NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is a long article, but one which I strongly encourage everyone to read, regardless of what postion you take on the issue of abortion. Abortions are performed on real people, who have real lives and real problems, and who are often themselves very, very conflicted over the entire issue. It's easy to stand at a distance and denounce abortions; easy to shout slogans in favor; but it takes a bit of courage and moral fortitude to read about the women who actually have them.


Under Din of Abortion Debate,
an Experience Shared Quietly


By JOHN LELAND
Published: September 18, 2005

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - At Little Rock Family Planning Services, the women filed in without making eye contact, a demographic that remains unrecognized.

Leah works in a clothing boutique. Alicia is in high school. Tammy pulls espresso. Regina is a sergeant in the Army, recently home from Iraq.

Far from Washington and the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge John G. Roberts Jr., here in Little Rock on an August weekend, 26 women from as far away as Oklahoma joined the more than one million American women who will probably have abortions this year.

Their experiences, at one of only two clinics in the state, offer a ground-level view of abortion in 2005, a landscape altered by shifts in technology, law, demographics and the political climate.

Brittany, 17, brought her mother for support. Linda, 39, brought her daughter.

Alexia, who wore a cross pendant, prayed all through the two-and-a-half-hour drive from Delta State University in Mississippi. At 23, she was having her third abortion. "My religion is against it," she said, adding that she is a Baptist. "In a way I feel I'm doing wrong, but you can be forgiven. I blame myself. I feel I shouldn't have sex at all."

Venetia Grunder, 21, viewed an ultrasound image of the fetus in her womb. She was 12 weeks pregnant, though she had taken birth control pills as directed. "I feel pretty messed up," she said after seeing the image. "It's different, just knowing. My husband told me not to look. This changes my feelings, but I'm sticking by it. Damn it, $650, I'm sticking by it."

More than 25 million Americans have had abortions since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973. Often kept secret, even from close friends or family members, the experience cuts across all income levels, religions, races, lifestyles, political parties and marital circumstances. Though abortion rates have been falling since 1990, to their lowest level since the mid-1970's, abortion remains one of the most common surgical procedures for women in America. More than one in five pregnancies end in abortion.

In the squat, nondescript brick building here, the lofty rhetoric that has billowed through public debate for the last 32 years gave way to the mundane realities of the armed security guard and the metal detector, the surgical table and the settling of the bill before the procedure - $525 to $1,800, cash or credit card only.

While public conversation about abortion is dominated by advocates with all-or-nothing positions - treating the fetus as a complete person, with full rights, or as a nonentity, with none - most patients at the clinic, like most Americans, found themselves on rockier ground, weighing religious, ethical, practical, sentimental and financial imperatives that were often in conflict.

Regina cried on the operating table.

Kori, 26, who was having her third abortion, asked to watch the procedure on the ultrasound monitor. "I wanted to see what it was like," she said. "It was O.K. to watch. Once you had your mind made up to do it, you just suck it up and go with it."

The solitary protester outside , Jim Dawson, 74, stood a court-mandated distance from the clinic with a video camera, taping women as they entered, and promising them hellfire if they went through with it - as he has for a decade. Mr. Dawson drives 40 miles from Vilonia, Ark., bringing cardboard signs that say "Abortion Kills," and usually departs by midmorning. On days when the clinic is closed, he pickets the Clinton presidential library. "I don't stop many of them," he said, "but a little bit goes a long way."

The Women

At the clinic, patients allowed a reporter to attend their consultations and even operations, but most spoke only if they could use just their first names. "It's not something I would talk about," said "M," a high school teacher who agreed to be identified only by her middle initial. She wore a miniskirt and T-shirt, her blond hair pulled back from her forehead. She said she had never discussed abortion with relatives or colleagues. Only two friends knew she was here.

"I'd lose my job," she said. "My family's reputation would be ruined. It makes me nervous even being in the waiting room. You don't want to know who's here, you don't want to be recognized, and you don't want to see them ever again. Because in society's eyes, you share the same dirty secret."

Even most staff members at the clinic insisted on using only their first names - "to protect my identity from the antichoice people," said Lori, a nurse practitioner. Several said they had not told family members what they did for a living, or were ostracized if they did.

[ I strongly recommend you read the rest of this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/national/18abortion.html?th&emc=th)! This article is 4 pages long. ]

Hmm, I've read this sort of thing before. That's in no way a dismissal, understand. I just wish people on both sides would realise that it's not an easy decision and one that people often regret, and you're not going to sway people by either saying there's nothing wrong with it or that they'll burn.
:( Me sad.

Good stuff there. I am tired of people using this issue as a political football or a moral duel. They need to quit looking to themselves and look at what you have shown us.

Good stuff there. I am tired of people using this issue as a political football or a moral duel. They need to quit looking to themselves and look at what you have shown us.
I agree. I have to admit that, crusty old fart that I am, I cried a bit when I read parts of that article. Those poor young women. [ shakes head sadly ]

The young woman who was just back from Iraq and had to have an abortion ... when it told about two friends of hers who came with her, in uniform ... well, let's just say it touched an old soldier's heart. :)

I highly doubt that a pro-abortion person would cry at this.

:(

I highly doubt that a pro-abortion person would cry at this.

:(
I don't know. I happen to be personally averse to abortion, but I don't see any way around leaving the decision on whether to have one where it belongs: with the individual female who is pregnant. This doesn't make it any easier to deal with, however. The entire issue makes me very sad, both for the aborted and for the person burdened with this sort of decision. :(

If only Jim Dawson read that article. Then he'd know how sick he is. Does he even think about the trauma these women go through? Does he not care that he is making it harder for them.

Bastard.

If only Jim Dawson read that article. Then he'd know how sick he is. Does he even think about the trauma these women go through? Does he not care that he is making it harder for them.

Bastard.
Who's jim dawson?

He is the protester in this artical. He stands outside videotaping and yelling that the girls will go to hell if they go through with the abortion.

I'm perfectly pro-choice and this upset me a lot.

Yes, women have the technical freedom to have an abortion. But culturally, it's a sin, and we all know it...

:(

Who's jim dawson?

He's in the article:

The solitary protester outside , Jim Dawson, 74, stood a court-mandated distance from the clinic with a video camera, taping women as they entered, and promising them hellfire if they went through with it - as he has for a decade. Mr. Dawson drives 40 miles from Vilonia, Ark., bringing cardboard signs that say "Abortion Kills," and usually departs by midmorning. On days when the clinic is closed, he pickets the Clinton presidential library. "I don't stop many of them," he said, "but a little bit goes a long way."

He's in the article:
ah. thanks.

Thats a pretty powerfull article. I have always been pro-choice but as I'm getting older I realised that the arguement regarding abortion isn't just a simple as yes and no. I don't know if I could go through with an abortion but I wouldn't judge someone who did. I know for a fact I could not tell my parents and even some of my friends. I think protestors who target clinics are vile, of course you are entiled to your own opinions but violence won't change peoples opionions it will only make them more determined.

Thats a pretty powerfull article. I have always been pro-choice but as I'm getting older I realised that the arguement regarding abortion isn't just a simple as yes and no. I don't know if I could go through with an abortion but I wouldn't judge someone who did. I know for a fact I could not tell my parents and even some of my friends. I think protestors who target clinics are vile, of course you are entiled to your own opinions but violence won't change peoples opionions it will only make them more determined. Sadly, laws are by nature yes or no, in abortion as well as everything else.

Personally, I'm against abortion and I'd like it to stop, but it'll be a long change over many years. It's not going to happen overnight; it physically can't happen overnight. I just wish people would realise this.

Hmm, I've read this sort of thing before. That's in no way a dismissal, understand. I just wish people on both sides would realise that it's not an easy decision and one that people often regret, and you're not going to sway people by either saying there's nothing wrong with it or that they'll burn.
:( Me sad.


Sure, and then you have...

Kori, 26, who was having her third abortion, asked to watch the procedure on the ultrasound monitor. "I wanted to see what it was like," she said. "It was O.K. to watch. Once you had your mind made up to do it, you just suck it up and go with it."

Beyond my comprehension. Birth control for people too stupid to use birth control. I don't think I even care. :rolleyes:

Hawkintom']Sure, and then you have...

Kori, 26, who was having her third abortion, asked to watch the procedure on the ultrasound monitor. "I wanted to see what it was like," she said. "It was O.K. to watch. Once you had your mind made up to do it, you just suck it up and go with it."

Beyond my comprehension. Birth control for people too stupid to use birth control. I don't think I even care. :rolleyes: Sorry, what exactly are you trying to get across?

