploma.

Really. I thought your login name indicated that you graduated from Miami U.

[nclib]

I don't agree.  Conceiving a child is a joint action, and so should raising the child be.  It should be joint decision making and joint responsibility.  Plenty of men support their kids, and I don't buy into this argument that only women raise kids.  I was raised by a father and a mother, with only my father providing financial support, since my mom didn't work.  If a woman gets pregnant with a man who's not interested in the child, that's one thing, but a woman should not be able to unilaterally override the wishes of the child's father in my opinion, provided that he has accepted his share of responsibility for the child.

I share your perspective that men and women should be jointly involved in child rearing. However, in the 9 months after pregnancy, it is obviously impossible for the man to be as involved as the woman. Given this, the woman's wishes should take precedence over the father's simply because she would be impacted more.

[nclib]

Feminists are about treatment not based on gender. There is still a substantial gap in poverty, income, leadership, double standards, and visibility between the genders. Its good that feminists are trying to address these things.

The only thing feminists are trying to adress is that women are better than men and that men are worthless, weak pigs. That's all. I'm not saying that I think women shouldn't vote or have jobs, what I'm saying is that women should not neglect their natural duty to families. It is a proven fact that most men work harder, career-wise, and are more able to do hard work. This is like saying that women would be excellent football players. Feminists would rather use a dildo than get married to a real man and start a family. They see children as a waste of time, things that get in the way of their constant, neverending boyfriends that they screw one night and abandon the next. One feminist said that it should be a woman's right to choose whether she wants to have a child without the father there. That's bullsh**t!  

So you think that every woman should have to assume their "natural duty to families", b/c "it is a proven fact that men work harder, career-wise"? Has it crossed your mind that this might be b/c men choose that path, not that they are naturally inclined to do so? IQ tests have shown that blacks generally have slightly lower intelligence than whites, should they then do menial labour? Feminism is fundamentally about gender equality, not destroying capitalism, or any of the other stupid accusations you come with. You have no idea what you're talking about, sory if you're offended, but someone has to break it to you. These comments on women's rights are just way out there.

Gustaf, my understanding is Sweden is very good with women's rights. Is this true? If so, what ways does it differ with the U.S. with regards to women's rights?

[nclib]

U.S. Abortion rights supporters:

Just wondering, is everyone familiar with the March for Choice/ March for Women's Lives ?

Washington, D.C.  April 25

http://www.marchforwomen.org/

Largest pro-choice rally since '92

[nclib]

Do these same women march for children.  If they are supposed to be pro-choice and not just pro-abortion shouldn't one of the choices be in support of the unborn?

U.S. Abortion rights supporters:

Just wondering, is everyone familiar with the March for Choice/ March for Women's Lives ?

Washington, D.C.  April 25

http://www.marchforwomen.org/

Largest pro-choice rally since '92

Certainly pro-life women (and pro-choice women) have the right to give birth to the baby and no one is questioning that.

And pro-choice women are strong advocates for social programs that help the welfare of (born) children.

[nclib]

Quite a few people in this county, myself included, equate the last 30 years with the holocaust.

You mean COUNTRY, right?

<<You equate abortion procedures with the Holocaust? You think we should trials and start a world war?>>

?

Gustaf,
You are a reasonable man as am I.  In no way would I support any of the following.  I denounce those who would use any violent means.  I am simply informing you that a large number of people in the U.S. (I would guess 25-35%) see no little between the indiscriminate killing of innocent babies and the slaughter of the Jews.  Obviously there are completely different circumstances that require completely different responses.  

Think about it though, if you are a person that believes that life is a gift from God and that it begins at the moment of conception, you will have very strong feelings when you hear the statistics surrounding abortion.  I know many otherwise liberal people who will not vote for any candidate that is not pro-life.  

bejkuy,

In order to believe that abortion = holocaust, you'd have to believe that:

1) The Jews killed in the Holocaust lived inside the bodies of Gentiles
2) Abortion doctors and pro-choice women want to rid the world of fetuses (or unborn babies, as you would say)
3) Women seeking abortions want to cause harm to their fetus
-------
Have you ever met an atheist/agnostic pro-lifer? Have you ever met an atheist/agnostic who disapproved of the Holocaust? If pro-life is such an undebatable issue, why would one have to be religious to support it?
-------
The pro-life movement really is about women's rights to control their bodies, rather than protecting life. Pro-lifers are much more likely than pro-choicers to support capital punishment and military action. Pro-lifers are much less likely to support equal rights for women in general.

