Is this it?

[ceriserose 1]

because of GUILT! where does the guilt come from? cuz you know its wrong!

In ancient times, it was considered humane to leave sick/diseased babies out on a hill alone to die because living a life of illness/disease was considered worse. That was the society at that time. Someone fighting to save a baby in that circumstance would have been "wrong." They may have felt guilt...but would it have been at their actions? They may have made the decision to take in a sick baby at great personal sacrifice or cost...possibly even ruining their standing in the community, or falling out of favor with their gods. Today a person might applaud that action, but back then it would have been heinous.

All your argument shows is that society can make a person FEEL guilty where no guilt is warranted because they're not following the crowd. Let's review the societal messages brought up by just a few people on this thread:

- if you have an abortion you must be poor, stupid, or incapable of "right" decision-making

- if you have an abortion you are turning away from God

- poor people should be expected to "do what's right" even though they will get little to no real support for said decision

- single women should [continue to be] subject to outdated morality that stigmatizes them for keeping a child (3 months MAT leave and little to no social programs for assistance/workforce re-integration), while reinforcing little to no similar stigmatization for their presumably willing partner who may or may not be in the picture

- that by wanting the freedom to choose what is right for yourself, you are immoral (again, please note that pro-CHOICE is not necessarily pro-ABORTION)

Which only highlights that each individual should have the RIGHT to determine their own right and wrong on matters of morality. Let's turn the tables and have a look at a country like China. Overpopulation there could be considered a template for how the rest of the world will deal with overpopulation. How would you like it if you were told after having 2 children the next offspring you produced MUST be aborted (whether those were calculated or surprise pregnancies)? No choice in the matter, you just HAD to do it or you were immoral for not putting the needs of the existing humans already on earth who needed the scarce resources, before your own?

I've said it before on these types of threads...the morality and the "right" and "wrong" are fabulous for some because it's in line with their ideas. What happens when it's not something you're happy about? What happens when your personal right to worship, or work, or __fill in the blank__ the way you want is threatened because of someone else's idea of "right" and "wrong"?

I think it was Reinhardt who said that it was the pro-life who pushed the agenda on others, not the other way around. I don't think I've ever seen a pro-choice argument that coerced a person to have an abortion without investigating every other aspect or possible avenue first. Bottom line is, you don't want to have an abortion? Great. Don't. Isn't it nice that you can choose to do so?

[Carol&Marc 0]

Folks its 2006, there are sooooooooo many ways to prevent a unwanted pregnancy! Need i list them? Lets say someone almost makes a decision to have an abortion, but doesnt when the child grows to adulthood would you tell them "I almost aborted you" of course you wouldnt! why? because of GUILT! where does the guilt come from? cuz you know its wrong!

Are you sure it is guilt? Maybe it's more a protection of your child. And maybe some people would tell their children. I have always known that my parents did not intend to keep me. I never felt bad about that. They were young and I know life was very hard since they really were not ready to be parents. Abortion wasnt an option because they didnt have enough money until after my mom felt me moving. She simply could not go through with it after she felt movement. That was her choice. Then there was the adoption issue. Once they saw me, they couldnt give me up. Was I better off with them than I would have been otherwise? There is no way to know. Maybe I would have had the best of everything had I been adopted instead of growing up with just the necessities. I will never know. What I do know is that regardless of the options my parents considered, they love me. And I don't think that my mom should ever feel guilty that she considered her options. Everyone should make the decision that feels right to them given their situation.

I agree but i think you missed my point,in this day and age there really is no excuse to get pregnant if being responsible. Im very gld to hear your story!

In ET's signature it reads "I'm...." Not it or the blob of cells and tissue. It is a baby!

Yes it is. To me it is very much a baby. It was my and Nani's baby from the moment the pregnancy test came back positive. That view was very much re-affirmed when we saw and heard the little heartbeat at just over six weeks. But that is MY view. I wouldn't give that baby up for anything but the life and well-being of my wife. That does not mean, however, that I would ever attempt to push that view of MINE onto YOU or anyone else by encoding it into law. I am very much pro life and very much pro choice at the same time. I think being pro choice is being pro life. Above all, it's being pro freedom and personal responsibility.