Thats a pretty powerfull article. I have always been pro-choice but as I'm getting older I realised that the arguement regarding abortion isn't just a simple as yes and no.

Here's what I don't get about the pro-choice position. They always take some stand along the lines of "it's my body and I can do what I want with it." Essentially, it is THEIR CHOICE.

That's either ignorant, or lying.

The ISSUE is, "are you killing another human being."

Now I'm not saying that the answer to that is yes. I'm saying THAT question is the issue, not "I can do what I want with my body."

No, you can't. Governments have REPEATEDLY said you can't. You can't do Heroin in most of the countries that are accessing this board. You can't smoke a mild drug like marijuana here in the states, and many of the countries accessing this board.

You can't drive without a seatbelt in many places. You have to wear a motorcycle helmet in many places.

The government most certainly regulates what you can and cannot do with your body from time to time.

But again, the issue isn't what you do with YOUR body, the issue is "are you affecting another person's body.

With all that said, I don't think science can clearly answer that question yet. But there are some pretty compelling reasons to believe that life begins at least SOME TIME before birth.

Maybe first trimester is AOK. Maybe second. Third is ignoring the evidence really hard.

I also find it disingenous that the pro-choice side often paints the pro-life side as idiotic right-wing Christian fundamentalists. It takes very little effort to see where the pro-life side is coming from.

A. They don't understand - in an age of cheap, effective birth control - why people would take the risk that they are killing their unborn child. The tiniest bit of personal responsibility would have prevented the situation from occuring.

B. They believe that the unborn child is alive, and being murdered.

Right or wrong, those aren't hard concepts to understand. Disagree with them if you like, but to act as if they are irrational isn't honest.

Sorry, what exactly are you trying to get across?

You said:


I just wish people on both sides would realise that it's not an easy decision and one that people often regret,

Apparently it isn't too difficult a decision for Kori...

She's on #3 and watching it on ultrasound! :confused:

I highly doubt that a pro-abortion person would cry at this.

:(

That is untrue and uncalled for demonization.

I am what you would likely call "pro-abortion," as I am staunchly pro-choice.

One of the reasons I am pro-choice is because I know women like these. I empathize with women faced with unwanted pregnancies.

I find the article very touching. I would have hoped it opened some anti-choice eyes to the reality these women face. Or even to the fact these are real women with real, tough choices.

Hawkintom']Sure, and then you have...

Kori, 26, who was having her third abortion, asked to watch the procedure on the ultrasound monitor. "I wanted to see what it was like," she said. "It was O.K. to watch. Once you had your mind made up to do it, you just suck it up and go with it."

Beyond my comprehension. Birth control for people too stupid to use birth control. I don't think I even care. :rolleyes:

You didn't read very carefully, show much empathy, or know much about abortion.

Venetia Grunder, 21, viewed an ultrasound image of the fetus in her womb. She was 12 weeks pregnant, though she had taken birth control pills as directed. "I feel pretty messed up," she said after seeing the image. "It's different, just knowing. My husband told me not to look. This changes my feelings, but I'm sticking by it. Damn it, $650, I'm sticking by it."

Ms. Grunder is in the majority of abortion seekers. 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

I'm perfectly pro-choice and this upset me a lot.

Yes, women have the technical freedom to have an abortion. But culturally, it's a sin, and we all know it...

:(
Me too, my friend, me too. :(

I find the article very touching. I would have hoped it opened some anti-choice eyes to the reality these women face. Or even to the fact these are real women with real, tough choices.
I would hope that it would open eyes on both sides of this awful issue. Using abortion as a kind of birth-control borders on the obscene, IMHO, but making it illegal would also be obscene. It's something we need to constantly look at as new methods of birth control are developed. I personally would love to see someone develop a 100% effective method of birth control so that abortions would become an historic curiosity. ( And NO, I do NOT think "abstinence" is a viable alternative! )

I would hope that it would open eyes on both sides of this awful issue. Using abortion as a kind of birth-control borders on the obscene, IMHO, but making it illegal would also be obscene. It's something we need to constantly look at as new methods of birth control are developed. I personally would love to see someone develop a 100% effective method of birth control so that abortions would become an historic curiosity. ( And NO, I do NOT think "abstinence" is a viable alternative! ) Abstinence and sterilisation are both 100% effective.

I seem to be the only person (pro-choice, btw) whose heart did not particularly bleed with sympathy at reading this article.

But still I am agape at that woman who is on her third abortion at only 26 years old. Either that's some incredible stupidity, or incredible bad luck.

Hawkintom']Here's what I don't get about the pro-choice position. They always take some stand along the lines of "it's my body and I can do what I want with it." Essentially, it is THEIR CHOICE.

That's either ignorant, or lying.

The ISSUE is, "are you killing another human being."

Now I'm not saying that the answer to that is yes. I'm saying THAT question is the issue, not "I can do what I want with my body."

No, you can't. Governments have REPEATEDLY said you can't. You can't do Heroin in most of the countries that are accessing this board. You can't smoke a mild drug like marijuana here in the states, and many of the countries accessing this board.

You can't drive without a seatbelt in many places. You have to wear a motorcycle helmet in many places.

The government most certainly regulates what you can and cannot do with your body from time to time.

But again, the issue isn't what you do with YOUR body, the issue is "are you affecting another person's body.



1. Are you seriously arguing we have no right to control over our own bodies? That we have no right to privacy? That the state may do with us what it will?

2. The issue is who has a superior claim to the use of the woman's body. It is obviously the woman.

3. More importantly, the question is who has the right to decide about the use of the woman's body for 9 months. Government or the individual woman?

Hawkintom']With all that said, I don't think science can clearly answer that question yet. But there are some pretty compelling reasons to believe that life begins at least SOME TIME before birth.

Maybe first trimester is AOK. Maybe second. Third is ignoring the evidence really hard.

Um. So you should be perfectly happy with Roe v. Wade and the current abortion laws of the U.S.

Third trimester abortions are already illegal except where necessary to save the life or health of the mother (or, in some states, a few other extreme circumstances.)

According to the CDC, of all abortions performed in the US, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. About 0.04 -0.08% are performed at > 24 weeks -- and those are due to medical necessity.

Thus, almost 90% of abortions are when you say abortion is "AOK."

I would hope that it would open eyes on both sides of this awful issue. Using abortion as a kind of birth-control borders on the obscene, IMHO, but making it illegal would also be obscene. It's something we need to constantly look at as new methods of birth control are developed. I personally would love to see someone develop a 100% effective method of birth control so that abortions would become an historic curiosity. ( And NO, I do NOT think "abstinence" is a viable alternative! )

We are in agreement on this one.

And thanks for the good article.

(Unfortunately, it appears this will devolve into a usual debate about abortion -- ignoring once again the real women and real choices involved.)

We are in agreement on this one.

And thanks for the good article.

(Unfortunately, it appears this will devolve into a usual debate about abortion -- ignoring once again the real women and real choices involved.) I feel the pull already.
For instance, Swimmingpool, the law has to be based on whether it IS the woman's body or not and… I'll go before I start a fire.

Murder involves real men and women and real issues.

STOP DECRYING MURDER.

The mere fact that people involved in various proceedings are, well, inherently and quite obviously 'people,' does not entail a degree of sympathy or righteousness. "I'm against abortion, but awww, how sad that these women feel the need to get one because they do not wish to live up to the requirements and extra work of having such a child. So let's weep at our incompetence and then get it over with so we can continue with no extra burden. Joy!"

There's no protracted sympathy here. Take responsibility for your actions and employ discipline. I guess it's just part of America's "my actions do not detail my responsibility."

Third abortion at 26? Grand. Maybe she should follow her inclination to quit having sex so she won't have to feel so bad about it.

Abstinence and sterilisation are both 100% effective.
Yes, but it's totally unrealistic to expect people to either agree with sterilization or to restrain themselves to be abstinante.

We are in agreement on this one.

And thanks for the good article.

(Unfortunately, it appears this will devolve into a usual debate about abortion -- ignoring once again the real women and real choices involved.)
Yeah, I know. I rather expected it would, given the tendency by NS General posters to shoot mouth off first before engaging either brain or heart. But at least some on here will be a tad more thoughtful before beginning condemnation. Even that, on this issue, is a plus.

Abortion is usually a very difficult choice. All parties involved are hurt, even the fathers.

I think that the whole situation would be alot worse and alot more disturbing if it was easier.

I am 100% pro-abortion.
When the malignant tissue surrounding the fetus is detected the fetus should be removed placed in hospital incubated and given a fair shake.

The malignant tissue should then be destroyed and disgaurded.