[nclib]

I'd like to know how the hell you came up with mandatory abortion for imperfect fetuses. It would help if you'd take the time to actually show your reasoning, but I'll work in the blind here. I believe that a right to life is established at birth, and that is what allows for abortion. I believe the right of liberty allows for an individual to make their own decisions regarding reproduction. The sterilization of the mentally retarded without consent would be impermissible because it would violate their right to make their own choice about future heredity. If one can show consent for a mercy killing, I believe that is totally permissible because the right to decide whether one wishes to continue their life, when ravaged by disease, should be fundamental. I don't believe abortion should be mandatory. I believe it should be a personal decision. If someone wishes to keep a defective fetus, that should be their right, but I would on the other hand allow for someone to voluntarily terminate that pregnancy. I don't know how you came up with those ideas. I personally feel you simply decided to put down a host of things that you think will either malign me or reflect a non-textual inference you made about my legal views. In any case, I hope your knowledge of my actual legal views on those topics assauges you.

migrendel,

I think the issue that separates abortion from euthanasia, mandatory sterilization, mercy killings, etc. is the fact that the fetus is still in a woman's body.

Also, I admire your passion for abortion rights. On an earlier page, I mentioned the March for Women's Lives (April 25 in Washington, DC), which I believe will be the largest abortion rights demonstration in US history. Are you familiar with this? I know DC is a long way from Cambridge but it would be great if you could make it.

[nclib]

<<In order to believe that abortion = holocaust, you'd have to believe that:

1) The Jews killed in the Holocaust lived inside the bodies of Gentiles
2) Abortion doctors and pro-choice women want to rid the world of fetuses (or unborn babies, as you would say)
3) Women seeking abortions want to cause harm to their fetus>>

North Carolina Liberal,
I never said that abortion was the holocaust, rather I stated that to many Americans, the last 30 years has been similar to a holocaust.
Obviously the situation is different.  If I said a 18 year old basketball player was the next Micheal Jordan would that mean he would have to be 6-5, be born in New York, go to NC, and play for the Bulls?

In regards to the rest of your post, Yes, most pro-lifers are people of faith.  Yes, agnostics and athiests, are likely to favor abortion rights.  (Hitler, Mao, not meant as a cheap shot)  Human life is sacred to REAL people of faith.

The issue isn't about control.  I no more want to control women than   I'm basically a libertarian on most issues EXCEPT abortion.  It's about the protection of a future person.  Don't try to put a convicted murderer who needs to face his crime in the same category as a baby who is full of opportunity and promise.

Have you seen a modern ultrasound?  It's a child.  They kick, they hickup, they react to noise.

Abortion is the saddest part of America's history.  When will we wake up?

Regarding your point about the Holocaust, I realize that you were saying that the situation is very different from the Holocaust--I apologize if my post suggested otherwise. You were just saying that the severity was similar. Regardless, I don't think that they are at all comparable since the perpetrators of the Holocaust were evil.

I do believe that abortion is a woman's choice. Nevertheless, I would prefer that fewer abortions were necessary. I feel the way to tackle this is not to make abortion illegal, but to reduce the need through means such as family planning, sex education, and birth control.

Regarding women's rights, I didn't mean to say that you were against women's rights--only that pro-lifers in general have a poorer record on women's rights. They are much more likely to support paternalistic traditions. In a study of activist pro-lifers in Canada, 85% considered feminism and homosexuality a threat to the family.

[nclib]

I'm not too familiar with the origins of birth control, but I have a couple more things to say about abortion:

Partial Birth Abortion: Before you pro-lifers accuse us liberals of "baby killing", please keep in mind the following:

-"Partial Birth Abortion" is simply a political term, not a medical term
-the procedure is hardly ever done, at least not in ordinary circumstances
-Proponents of this bill intentionally made the language vague in order to ban a wide range of abortion procedures. Pro-lifers also are using this as a foot-in-the-door to get Roe v. Wade overturned.


Also, migrendel, I was wondering if you saw my post on page 14 regarding the March for Women's Lives?

[nclib]

I think that the only way that issues of this volatility can be assessed objectively is through detached intellectual analysis

Exactly. Since the issue of when life begins is so complex, the decision should be made by women and doctors, not federal and state governments.

I do apologize, migrendel, for hunting you down, but I was quite curious as to your response to the post below (quoted)

I admire your passion for abortion rights. On an earlier page, I mentioned the March for Women's Lives (April 25 in Washington, DC), which I believe will be the largest abortion rights demonstration in US history. Are you familiar with this? I know DC is a long way from Cambridge but it would be great if you could make it.

[nclib]

Hi FLGOP, welcome to this forum. I respect the thought you've put into this, but would like to respond to a couple points.

As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion

In Roe, she was forced to have her child because the case took too long. I'm sure having to raise that child after all had an impact on her viewpoint on abortion. Anyway, Roe v. Wade was not about her--it was about the issue in general.

FYI, abortion was practiced in the NAZI concentration camps to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.

As Beet said, the issue is not pro-abortion but pro-choice. There is certainly nothing productive of mandatory abortion in any situation.

If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.