Folks its 2006, there are sooooooooo many ways to prevent a unwanted pregnancy!

You must have missed the stats earlier:

54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

54% of women having an abortion say they were using contraception? what would you say? if ask that question sitting in a clinic! maybe it has something to do with feeling better about it,or maybe she forgot to take her pill one day,or maybe he put the condom on a little late,or maybe both! If you dont want to get pregnant theres many many ways to prevent it! thats all im trying to say.

[Carol&Marc 0]

because of GUILT! where does the guilt come from? cuz you know its wrong!

In ancient times, it was considered humane to leave sick/diseased babies out on a hill alone to die because living a life of illness/disease was considered worse. That was the society at that time. Someone fighting to save a baby in that circumstance would have been "wrong." They may have felt guilt...but would it have been at their actions? They may have made the decision to take in a sick baby at great personal sacrifice or cost...possibly even ruining their standing in the community, or falling out of favor with their gods. Today a person might applaud that action, but back then it would have been heinous.

All your argument shows is that society can make a person FEEL guilty where no guilt is warranted because they're not following the crowd. Let's review the societal messages brought up by just a few people on this thread:

- if you have an abortion you must be poor, stupid, or incapable of "right" decision-making

- if you have an abortion you are turning away from God

- poor people should be expected to "do what's right" even though they will get little to no real support for said decision

- single women should [continue to be] subject to outdated morality that stigmatizes them for keeping a child (3 months MAT leave and little to no social programs for assistance/workforce re-integration), while reinforcing little to no similar stigmatization for their presumably willing partner who may or may not be in the picture

- that by wanting the freedom to choose what is right for yourself, you are immoral (again, please note that pro-CHOICE is not necessarily pro-ABORTION)

Which only highlights that each individual should have the RIGHT to determine their own right and wrong on matters of morality. Let's turn the tables and have a look at a country like China. Overpopulation there could be considered a template for how the rest of the world will deal with overpopulation. How would you like it if you were told after having 2 children the next offspring you produced MUST be aborted (whether those were calculated or surprise pregnancies)? No choice in the matter, you just HAD to do it or you were immoral for not putting the needs of the existing humans already on earth who needed the scarce resources, before your own?

I've said it before on these types of threads...the morality and the "right" and "wrong" are fabulous for some because it's in line with their ideas. What happens when it's not something you're happy about? What happens when your personal right to worship, or work, or __fill in the blank__ the way you want is threatened because of someone else's idea of "right" and "wrong"?

I think it was Reinhardt who said that it was the pro-life who pushed the agenda on others, not the other way around. I don't think I've ever seen a pro-choice argument that coerced a person to have an abortion without investigating every other aspect or possible avenue first. Bottom line is, you don't want to have an abortion? Great. Don't. Isn't it nice that you can choose to do so?

I agree, one should never base a decision on what society says, i certainly wouldnt! I never said there shouldnt be a choice, but the choice should be made much harder than it is! before the choice is made it should be known in detail what will happen to the fetus and the method it will be removed, after that make a choice and live with it!! he or she would be ten today,i wonder what he or she would look like, I personally would hate the constant reminder of "WHAT IF"

[ceriserose 1]

I agree, one should never base a decision on what society says, i certainly wouldnt! I never said there shouldnt be a choice, but the choice should be made much harder than it is! before the choice is made it should be known in detail what will happen to the fetus and the method it will be removed, after that make a choice and live with it!! he or she would be ten today,i wonder what he or she would look like, I personally would hate the constant reminder of "WHAT IF"

Then maybe you're under a misnomer about what happens in an abortion clinic, or what goes through a person's mind when they have to make that decision. Because there is pre- and post-counselling for the person making the decision, and the staff does explain the procedure in detail. All staff at the clinic can do is assist the people who come to them, they cannot make the decision for the person. Very often I'm sure the people who go there are scared, feeling isolated, and a lot probably don't know what their options are. Some may be victims of crime, or in situations that they cannot control otherwise. Some have little to no support in their personal lives. I don't deny that there are people who use it as a means of birth control but for every one of those persons, there are just as many or more who aren't viewing it as such.