In case you didnt understand that.

The moment a mother says "kill my child because X"
They have demonstrateda negative sum value to society.
They lack the most basic instinct, they lack any depth of compassion.

We should kill them and give the child the break--they did what they supposed to do.

I mean it is ok to murder a baby just because it still is unfortunate enough to trapped in a pitiless sot.
Why is not ok to murder a wreched c@nt for seeking the death of an unborn innocent?

I dont see how one is different from the other.

I also dont want any arguement about whether it is actually a child below is MY son at 4 months in the womb.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/IndioRazaRepublica/3d3.jpg

Tell me that isnt a human being.
Abort the ones seeking to commit infanticide.
My concept was totally pro-choice, until I saw the ultra sound of my fourth child--the 3 month one in the realtime 3D.

My religion did not ever convince me abortion was wrong, Christians should know there are hard choices and some times we falter--but as a Human--I would see a hundred grown women to die to save one infant.
One picture and my entire outlook was changed.

He was then small enough to hold in the palm of your hand.

My religion did not ever convince me abortion was wrong, Christians should know there are hard choices and some times we falter--but as a Human--I would see a hundred grown women to die to save one infant.
Query:
Does that mean that, if given control over the life or death of, for example, the women in this story, you would kill them?
Would you kill every woman alive who has had an abortion?
How about women who have pondered abortion? Are they at fault too?

People, PLEASE restrain your tendency to allow your emotions on this issue to override your good sense OR your compassion for both those pregnant and those en utero. THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS ON THIS!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/IndioRazaRepublica/3d3.jpg

Tell me that isnt a human being.
Abort the ones seeking to commit infanticide.
My concept was totally pro-choice, until I saw the ultra sound of my fourth child--the 3 month one in the realtime 3D.

My religion did not ever convince me abortion was wrong, Christians should know there are hard choices and some times we falter--but as a Human--I would see a hundred grown women to die to save one infant.
One picture and my entire outlook was changed.
Your will must be very weak to be swayed by such emotive, irrational criteria.

Hawkintom']Kori, 26, who was having her third abortion, asked to watch the procedure on the ultrasound monitor. "I wanted to see what it was like," she said. "It was O.K. to watch. Once you had your mind made up to do it, you just suck it up and go with it."

Kori, makes me angrier than all the others in this little story... THREE ABORTIONS!!! one is bad enough

People, PLEASE restrain your tendency to allow your emotions on this issue to override your good sense OR your compassion for both those pregnant and those en utero. THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS ON THIS!

unfortunatly, easier said than done.

I'm pro-life and this article didn't pull at my heart strings.

Yeah, abortion's a hard choice. Murder is also a hard choice if you have a conscience at all. Theft is a hard choice. Beating somebody up is a hard choice. Plagiarizing because you can't meet a deadline is a hard choice. We're faced with a lot of hard choices in life. I'm not going to reward you simply because you had to make a hard choice. In fact, I'm going to be angry if you make the wrong choice.

I won't get into the merits of the abortion debate, but I do agree with the poster who said the issue isn't about privacy or the right to control your body. I'm a libertarian and I believe that every individual has the right to control his or her own body. I think you should be able to do drugs, kill yourself for any reason or tattoo your body into oblivion. I don't think you should have to wear a seatbelt when you get into a car and I don't think the government has any right to draft you during a war. I don't much fucking care what "society" has to say about my behavior and "cultural" notions of right and wrong can kiss my ass. That being said, the fetus isn't your body. You can't own another human being. Parents are simply guardians, not masters or overseers. The issue isn't the right to control your own body because a baby in the womb is a separate resident, not an appendage, and the issue isn't about balancing the mother's right to life and the fetus' right to life because all human lives are of equal worth and value. The issue is the right to life.

unfortunatly, easier said than done.
No shit. :(

Kori, makes me angrier than all the others in this little story... THREE ABORTIONS!!! one is bad enough
I wish I had been aborted.

Query:
Does that mean that, if given control over the life or death of, for example, the women in this story, you would kill them?
Would you kill every woman alive who has had an abortion?
How about women who have pondered abortion? Are they at fault too?
What would be the point in killing women once the infant was dead?
See now that is what I mean.

What is wrong with killing the Mother?

Someone please tell me where is the difference?

I say kill the women--YOU say kill the babies--but I am the one who is crazy?

Kori, makes me angrier than all the others in this little story... THREE ABORTIONS!!! one is bad enough
Right, someone might want to mention closing her legs or perhaps using condoms.
Oh but why be responsible when you can just eliminate the problem.
Yes, she should die.

Oh but why be responsible when you can just eliminate the problem.
Yes, she should die.
You must be insane!

The moment a man can get pregnant I'll be listening to his opinion about abortion.

Same goes for women who use their face as an efficient contraceptive.

You must be insane!
remembering you were the one that wanted to be aborted and they want to punish someone for an evil sin they have comitted.....

The moment a man can get pregnant I'll be listening to his opinion about abortion.

Same goes for women who use their face as an efficient contraceptive.

That doesn't make any sense. The argument a person makes is valid or invalid based on its own merits, not the sex or gender of the proponent. Unless the man says, "I'm pregnant and I'm not going to abort my child so you shouldn't, either," his biology shouldn't matter to the debate.

What would be the point in killing women once the infant was dead?
Well, it seemed as though you said that those who would have abortions should be killed because of a lack of value to society, as you said here:
"The moment a mother says "kill my child because X"
They have demonstrateda negative sum value to society.
They lack the most basic instinct, they lack any depth of compassion."

Surely, they don't gain back their compassion after the abortion, do they?
YOU say kill the babies
I haven't said anything about that yet. I merely asked you a set of questions.

Well, it seemed as though you said that those who would have abortions should be killed because of a lack of value to society, as you said here:
"The moment a mother says "kill my child because X"
They have demonstrateda negative sum value to society.
They lack the most basic instinct, they lack any depth of compassion."

Surely, they don't gain back their compassion after the abortion, do they?

I haven't said anything about that yet. I merely asked you a set of questions.
Typical NS poster you snippet my post to take it out of context.

Whenthe women ask for the abortion--one is given--the fetus aborts the Mother.
Instead of killing the fetus we save it and exterminate the larger mass of offending tissue. We kill the malignant tissue which poses a threat to the health of the Baby--I mean it the Babies body.

I wish I had been aborted.
Why???

Stop that! :p

Typical NS poster you snippet my post to take it out of context.
I'm not sure I understood that bit in context then.

COMMENTARY: This is a long article, but one which I strongly encourage everyone to read, regardless of what postion you take on the issue of abortion. Abortions are performed on real people, who have real lives and real problems, and who are often themselves very, very conflicted over the entire issue. It's easy to stand at a distance and denounce abortions; easy to shout slogans in favor; but it takes a bit of courage and moral fortitude to read about the women who actually have them.[Snip]and this is why I have no stand on abortion. It's not me going under the procedure. If anyone I knew was going under the procedure, I would support their decision and stand by them. But I will not make that decision for them.

That doesn't make any sense. The argument a person makes is valid or invalid based on its own merits, not the sex or gender of the proponent. Unless the man says, "I'm pregnant and I'm not going to abort my child so you shouldn't, either," his biology shouldn't matter to the debate.
Riiiiight. So there's no difference between men ( who cannot get pregnant ) and women ( who can )? Uh huh.

I'm not sure I understood that bit in context then.
Then ignore my answer, to boot.

Allow me to re pose my question--why is it wrong to Kill the women and not the Babies?

My way works two fold.
If you kill the mother, the Baby will not be able to realistically need to come back for at least 12 years.

and this is why I have no stand on abortion. It's not me going under the procedure. If anyone I knew was going under the procedure, I would support their decision and stand by them. But I will not make that decision for them.
Which is the only practical way for this issue to be managed.

Riiiiight. So there's no difference between men ( who cannot get pregnant ) and women ( who can )? Uh huh.

Yes, there's a difference. Women can get pregnant and men can't. How does that invalidate a man's opinion about abortion, though? Here's a hint: it doesn't. Don't commit the fallacy of ad hominem. When a man argues an opinion about abortion, he's not saying he's an authority on the issue or that he has any first-hand experience. But you don't need first-hand experience to argue why something is right or wrong. Look at the merits of his argument, not what's in his pants.

Then ignore my answer, to boot.
I didn't ignore it. I read it, and felt that I had no need of quoting it, as I didn't need to reply to it. I am fairly sure I understand that bit.
The bit that I was confused about was the original piece you accused me of quoting out of context.
Allow me to re pose my question--why is it wrong to Kill the women and not the Babies?