Now for women having or not having sex, I was trying to argue that they should have worn some protection, which is far more cost effective than either raising a child or having an abortion.  It is not much more effective to have the state pay for abortions.  Abortions are not cheap, and if people keep having UNPROTECTED intercourse, women will keep getting pregnant.  Where is the financial incentive for someone to use protection if the undesirable end result will either way not happen?  I could buy condoms to prevent a pregnancy, or I could not buy them and then have the state pay for the abortion.  The choice was made to have sex without the use of a condom, or other contraceptive.  Choices have consequences and people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

People must be responsible for themselves.  If, because of some disability, some may not be able to fend for themselves, then I am sure others will be charitable enough to provide for them.  It is not the role of government because government, through its taxation, forces some people to pay for goods and services that they feel are not truly necessary.  

It is precisely because I believe in gender equality that I oppose elective abortions.  Women can require their partner to wear some sort of protection.  If her partner chooses not to, she can use her power and deny him intercourse.

I don't support this line of reasoning because women obviously are more affected by pregnancy than men are. Both men and women should be responsible for their choices, but there certainly are fewer consequences for a man who has unprotected sex. Legalized abortion is just a way to compensate for that and help achieve gender equality.

[nclib]

And one correction, nclib. The petitioner in Roe v. Wade did not raise her child. Her mother did, at a considerable hardship for an aged woman.

Actually, that child [Roe's child] was latter put up for adoption, she herself did not take care of it.

Thanks for the correction. I apologize for the error. I still think, however, that Roe giving birth to that child put her in an uncomfortable position regarding her stance on abortion.

[nclib]

I don't think an unborn baby has any rights, and is under the complete control of the mother. I think a doctor can make a safety decision that the mother must follow, as in the case in Utah.

The case in Utah disturbs me because it could set a precedent for abortion rights as well as the rights of the mentally ill. A friend of mine e-mailed me the article and I can post it here if anyone is interested.

[nclib]

There are THREE MILLION abortions a year in the United States.  Once again, THAT'S THREE MILLION!  Not four, or ten or even a thousand.  It is not rare, it is RAMPANT.

Get your head out of your ass and get the facts straight:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/03facts/pregbirths.htm



Even a bigger decline going into 2000...

I don't care what your position is, but don't !@#$ with the facts to increase the emotion to your argument. 857,457 looks a lot different than 3 million to me.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/surv_abort00.htm

Whether it's 3 million or 857,457, I'll grant that it's a lot. The number of abortions could be reduced through sex education, birth control, family planning, etc., but pro-lifers vehemently oppose all these efforts.

[nclib]

It really doesn't matter if you feel it should be illegal or not, because the courts will rule in favor of it every time. The 4th Amendment is what will allow abortions to continue, and the fact that we don't begin counting life UNTIL THE DAY SOMEONE IS BORN (birth certificate, 18/21 laws) means that, in the eyes of the law, that's when life begins.

You can continue with your emotional arguments all you'd like, but they won't hold up in court.

Exactly. We consider life at birth on issues unrelated to abortion. Given this, it's hard to take for granted that "life begins at conception". I can't imagine the Census including "unborn persons" in the population counts (even if this was easy to track). And even if I was pro-life, I wouldn't go around telling people I've been to England even though my mother went there when she was pregnant with me.

"When does life begin?" is a complex question that should be decided by pregnant women and doctors rather than politicians.

[nclib]

Why is abortion so sacred to the left?  What do they get out of it?  

Ever heard of something called feminism? Or is feminism too sophisticated an ideology for you to understand?

I find it very interesting that pro-lifers claim to be pro-child NOT anti-woman, even though pro-lifers have a much worse record on women's rights in general than pro-choicers.

Also, pro-lifers seem to care less about children's health care than pro-choicers. Very few pro-lifers are pro-life rather than anti-woman.

[nclib]

One interesting thing about the abortion debate is that although there are some "godless pro-lifers", the vast majority of atheists and agnostics support abortion rights. My question to the pro-lifers is this--if abortion is so unambiguously murder, why would someone have to be religious in order to hold that belief?

Abortion opponents (in America) usually fall into two categories:

1) Conservative Evangelical Protestants who have poor records on women's rights and human rights.

2) Members of the Catholic church.

A friend of mine told me about the origin of Catholic opposition to abortion--and I looked it up and it's true. That the Catholic church supported abortion (in some cases) until Napoleon made a deal with the Pope.

Here it is:

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/interviews/steinem.htm

<<[T]he Catholic Church's historic position: it allowed abortion up to the mid 1800's and even regulated it; a female fetus could be aborted for a greater number of weeks than could a male fetus. (It was wrongly thought that a male fetus "quickened" earlier, thus sex could be determined.) This was changed at the demand of Napolean III who wanted to increase the French population which had been decimated by war. He struck a bargain with Pope Pius IX--who wanted Napolean to support the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Thus, Catholic opposition to abortion doesn't seem to have been based on ensoulment or when life began, but a need to increase population. (Even The Bible makes clear that a man who strikes a women and causes her to lose her pregnancy has not committed murder. Thus a fetus is not a person.)>>