Really, what you're describing to me is a need for education, education which should be starting long before a person ends up at an abortion clinic. This ties back to the need for correct and appropriately-timed education in school and in the home, the ability to gain access to the education, and making the decisions they do around their sexual practices with education behind it.

Unfortunately, there is a movement to keep the educational aspect out of schools and home education can be anything from non-existant to wrong to inappropriately timed.

I agree with you that the choice should be harder, but I think it should be so because parents have taken responsibility and accountability for raising their children to be respectful of themselves and others, including their bodies and reproductive systems. I think that parents who choose to teach their children according to their spiritual values do so with a perspective to the reality that children may not listen or practice what their parents preach. I think that as families and communities there needs to a stronger overall support. I don't agree that it needs to come from legislation which has the potential to do more harm than good and take an issue that is predominantly one that a woman will pay for with her health and well-being.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another abortion thread...

Personally the whole anti-abortion vs. pro-choice debate is grossly exaggerated and far more emphasis is placed on it than is really warranted. The way it is presented to the public via politicians, the church and the media you would think that the entire moral framework of our society is dependent on banning it. It isn't.

Quite why this is such a hot button election issue is honestly beyond me. GWB gets re-elected in 2004 on 'moral grounds', due in part due to his 'pro-life' stance (though the less said about 'Futile Care' the better ;-) ), yet the most morally contentious issue at that time (iraq and the War on Terror) is totally sidelined. Go figure...

[kc456 0]

Another abortion thread...

Personally the whole anti-abortion vs. pro-choice debate is grossly exaggerated and far more emphasis is placed on it than is really warranted. The way it is presented to the public via politicians, the church and the media you would think that the entire moral framework of our society is dependent on banning it. It isn't.

Quite why this is such a hot button election issue is honestly beyond me. GWB gets re-elected in 2004 on 'moral grounds', due in part due to his 'pro-life' stance (though the less said about 'Futile Care' the better ;-) ), yet the most morally contentious issue at that time (iraq and the War on Terror) is totally sidelined. Go figure...

Wow, 14 pages...

I do agree that the whole issue is overblown. It's hard for me to imagine why that would be an issue of national debate. Americans are funny that way, I guess.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another abortion thread...

Personally the whole anti-abortion vs. pro-choice debate is grossly exaggerated and far more emphasis is placed on it than is really warranted. The way it is presented to the public via politicians, the church and the media you would think that the entire moral framework of our society is dependent on banning it. It isn't.

Quite why this is such a hot button election issue is honestly beyond me. GWB gets re-elected in 2004 on 'moral grounds', due in part due to his 'pro-life' stance (though the less said about 'Futile Care' the better ;-) ), yet the most morally contentious issue at that time (iraq and the War on Terror) is totally sidelined. Go figure...

Wow, 14 pages...

I do agree that the whole issue is overblown. It's hard for me to imagine why that would be an issue of national debate. Americans are funny that way, I guess.

Indeed. Whatever happened to people voting for a candidate who actually represented their interests, instead of some ivory tower (doesn't affect me) morality rubbish. Not that these issues aren't important they are, just seems that people totally lose perspective where moral issues are concerned vs. current issues that directly affect their own quality of life.

I mean, what about the current crisis in the healthcare system? Thousands of Americans without health insurance. Many of those with insurance are paying through the nose for prescription drugs at massively inflated prices, paying exorbitant premiums - but hey at least we stopped the few people (if you work it out as a proportion of the US national population its incredibly tiny) each year who chose to have an abortion.

I don't think abortion is trivial or unimportant (though admittedly the pro-choice argument is ultimately more convincing for me), but I think undue emphasis is placed on it, and that emphasis detracts from more important issues that people should be concerned with.

It just doesn't make any sense - why are we worrying about a 'few' people who choose to have a single medical procedure, when the entire private healthcare establishment is ripping off the public hand over fist. I find that a far more compelling issue of morality than abortion - because it affects everyone in the US.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Indeed. Whatever happened to people voting for a candidate who actually represented their interests, instead of some ivory tower (doesn't affect me) morality rubbish. Not that these issues aren't important they are, just seems that people totally lose perspective where moral issues are concerned vs. current issues that directly affect their own quality of life.