My way works two fold.
If you kill the mother, the Baby will not be able to realistically need to come back for at least 12 years.
I am not trying to debate the morality or immorality of abortion here. I merely wish to understand your position.

I didn't ignore it. I read it, and felt that I had no need of quoting it, as I didn't need to reply to it. I am fairly sure I understand that bit.
The bit that I was confused about was the original piece you accused me of quoting out of context.

I am not trying to debate the morality or immorality of abortion here. I merely wish to understand your position.

I think Skibereen's position is that if it's wrong to kill women, then it's wrong to kill babies - that there's no meaningful or substantive difference the between the lives of the two. I'm not sure, though. Skibereen's probably trying to trap you into saying you think it's wrong to kill women or adult humans. After that, he or she plans to show that babies' lives are just as valuable. Correct me if I'm wrong, Skibereen. :)

Yes, there's a difference. Women can get pregnant and men can't. How does that invalidate a man's opinion about abortion, though? Here's a hint: it doesn't. Don't commit the fallacy of ad hominem. When a man argues an opinion about abortion, he's not saying he's an authority on the issue or that he has any first-hand experience. But you don't need first-hand experience to argue why something is right or wrong. Look at the merits of his argument, not what's in his pants.
Ad hominem has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)." - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html [ emphasis added ]

Ad hominem has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)." - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html [ emphasis added ]


Good job. You've shot yourself in the foot.

Let's say I'm a pro-life female and I make a fantastic argument about why abortion should be illegal. I never appeal to my sex or gender during the debate. You only know that I'm a woman because we're acquaintances online. I provide scientific reasoning and my argument is valid (the premises support the conclusion). Now let's say you agree with my argument.

After you submit to my awesomeness--har har--I announce to you that I am actually a male.

Question: Did anything substantively change about my argument between the time when you thought I was female and then announced that I am male? Did my argument stop being valid? Did the scientific arguments fall through? If nothing substantively changed, you're saying the only difference is that I'm not a girl. That is why it's ad hominem. You're bringing up something that is factually true--girls get pregnant, boys don't--but you're not explaining why it's relevant to the discussion. You're not explaining why being male intrinsically changes my argument. You're pointing out something personal and irrelevant about me that doesn't affect the merits of my argument. The only legitimate reason you'd have for attacking my sex or gender is that I appeal to it during the course of my debate with you. For example, if I said, "I'm a man, I got pregnant, and I'm not going to abort my baby. You shouldn't, either," explaining to me that I'm not pregnant because I'm a male would be perfectly logical.

And if you think men shouldn't contribute to an abortion debate because they can't be pregnant, I'd ask you if you think sterile or menopausal women should also shut their mouths because they're unable to get pregnant.

Again, you're pointing out something that's true about male and female biologies but not explaining why that affects the merits of my argument, especially if I never appeal to my sex or gender for evidence.

Good job. You've shot yourself in the foot.

Let's say I'm a pro-life female and I make a fantastic argument about why abortion should be illegal. I never appeal to my sex or gender during the debate. You only know that I'm a woman because we're acquaintances online. I provide scientific reasoning and my argument is valid (the premises support the conclusion). Now let's say you agree with my argument.

After you submit to my awesomeness--har har--I announce to you that I am actually a male.

Question: Did anything substantively change about my argument between the time when you thought I was female and then announced that I am male? Did my argument stop being valid? Did the scientific arguments fall through? If nothing substantively changed, you're saying the only difference is that I'm not a girl. That is why it's ad hominem. You're bringing up something that is factually true--girls get pregnant, boys don't--but you're not explaining why it's relevant to the discussion. You're not explaining why being male intrinsically changes my argument. You're pointing out something personal and irrelevant about me that doesn't affect the merits of my argument. The only legitimate reason you'd have for attacking my sex or gender is that I appeal to it during the course of my debate with you. For example, if I said, "I'm a man, I got pregnant, and I'm not going to abort my baby. You shouldn't, either," explaining to me that I'm not pregnant because I'm a male would be perfectly logical.

And if you think men shouldn't contribute to an abortion debate because they can't be pregnant, I'd ask you if you think sterile or menopausal women should also shut their mouths because they're unable to get pregnant.

Again, you're pointing out something that's true about male and female biologies but not explaining why that affects the merits of my argument, especially if I never appeal to my sex or gender for evidence.
You still don't understand what an "ad hominem" agument is.

You still don't understand what an "ad hominem" agument is.

Um, I just spent hundreds of words explaining to you what ad hominem is and why you're wrong. I've shown how arguments are separate from arguers. I've also shown that you brought up an irrelevant fact to the abortion debate: girls have babies and boys don't. Unless you can explain to me why that simple fact of biology changes the merits of the proponent's argument, you've lost.

The sex or gender of the proponent is irrelevant to a discussion of right and wrong. Period. I don't know how else to say this to you.

Right and wrong exist independently from the people who argue them. Stalin could say that murder is wrong even though he's a murderer, but that wouldn't make his argument any less true or reasonable. He can engage in an ethical debate without bringing to the table personal experience or moral purity. You also don't need a working uterus to argue successfully that abortion is right or wrong.

why does it matter whether someone has a uterus or not whether they should be able to have an argument.... I thought you liberals were all for freedom of speech, but no, now you're trying to restrict it to stop poeple learning other views than yours, are you frightened that there might suddenly become less liberals in the world? :rolleyes:

why does it matter whether someone has a uterus or not whether they should be able to have an argument.... I thought you liberals were all for freedom of speech, but no, now you're trying to restrict it to stop poeple learning other views than yours, are you frightened that there might suddenly become less liberals in the world? :rolleyes:can't speak for anyone else.



Really, I cannot and will not say what is right or wrong with abortion because as a man, I am not going through with the procedure. I won't have to live with the decision, I won't have to suffer the emotional scarring of either aborting or childbearing. I can only sit back and watch as my (future) wife suffers.

Think of a Ham and Egg breakfast. the Chicken is involved but not to the same degree as the Pig.

I can only sit back and watch as my (future) wife suffers.

a) that didn't answer my question.
b) why is she going through with it if she will suffer?

can't speak for anyone else.



Really, I cannot and will not say what is right or wrong with abortion because as a man, I am not going through with the procedure. I won't have to live with the decision, I won't have to suffer the emotional scarring of either aborting or childbearing. I can only sit back and watch as my (future) wife suffers.

Think of a Ham and Egg breakfast. the Chicken is involved but not to the same degree as the Pig.

You never have to have sex, father a child or even associate with other human beings on any level in order to express an opinion on right and wrong. Do you have to be a Jew to morally condemn the Holocaust? Do you have to be a war veteran to comment on the horrors of war? I understand that the first-hand experience of a person who has gone through the event matters to you and that you, as man, can never understand abortion the way a woman does. But I still don't understand why that means you can't know whether it's right or wrong or why you can't say what you think either way. Facts, truth, and ethics know no race, sex, gender, nationality or time period.

You never have to have sex, father a child or even associate with other human beings on any level in order to express an opinion on right and wrong. Do you have to be a Jew to morally condemn the Holocaust? Do you have to be a war veteran to comment on the horrors of war? I understand that the first-hand experience of a person who has gone through the event matters to you and that you, as man, can never understand abortion the way a woman does. But I still don't understand why that means you can't know whether it's right or wrong or why you can't say what you think either way. Facts, truth, and ethics know no race, sex, gender, nationality or time period.because, when the time comes that if I do get married/get a girlfriend, and if she get's pregnant, the ultimate choice will be hers, that is my stand on the matter. I am not saying that those without the ability to bear children have no say, I am saying I CHOOSE to let my partner decide. I will fight for and support her choice, but she will have the greater argument in my mind.

thus for the matter of Abortion, I say I will not speak for anyone.

a) that didn't answer my question.read it again and it does, I said I won't tell anyone else how to choose, for that choice isn't mine to make.
b) why is she going through with it if she will suffer?Abortion? read the article. gives some great answers.
Pregnancy? I've heard of women being in Labor for 60+ hours. I've heard about my Sisters-in-law's child bearing moments and I pain is usually what they mention. (of course seeing the joy on their faces when I walk into their hospital rooms says it was all worth it.)

now if my (as of yet non exsisting) GF/Wife finds Pain to be enjoyable... well, then... that's different...

because, when the time comes that if I do get married/get a girlfriend, and if she get's pregnant, the ultimate choice will be hers, that is my stand on the matter. I am not saying that those without the ability to bear children have no say, I am saying I CHOOSE to let my partner decide. I will fight for and support her choice, but she will have the greater argument in my mind.

thus for the matter of Abortion, I say I will not speak for anyone.