I mean, what about the current crisis in the healthcare system? Thousands of Americans without health insurance. Many of those with insurance are paying through the nose for prescription drugs at massively inflated prices, paying exorbitant premiums - but hey at least we stopped the few people (if you work it out as a proportion of the US national population its incredibly tiny) each year who chose to have an abortion.

I don't think abortion is trivial or unimportant (though admittedly the pro-choice argument is ultimately more convincing for me), but I think undue emphasis is placed on it, and that emphasis detracts from more important issues that people should be concerned with.

It just doesn't make any sense - why are we worrying about a 'few' people who choose to have a single medical procedure, when the entire private healthcare establishment is ripping off the public hand over fist. I find that a far more compelling issue of morality than abortion - because it affects everyone in the US.

In a way, it doesn't make sense, but on the other hand is a very convenient issue for politicians because it incorporates a host of other issues which is probably the reason why both sides get so riled up about.

On the surface, it's about whether or not a woman should have the right to abort. However, this just masks the dislike of conservatives of the women's rights/liberation movement. Many conservatives would like to turn time back before "those feminazis" (Limbaugh, I think) began to burn their bras and push society into immorality by demanding equal rights. By calling for an end to reproductive rights, conservatives hope to return to the golden days before feminism became a danger to social order. They are on the way to get there: feminism has become an equally dirty word as liberal.

However, this is not just about feminism, but about all sorts of social movements attempting to bring change to the social order. At the same time that feminists pushed for equal rights, gay and lesbians and racial and ethnic majorities also demanded to be treated equally. In a way, conservatives want to bring us back to the time before the sexual revolution. And it is supposedly the immorality in the wake of the sexual revolution that led to an increase in abortions and of course such things as men kissing men in the streets, the movies, and finally national television. And in the same way as they have succeeded in branding feminists as evil, it has become perfectely acceptable in society to claim that one "disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle" to express one's belief that the GLBT movement should allow us to return to the golden past when we saw couples on TV sleeping in twin beds,

It's much less acceptable, however, to say that that black folks or those Mexicans should be glad that they're allowed to live in this land of golden opportunity but that everyone else they should just work their way up into a position where they have the power to change things. Of course this view overlooks that the conditions of racial minorities in almost all parts of the country was such that there was no way out because you couldn't get into decent schools, you couldn't get a decent job, and you couldn't get a home in a nice neighborhood. The civil rights movement that changed that, however, also tried to change the social conditions for minorities and educating people in their reproductive rights and in family planning was one way to tackle the problem. The attempt to put more social responsibility in the hands of the federal government was met by heavy resistance because it, like the feminist movement, threatened a certain vision of America. Thus, abortion stands in for the social change wrought by the social movement of the 1960s, allowing people of different convictions to blow in one horn on a single issue that does not directly mention race or sexuality..

Finally, as has been mentioned in the discussion above, there is the issue of state rights vs. federal rights. This issue has been contentious since 1776 and will remain contentious unless there is a movement to rewrite the constitution to more precisely define the relationship. The issue is at the core of most political discussion in the country, but again abortion captures it quite nicely because it shows how the federal government denied states the right to determine their own reproductive policies. So, the single issue abortion unites another group.

Abortion used to be about health care, but the first victory of the anti-abortion/conservative front was to stop states and health insurances from paying for abortions, which they did until the late seventies. Abortion in a way is of course always about health care as well, at least on the pro-choice side, because a pregnancy poses a danger to a woman's health.

Sorry my post is so long, and thanks if your read all the way through. Short recap: Abortion movements fight not just about the issue, but also about social changes brought about by social movement. Other issue underlying discussion: state rights vs federal rights. Finally, about health care.

[ace13 0]

This isn't just a religious movement--there are many secular organizations that are prolife:

http://www.nrlc.org/

http://www.all.org/

http://www.hli.org/

atheist prolifers

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/links/godless.html

pro life gays and lesbians

http://www.plagal.org/

and yes...even feminists

http://www.gargaro.com/noabort.html

Another abortion thread...