That's fine that you're giving up your right to express a contrary position as long as you acknowledge that men can have equally valid arguments to females on the issue of abortion, which you seem to be doing.

On a personal note, I don't understand your mentality. The issue transcends choice. If abortion were morally good or neutral, I wouldn't mind deferring to your girlfriend or wife. But since abortion ends a human life, I think it's my moral obligation to say something, especially if I'm able to persuade somebody close to me.

That's fine that you're giving up your right to express a contrary position as long as you acknowledge that men can have equally valid arguments to females on the issue of abortion, which you seem to be doing.

On a personal note, I don't understand your mentality. The issue transcends choice. If abortion were morally good or neutral, I wouldn't mind deferring to your girlfriend or wife. But since abortion ends a human life, I think it's my moral obligation to say something, especially if I'm able to persuade somebody close to me.that's the crux of the arguments. When is it human and when is it Alive?

while it's "feeding" off of the mother, it can also be technically classified as a Parasite, thus not human.
it can also be considered Human the moment Sperm and Egg meet and combine.
Others also call it Human when it's finally born.

It can be considered alive when it has rudimentary organs and starts movement.
It can also be considered alive the moment the Two VIABLE materials merge and become one.
And Others still says it's not alive until it's born

The definition of when Life Begins is different for each person, religion, group etc... and will probably be argued till the end of time.

as for my Mentality of the situation, While I don't see myself as a father anytime soon, I am neither for or against me raising children at this time.

The solitary protester outside , Jim Dawson, 74, stood a court-mandated distance from the clinic with a video camera, taping women as they entered, and promising them hellfire if they went through with it - as he has for a decade. Mr. Dawson drives 40 miles from Vilonia, Ark., bringing cardboard signs that say "Abortion Kills," and usually departs by midmorning. On days when the clinic is closed, he pickets the Clinton presidential library. "I don't stop many of them," he said, "but a little bit goes a long way."
What's up with him? Frick, in Germany he could get sued silly if he ever publicizes those videos or gets caught showing them around.

What's up with him? Frick, in Germany he could get sued silly if he ever publicizes those videos or gets caught showing them around.don't think he Publishing them, but if he is following up and harrassing them. I think he will be really hurting...

Eutrusca and The Cat-Tribe agreeing?

:confused:

Is the world ending?

Right, someone might want to mention closing her legs or perhaps using condoms.
Oh but why be responsible when you can just eliminate the problem.
Yes, she should die.

Whenthe women ask for the abortion--one is given--the fetus aborts the Mother.
Instead of killing the fetus we save it and exterminate the larger mass of offending tissue. We kill the malignant tissue which poses a threat to the health of the Baby--I mean it the Babies body.
If you killed the mother, then who would care for the baby?

and this is why I have no stand on abortion.
Which means that you are effectively pro-choice.

Which means that you are effectively pro-choice.if I must be in a catagory...

The moment a man can get pregnant I'll be listening to his opinion about abortion.

Right. Well, let's take it a step further. The moment a man can get pregnant is when we'll start listening to his opinion on whether or not it is ok to smother an infant in its crib.

The argument is, "are you killing an innocent person by having an abortion." Men are allowed to have opinions about murder.

:rolleyes:

I find the article very touching. I would have hoped it opened some anti-choice eyes to the reality these women face. Or even to the fact these are real women with real, tough choices.

One way to see the truly biased is by what they call the other person's position.

I've used the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" since that appears to be what each side would like to be called.

I haven't used "pro-abortion."

"Anti-choice?" Really. :rolleyes:

Again, you are trying to turn people away from the real issue. I don't claim to have a simple answer, but I will sit back and call out the liars on this issue.

The issue is this: "Is abortion killing an innocent human being?"

If it is not, then it should be allowed. If it is, then it should not be allowed. The very fact that they "pro-choice" side tries so hard to divert the argument to such issues as "privacy" or "right to do what you want with your body" shows that they don't want to have to answer that tough question.

Abortion is no more about privacy than killing your infant child. It is about whether or not it is murder.

I don't think science can answer that question yet. But it is something we should be trying to answer, because the implications are tremendous.

1. Are you seriously arguing we have no right to control over our own bodies? That we have no right to privacy? That the state may do with us what it will?


Are you saying that the government where you live allows you to use Herion? Marijuana? Cocaine?

:confused:


2. The issue is who has a superior claim to the use of the woman's body. It is obviously the woman.


No, the issue is, "are you killing someone?"


3. More importantly, the question is who has the right to decide about the use of the woman's body for 9 months. Government or the individual woman?


Once again, are you allowed to use controlled substances? Seems like the government has already made a clear precedent that they very well CAN tell you what you can, and cannot do, to your body.


Um. So you should be perfectly happy with Roe v. Wade and the current abortion laws of the U.S.

Third trimester abortions are already illegal except where necessary to save the life or health of the mother (or, in some states, a few other extreme circumstances.)


You are getting defensive and assuming things about me. I haven't told you what I think about Roe v Wade and I haven't told you when I think life begins.


According to the CDC, of all abortions performed in the US, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. About 0.04 -0.08% are performed at > 24 weeks -- and those are due to medical necessity.

Thus, almost 90% of abortions are when you say abortion is "AOK."

You should re-read my post when you are calmer. I didn't say any such thing.

"Maybe first trimester is AOK. Maybe second. Third is ignoring the evidence really hard."

Which part of that didn't you understand?

Yes, but it's totally unrealistic to expect people to either agree with sterilization or to restrain themselves to be abstinante.

How about a three-strikes law. Those are always fun. Third strike, we deliver the uterus too. Seems like that person isn't planning on using it for anything productive anyway... ;)

and this is why I have no stand on abortion. It's not me going under the procedure. If anyone I knew was going under the procedure, I would support their decision and stand by them. But I will not make that decision for them.

Perhaps we could reduce repeat abortions if the Doctor was required to say, "Congratulations, the procedure was a success. Your baby is dead now" after each procedure?

Just thinking aloud...

Hawkintom']Perhaps we could reduce repeat abortions if the Doctor was required to say, "Congratulations, the procedure was a success. Your baby is dead now" after each procedure?

Just thinking aloud...either that or the family has to take the aborted fetus home in a jar and give it a proper burial.

But to be fair, if we force them to keep the child, then they should recieve some help from the government. after all some of the reasons why they abort is because they cannot afford to give their child a proper lifestyle.

The solitary protester outside , Jim Dawson, 74, stood a court-mandated distance from the clinic with a video camera, taping women as they entered, and promising them hellfire if they went through with it - as he has for a decade. Mr. Dawson drives 40 miles from Vilonia, Ark., bringing cardboard signs that say "Abortion Kills," and usually departs by midmorning. On days when the clinic is closed, he pickets the Clinton presidential library. "I don't stop many of them," he said, "but a little bit goes a long way."
Coolest guy ever. The whole anti-abortion bit is stupid, but anybody who would would picket the CPL just goes in the fucking awesome category.

And once again real people are passed off as poltical football with the anti crowd not even bothering to consider what is going on with these women, their friends, and familes, and their reasons.

*sighs* And away we go again on NS General.

Eutrusca and The Cat-Tribe agreeing?

:confused:

Is the world ending?
I know, scary isn't? *Puts on REM* :cool:

That's fine that you're giving up your right to express a contrary position as long as you acknowledge that men can have equally valid arguments to females on the issue of abortion, which you seem to be doing.

Men can, of course, have equally valid arguments and are completely entitled to their opinion.

However, the opinion of a man matters less in this debate than the opinion of a woman. The opinion of a woman who has not been pregnant and made this decision matters less than that of one who has. And the opinion of anyone else in the world matters less than that of the woman making the decision. She is the only one who can determine the medical procedures she will or will not undergo. Everyone else can debate around her, but she will (and should) determine what she does.

Hawkintom]I don't think science can answer that question yet. But it is something we should be trying to answer, because the implications are tremendous.

Personhood isn't defined by science, it is defined by philosophy. Personhood is a concept that has nothing to do with empiricism, nothing to do with measurements. If we were to come to a philosophical concensus on what constitutes personhood, science might be able to measure for the requirements, depending on what they are. Problem is, philosophy doesn't have the controls that science has - individuals can come at something from varying directions. What this basically ends up at is the fact that there most likely will never be a concensus on this issue.

Perhaps we could reduce repeat abortions if the Doctor was required to say, "Congratulations, the procedure was a success. Your baby is dead now" after each procedure?

Doctors don't ususally say things that are technically incorrect, as that statement would be for the majority of abortions. For those that it truly wouldn't be true, medical necessity is often involved and I hardly think you worry about repeat procedures with those who wanted to carry to term.

either that or the family has to take the aborted fetus home in a jar and give it a proper burial.

Fetuses aren't aborted all that often. In the majority of abortions, there is not yet a fetus to speak of (or to send home with them).

Query:
Does that mean that, if given control over the life or death of, for example, the women in this story, you would kill them?
Would you kill every woman alive who has had an abortion?
How about women who have pondered abortion? Are they at fault too?
And what of the men who impregnated them?
Can we kill them too?
The biggest problem with the abortion debate is that it almost always degenerates into the vilification of the women. As if all these pregnancies were the result of spontaneous conception ...

I say kill the women--YOU say kill the babies--but I am the one who is crazy?
Ok, ok, but don't forget to kill the men too!

:rolleyes:

If you kill the mother, the Baby will not be able to realistically need to come back for at least 12 years.
Huh?
I don't get it.
Splunge?!

and this is why I have no stand on abortion.

Which means that you are effectively pro-choice.
I sorta disagree. I personally don't like to take a stand on abortion because I don't feel it is even a problem. Like most humans in the modern age we tend to focus on the symptoms, not the underlying problems.
Unwanted, unplanned pregnancies? That's a real big problem. Abortion is the result of such problem. More attention needs to be paid to the actual problem, only then will there be a decrease in the symptoms.

Hawkintom']Right. Well, let's take it a step further. The moment a man can get pregnant is when we'll start listening to his opinion on whether or not it is ok to smother an infant in its crib.

The argument is, "are you killing an innocent person by having an abortion." Men are allowed to have opinions about murder.

:rolleyes:The underlying arguement to us not being allowed to decide on abortion is that men don't have to bother with the consequences of pregnancy, unlike woman.
It's a pretty valid arguement.

Hawkintom']Are you saying that the government where you live allows you to use Herion? Marijuana? Cocaine?

No, but where I live you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet which is just as stupid and carries the same probabilty of bodily injury!

Hawkintom']Not when you consider the real argument: Is abortion killing an innocent person?Nope. Men are not directly affected by the consequences of any decision. A woman's opinion is more valid than a man's because the man will never be faced with the consequence of having to bear the child or undergo an abortion.

Nope. Men are not directly affected by the consequences of any decision. A woman's opinion is more valid than a man's because the man will never be faced with the consequence of having to bear the child or undergo an abortion.

No, nothing deny's men the right to have a view on abortion. I could say to you, "You cannot have a view on the government as you are not a member of the ruling party", but I know that statement is wrong and so do you. Live with it, everyone will have a view on this whether they are men or women, and eah view is he same, women do not have "two votes" and men only one, if thats how you put it. You are arrogant to say that. I think you will find that some couples never have children, are the women involved in them relationships views to be sticken from the record too? surely not because you just said that women, you did not state which women. Your views are mixed up and need some kind of thinking behind them, you cannot just go with the flow because its "cool".

No, nothing deny's men the right to have a view on abortion. I could say to you, "You cannot have a view on the government as you are not a member of the ruling party", but I know that statement is wrong and so do you. Live with it, everyone will have a view on this whether they are men or women, and eah view is he same, women do not have "two votes" and men only one, if thats how you put it. You are arrogant to say that. I think you will find that some couples never have children, are the women involved in them relationships views to be sticken from the record too? surely not because you just said that women, you did not state which women. Your views are mixed up and need some kind of thinking behind them, you cannot just go with the flow because its "cool".Please take off your bias-glasses and read what I wrote. Underline the part where I say you aren't entitled to a view and where that view is completely discounted.

Please take off your bias-glasses and read what I wrote. Underline the part where I say you aren't entitled to a view and where that view is completely discounted.

and then you read the part of mine that says and I quote
women do not have "two votes" and men only one,

and then you read the part of mine that says and I quoteThat has nothing whatsoever to do with your analogy and claiming that I said you're not entitled to a view.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with your analogy and claiming that I said you're not entitled to a view.

I didn't say that i said you were belittling my view.

ok Blue-tac, can I ask you this?

a woman wants to have an abortion while the man does not.
Who's viewpoint should be weighed more, the man or the woman?

If men don't have the right to an opinion on abortion, does this mean that I don't have a right to an opinion about The Bush Administration? Same logic; I never was governed by it, nor will I ever be.

I didn't say that i said you were belittling my view.No, you responded to my post by saying:No, nothing deny's men the right to have a view on abortion. Which sort of implies that I said men aren't entitled to a view.

No, you responded to my post by saying:Which sort of implies that I said men aren't entitled to a view.

yes, it implies ...

yes, it implies ...Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean you didn't make a statement, so don't go hiding behind an implication as though you haven't done anything.

ok Blue-tac, can I ask you this?

a woman wants to have an abortion while the man does not.
Who's viewpoint should be weighed more, the man or the woman?

if the man is her husband she should not have married him in the first place without knowing his view on the matter. Her mistake.

if the man is her boyfriend, she is already going to be punished for having sex outside wedlock. does she really want to make it worse for herself?

and if the mans some random person who she doesn't even know... then she's doing wrong, but she has every right not to listen to him unfortuanately.

and if the mans God, then she's going to hell...

Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean you didn't make a statement, so don't go hiding behind an implication as though you haven't done anything.

ok, i meant belittled, accept it.

if the man is her husband she should not have married him in the first place without knowing his view on the matter. Her mistake. doesn't answer the question.

if the man is her boyfriend, she is already going to be punished for having sex outside wedlock. does she really want to make it worse for herself?again, doesn't answer the question.

and if the mans some random person who she doesn't even know... then she's doing wrong, but she has every right not to listen to him unfortuanately.still doesn't answer the question.

if the man want's the child, and the woman doesn't who's view should be given the greater weight?

doesn't answer the question.

again, doesn't answer the question.

still doesn't answer the question.

if the man want's the child, and the woman doesn't who's view should be given the greater weight?

look above, it depends who the man is...

Nope. Men are not directly affected by the consequences of any decision. A woman's opinion is more valid than a man's because the man will never be faced with the consequence of having to bear the child or undergo an abortion.
er... alimony?

The man is affected by the decision. Sure, he doesn't have to endure the physical pain, but he gets affected by the decision.

er... alimony?

The man is affected by the decision. Sure, he doesn't have to endure the physical pain, but he gets affected by the decision.Here, it's in bold for clarification ;) :
Nope. Men are not directly affected by the consequences of any decision. A woman's opinion is more valid than a man's because the man will never be faced with the consequence of having to bear the child or undergo an abortion.I never said a man is not affected. I said he doesn't suffer any immediate consequences as and in the way a woman does.

Here, it's in bold for clarification ;) :
I never said a man is not affected. I said he doesn't suffer any immediate consequences as and in the way a woman does.
And how paying X amount of dollar a month to someone over a decision you disagreed with not "directly" affecting the man?

His financial situation is changed on the yes/no decision of his partner and only her? That's harsh justice.

I say that letting only one person in the couple decide is unfair. This decision should be reached together.

You saying that the man suffer no direct consequences is patently untrue. Especially if you look at the mental aspects of things. The man can feel regrets, anguish, despair, doubts. And the man can second-guess himself just as much as the woman.

And how paying X amount of dollar a month to someone over a decision you disagreed with not "directly" affecting the man?

His financial situation is changed on the yes/no decision of his partner and only her? That's harsh justice.

I say that letting only one person in the couple decide is unfair. This decision should be reached together.

You saying that the man suffer no direct consequences is patently untrue. Especially if you look at the mental aspects of things. The man can feel regrets, anguish, despair, doubts. And the man can second-guess himself just as much as the woman.All of those are indirect consequences, since they are derived from the birth or abortion and can be escaped under varying circumstances. Bearing a child is a direct consequence. Paying for that child is not; it is an indirect consequence.

All of those are indirect consequences, since they are derived from the birth or abortion and can be escaped under varying circumstances. Bearing a child is a direct consequence. Paying for that child is not; it is an indirect consequence.
How about the mental consequences I mentionned in my last paragraph?

How about the mental consequences I mentionned in my last paragraph?Is he having an abortion being done on himself? If this isn't the case, then it isn't directly caused by it. It too would be indirect.

And what of the men who impregnated them?
Can we kill them too?
The biggest problem with the abortion debate is that it almost always degenerates into the vilification of the women. As if all these pregnancies were the result of spontaneous conception ...
Well, there was only one immaculate conception of which I am aware, and look what they did to HIM!

nope you didn't. Let's go over each choice. the question is when a woman want's an abortion, and the man wants to raise the child, who's viewpoint should hold more weight.

answer 1
if the man is her husband she should not have married him in the first place without knowing his view on the matter. Her mistake.the question is not asking should she have married someone who has a different views of children. however, I can see an answer here... you are saying HIS viewpoint holds more weight. you are supporting that he can force the woman to keep the child or, vice Versa, can force the woman to have an abortion.

answer 2
if the man is her boyfriend, she is already going to be punished for having sex outside wedlock. does she really want to make it worse for herself?again, you did not answer the question. who's opinion matters more, His or Hers?

answer 3
and if the mans some random person who she doesn't even know... then she's doing wrong, but she has every right not to listen to him unfortuanately.but you have a Male strangers standing outside the Abortion clinic telling women what to do... so they should be ignored then?

Is he having an abortion being done on himself? If this isn't the case, then it isn't directly caused by it. It too would be indirect.
That's bullshit.

I think you are having a problem with the definition of direct and indirect.

Let's say the guy suffers from a depression because his girlfriend had an abortion. He is suffering from depression because of the abortion. There is a direct relation between the depression and the abortion.

Face it, men are affected directly from the abortion issue.

That's bullshit.

I think you are having a problem with the definition of direct and indirect.

Let's say the guy suffers from a depression because his girlfriend had an abortion. He is suffering from depression because of the abortion. There is a direct relation between the depression and the abortion.

Face it, men are affected directly from the abortion issue.This has become a semantics debate and isn't really worth it anymore.

answer 1
the question is not asking should she have married someone who has a different views of children. however, I can see an answer here... you are saying HIS viewpoint holds more weight. you are supporting that he can force the woman to keep the child or, vice Versa, can force the woman to have an abortion.
I give no answer, I am merely saying that this is an issue that will inevitably tear the couple apart, both their mistakes, sorry, deal with it. But bear in mind that if you get a divorce you will be punished by God.

answer 2
again, you did not answer the question. who's opinion matters more, His or Hers?
Marriage outside wedlock, another punishable by God offense.

answer 3
but you have a Male strangers standing outside the Abortion clinic telling women what to do... so they should be ignored then?
This answer applies to all situations, they cannot physically be forced to listen to them, except under a law against abortion. However from my point of view it is advisable to listen to them, or else, I'm sorry, but there's gonna be an awful lot of repenting going on... or the devil may have a job to do.

I give no answer, I am merely saying that this is an issue that will inevitably tear the couple apart, both their mistakes, sorry, deal with it. But bear in mind that if you get a divorce you will be punished by God.then I was right. you did not answer the question. and still didn't.

Marriage outside wedlock, another punishable by God offense.that wasn't the question. It was between the man and the woman, who opinions hold more weight.

This answer applies to all situations, they cannot physically be forced to listen to them, except under a law against abortion. However from my point of view it is advisable to listen to them, or else, I'm sorry, but there's gonna be an awful lot of repenting going on... or the devil may have a job to do.the answer does not apply to all situations because you are answering someone else's question, don't know who's but it's not mine.

we are not talking about God. we are talking between two of his creations. Man and Woman. Man can hold and offer his opinions on the matter (be they religious or not) but isn't the ultimate decision, the woman's? being that, the best thing the man can do is to support her decision and convexly, the worst thing he can do is leave her. so yes, a male can have his stance and opinion on the matter, but it's the woman who undergoes the procedure while the man stands there. Just like it's the woman who goes through labor while the man just stands there.

nope you didn't. Let's go over each choice. the question is when a woman want's an abortion, and the man wants to raise the child, who's viewpoint should hold more weight.

The woman's viewpoint should hold more weight. It is her body. Abortion is legal.

The issue is not "what if the man wants to keep the child." He ran the risk of his unborn child being killed by its mother when he chose to have sex with her and didn't take proper responsibility for his actions. Perhaps he was lied to, whatever. He had numerous opportunities to insure that he would not have a child, he apparently didn't choose correctly.

The issue is whether abortion is killing an innocent human being. If it is, then it doesn't matter what the man or woman thinks, the baby should be carried to term. If it isn't then it is a woman's right.


but you have a Male strangers standing outside the Abortion clinic telling women what to do... so they should be ignored then?

The protestors have the right to free speech. The woman getting the abortion has the right to ignore them. Abortion clinic protestors get a raw deal, although some of the extremists probably created the problem. You should be able to stand on the sidewalk right in front of an abortion clinic and protest - AS LONG AS you do not block anyone from entering or engage in intimidation. Holding signs and making statements about your beliefs is not intimidation. The current rules are a poor compromise and are not in line with the Constitution.

AS LONG AS you do not block anyone from entering or engage in intimidation. Holding signs and making statements about your beliefs is not intimidation.

I would beg to differ. Telling a woman she is committing murder (especially when she is not) is intimidation to me. Holding disturbing pictures of aborted "foetuses" is intimidation to me.

Telling a woman she is going to hell for what she is doing is a threat.

The whole purpose of protesting is to change the person's mind about the procedure. Hence protesters outside abortion clinics should be banned.

I would beg to differ. Telling a woman she is committing murder (especially when she is not) is intimidation to me. Holding disturbing pictures of aborted "foetuses" is intimidation to me.


Telling me I'm wrong is intimidation to me. So you are banned.

:rolleyes:

Thank goodness you AREN'T EVEN SLIGHTLY in charge of those decisions.

You aren't American are you? If you are, PLEASE re-educate yourself on freedom of expression.

Here it is in a nutshell... I can say things that you don't agree with and don't want to hear. The tradeoff is that YOU can say things that I don't agree with and don't want to hear.

The only thing you can't really say, is "quit saying that."


Telling a woman she is going to hell for what she is doing is a threat.


No its not. It's a warning. It would be a threat if you were claiming that you were personally going to put her in Hell.

Telling someone that they are about to walk off a cliff is not a threat. Telling them you are going to push them off a cliff is a threat. Can you see the difference?


The whole purpose of protesting is to change the person's mind about the procedure. Hence protesters outside abortion clinics should be banned.

:confused:

I get it, your just stirring things up. No one is really that stupid. You're just joshing me!!! Good one! :p

Random sort-of-off-topic tangent:
Hawkintom']The only thing you can't really say, is "quit saying that."
Surely I can say "Quit saying that!", I just cannot actually force you to stop saying whatever it is?
[/nitpick]

Hawkintom']Here it is in a nutshell... I can say things that you don't agree with and don't want to hear. The tradeoff is that YOU can say things that I don't agree with and don't want to hear.

The only thing you can't really say, is "quit saying that."

Actually, you can say that too. You simply can't enforce it.

However, the pictures that most protesters stand outside with are pictures of late-term fetuses - aborted only for medical reasons. Thus, while it is their free speech to say what they please, I don't think they should sink below the morals they claim to uphold by basically lying to the women going in.

Such people also shouldn't assume that any woman walking into a woman's clinic is having an abortion. When I didn't have health insurance, the only place I could afford to get a pap smear and a birth control prescription was Planned Parenthood. Luckily, there were never protesters outside the door.

I would beg to differ. Telling a woman she is committing murder (especially when she is not) is intimidation to me. Holding disturbing pictures of aborted "foetuses" is intimidation to me.

in·tim·i·date ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tm-dt)
tr.v. in·tim·i·dat·ed, in·tim·i·dat·ing, in·tim·i·dates

1. To make timid; fill with fear.
2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats.

As long as you don't block anyone from entering, holding signs and making statements about your beliefs is not intimidation.

If you suggest that you will harm them in some way, shape or form because of what they are doing, that would be intimidation. If you tell them that you believe abortion is murder, that is expressing your opinion and you are most certainly allowed to do that on public property here in the United States.

Random sort-of-off-topic tangent:

Surely I can say "Quit saying that!", I just cannot actually force you to stop saying whatever it is?
[/nitpick]

Well, technically there is the old "Fire!" in a crowded theater thing too. But it didn't apply here.

You are correct. You can say it, you just aren't supposed to be able to enforce it.

Alexia, who wore a cross pendant, prayed all through the two-and-a-half-hour drive from Delta State University in Mississippi. At 23, she was having her third abortion. "My religion is against it," she said, adding that she is a Baptist. "In a way I feel I'm doing wrong, but you can be forgiven. I blame myself. I feel I shouldn't have sex at all."


WTF? Hasn't anybody told this girl about birth control? She's Baptist, her religion's against abortion, but she's about to get her third one?

Man, some religious folks are nuts.

However, the pictures that most protesters stand outside with are pictures of late-term fetuses - aborted only for medical reasons. Thus, while it is their free speech to say what they please, I don't think they should sink below the morals they claim to uphold by basically lying to the women going in.


I would agree with that statement. Personally I think it would be in better taste to hold up posters with pictures of normally developing fetuses. It would still mostly get the point across, without making themselves look like radicals.


Such people also shouldn't assume that any woman walking into a woman's clinic is having an abortion. When I didn't have health insurance, the only place I could afford to get a pap smear and a birth control prescription was Planned Parenthood. Luckily, there were never protesters outside the door.

I agree with that as well. I would even go so far as to suggest that the protestors who yell things like "murderer" are breaking some law or another. At the very least, potentially a civil case of slander. But they should be able to tell anyone that the believe "abortion is murder." That really shouldn't bother you if you're going in for PAP...

I would beg to differ. Telling a woman she is committing murder (especially when she is not) is intimidation to me. Holding disturbing pictures of aborted "foetuses" is intimidation to me.


Were you "intimidated" by the pictures in this thread? :confused:

Hawkintom']I would agree with that statement. Personally I think it would be in better taste to hold up posters with pictures of normally developing fetuses. It would still mostly get the point across, without making themselves look like radicals.



I agree with that as well. I would even go so far as to suggest that the protestors who yell things like "murderer" are breaking some law or another. At the very least, potentially a civil case of slander. But they should be able to tell anyone that the believe "abortion is murder." That really shouldn't bother you if you're going in for PAP...

Fine, and I can stand outside church X with big signs of people on fire and shout on the bullhorn: "You'll go to hell for going to church X" (instead of going to the correct church Y).

I can videotape everybody that goes into church X and put the film on my website. People can try to identify the Chuch X goers and send them nice notes and pictures about going to hell.

That shouldn't bother anybody. :rolleyes:

Thats a pretty powerfull article. I have always been pro-choice but as I'm getting older I realised that the arguement regarding abortion isn't just a simple as yes and no. I don't know if I could go through with an abortion but I wouldn't judge someone who did. I know for a fact I could not tell my parents and even some of my friends. I think protestors who target clinics are vile, of course you are entiled to your own opinions but violence won't change peoples opionions it will only make them more determined.
Yeah, I'm pro-choice and I really don't know what I would do if I found myself in such a situation. It's something I would definitely not be able to tell my family about.

My first abortion was a horrible experience, but I was only fifteen so that may account for it. My second was just a relief, we weren't ready for a child and I had less troble afterwards physically.
But I do understand that some women have troubles with combining their faith with their choice.
Fortunately I perceive it as a greater evil to bear and birth a unwanted baby than aborting a foetus. And I think of the souls that lingered in my body for a while, wishing them a better future than I could give.

And in this country "Pro-Lifers" are shunned because of their cruel ways of treating unfortunate young women and others who choose to let the pregnant woman decide.

~There is no Life without Love~

I dont understand why one needs more than one baby killing. If one hates babies that much why not get your tubes tied rather than using this brutal method for a nasty form of birth control. It is baby killing pure and simple and white washing the word doesnt make it a nice thing to do. I dont go around and harass people or reject them for their decisions but this is something that bothers my soul. There are millions of people in this country who want children and would give these babies good homes but they are slaughtered day after day and if these doctors were following the hypocratic oath they would first do no harm. These babies are having their limbs torn off and mutilated. Its not pretty be blunt and truthful about it. Abortion after abortion..why? Tie those tubes and be done with it. 20 weeks that baby is so close to being viable...that doctor should have been prosecuted!!! I have had three children and that baby is very much a child at that point. If we have to have this I would rather see the RU pill used. At least the baby wouldnt be so advance that it would suffer. Im not trying to judge anyone so if I have offended I truly do apologize but I cannot accept butchery as an acceptable choice. And these women do have options there are many agencies and homes that will support them and that I cant give my child up but I can rip its arms off -what a crock of.......

There are millions of people in this country who want children and would give these babies good homes but they are slaughtered day after day and if these doctors were following the hypocratic oath they would first do no harm. These babies are having their limbs torn off and mutilated. Its not pretty be blunt and truthful about it. Abortion after abortion..why? Tie those tubes and be done with it.


You should't say "children" when you talk of adoption. The fact is there are millions of people in this country that want to adopt healthy "babies" There are many children in the system that will never get adopted. Be they too old, have developmental issues(ie crack babies, downs, etc).

It's not the answer and it's not as easy as you think. My neighbor went though 2 years to adopt a child from overseas. Last minute change of mind....

The abortion as contraception arguement will never end I guess. There are other reasons besides that.

Now mutilation from abortion? I have not heard too many cases of that. You suggesting they basically go in a beat it to death?


20 weeks that baby is so close to being viable...that doctor should have been prosecuted!!!

The question of viability needs to be defined. Everytime there is a SUPER HUMAN effort that saves a child, the "viability" gets lowered. It doesn't always work that way. Recently the super human effort to keep the fetus alive to term with that brain dead woman. The child was born premature and died. I think it was 20 weeks....


I have had three children and that baby is very much a child at that point. If we have to have this I would rather see the RU pill used. At least the baby wouldnt be so advance that it would suffer. Im not trying to judge anyone so if I have offended I truly do apologize but I cannot accept butchery as an acceptable choice. And these women do have options there are many agencies and homes that will support them and that I cant give my child up but I can rip its arms off -what a crock of.......

I am not buying the mutilation example. From what I know, they inject something to stop the heart and let the body go through the motions of ejecting it.

Someone in the "know" can correct me. I don't buy the right-to-lifers pictures and stories as I think they are for shock value more then truth.....

Be glad you are in a position to support 3 children. Not everybody can do that. Especially if you are faced with a child that may have CF or even downs......

Hawkintom']Right. Well, let's take it a step further. The moment a man can get pregnant is when we'll start listening to his opinion on whether or not it is ok to smother an infant in its crib.

The argument is, "are you killing an innocent person by having an abortion." Men are allowed to have opinions about murder.

:rolleyes:

Ok. And the answer then is no, you are not killing a person.

One of the many definitions of person is : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties


A fetus is not recognized by law as having rights and duties. Ergo, not a person.

For heaven's sake people, DO NOT POST GRAPHIC DISMEMBERMENT PICTURES. That's grounds for InstaDEAT.

I dont understand why one needs more than one baby killing. If one hates babies that much why not get your tubes tied rather than using this brutal method for a nasty form of birth control. It is baby killing pure and simple and white washing the word doesnt make it a nice thing to do. I dont go around and harass people or reject them for their decisions but this is something that bothers my soul. There are millions of people in this country who want children and would give these babies good homes but they are slaughtered day after day and if these doctors were following the hypocratic oath they would first do no harm. These babies are having their limbs torn off and mutilated. Its not pretty be blunt and truthful about it. Abortion after abortion..why? Tie those tubes and be done with it. 20 weeks that baby is so close to being viable...that doctor should have been prosecuted!!! I have had three children and that baby is very much a child at that point. If we have to have this I would rather see the RU pill used. At least the baby wouldnt be so advance that it would suffer. Im not trying to judge anyone so if I have offended I truly do apologize but I cannot accept butchery as an acceptable choice. And these women do have options there are many agencies and homes that will support them and that I cant give my child up but I can rip its arms off -what a crock of.......

You don't know why a woman goes through an abortion. You don't know that she didn't use contraception. Apparently you don't even know much about the development of the foetus.
You cannot seriosly advocate these things you want done if you had known or had tried to find out why women choose to abort the pregnancy.
And there are enough children starving as it is. Why not try to adopt them instead?
But you do judge and condemn us for making the very hard choice that an abortion is. By using words like "baby killing", "hating babies", "butchery", rip its arm of".
These are not words of compassion and understanding.
Have you even considered why people go through with it? And the emotional cost for many of them.

Sezyou:
It would be nice with a response.

I highly doubt that a pro-abortion person would cry at this.

:(
Thankfully those are very few

Unless you were trying to mean pro choice people

There is a BIG difference

Fine, and I can stand outside church X with big signs of people on fire and shout on the bullhorn: "You'll go to hell for going to church X" (instead of going to the correct church Y).

I can videotape everybody that goes into church X and put the film on my website. People can try to identify the Chuch X goers and send them nice notes and pictures about going to hell.

That shouldn't bother anybody. :rolleyes:
Exactly ... though did you hear about the sponsor a protester program for planed parenthood?

http://www.ppsp.org/PledgePicket-index.asp

:D good stuff