Personally the whole anti-abortion vs. pro-choice debate is grossly exaggerated and far more emphasis is placed on it than is really warranted. The way it is presented to the public via politicians, the church and the media you would think that the entire moral framework of our society is dependent on banning it. It isn't.

Quite why this is such a hot button election issue is honestly beyond me. GWB gets re-elected in 2004 on 'moral grounds', due in part due to his 'pro-life' stance (though the less said about 'Futile Care' the better ;-) ), yet the most morally contentious issue at that time (iraq and the War on Terror) is totally sidelined. Go figure...

Wow, 14 pages...

I do agree that the whole issue is overblown. It's hard for me to imagine why that would be an issue of national debate. Americans are funny that way, I guess.

You're right! What is happening in Russia is worse. There are more babies being aborted in that country than are born.

Every Child Should be Wanted

(Wanted children are less likely to be abused)

Year

Reported Child Abuse1

1973 167,000

1980 785,100

1987 2,025,200

2000 1,726,000

1.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Center of Child Abuse & Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting

How's this connected to the topic? Are you trying to suggest that the number of abortions is somehow related to the number of reported child abuses? How do you explain such a correlation? Or are you suggesting that there should be more abortions?

The argument that many are making is that they want to make sure that all babies born are wanted. Today, with legal abortions, child abuse cases are soaring. It is just a silly argument to say that children will be more loved and taken care of in a society that promotes death of it's most fragile members.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This isn't just a religious movement--there are many secular organizations that are prolife:

http://www.nrlc.org/

http://www.all.org/

http://www.hli.org/

atheist prolifers

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/links/godless.html

pro life gays and lesbians

http://www.plagal.org/

and yes...even feminists

http://www.gargaro.com/noabort.html

Equally, the pro choice movement captures quite a number of religous groups, including Catholics.

A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. ... they include, in alphabetic order:

American Baptist Churches-USA,

American Ethical Union,

American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,

American Jewish Committee,

American Jewish Congress,

Central Conference of American Rabbis,

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),

Council of Jewish Federations,

Episcopal Church (USA),

Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,

Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,

Na'Amat USA,

National Council of Jewish Women,

Presbyterian Church (USA),

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,

Union of American Hebrew Congregations,

Unitarian Universalist Association,

United Church of Christ,

United Methodist Church,

United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.

Religious groups other than denominations:

Catholics for Free Choice,

Episcopal Women's Caucus,

Evangelicals for Choice,

Jewish Women International,

Lutheran Women's Caucus,

North American Federation of Temple Youth,

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,

Women of Reform Judaism,

Women's American ORT,

Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren,

Women's League for Conservative Judaism.

Secular organizations: A number of secular organizations promote the right of women to have free access to abortions. These include:

...

YWCA

It is just a silly argument to say that children will be more loved and taken care of in a society that promotes death of it's most fragile members.

To equate freedom of choice with promotion of death is far sillier an argument to make...

[ChristinaM 0]

And when the anti-abortionist faction step up to the plate and agree to adopt every single unwanted child, then abortion will be unnecessary because all children will be wanted. A greater percentage of children will be loved and cared for because they were wanted if the unwanted ones either a) aren't being born (ie. are aborted), or B) are adopted by people (and we know that they're not being - the stats are on this thread!). It's a simple numbers game!

Personally, I think it's a great argument, and not silly at all.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Every Child Should be Wanted

(Wanted children are less likely to be abused)

Year

Reported Child Abuse1

1973 167,000

1980 785,100

1987 2,025,200

2000 1,726,000

1.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Center of Child Abuse & Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting

How's this connected to the topic? Are you trying to suggest that the number of abortions is somehow related to the number of reported child abuses? How do you explain such a correlation? Or are you suggesting that there should be more abortions?

The argument that many are making is that they want to make sure that all babies born are wanted. Today, with legal abortions, child abuse cases are soaring. It is just a silly argument to say that children will be more loved and taken care of in a society that promotes death of it's most fragile members.

There is no direct correlation between the increases in child abuse and the number of abortions in the same way as there is no correlation between the increased number of reported rapes and abortion. Since 1973, child abuse has become less of a taboo and more people are willing to report child abuses then ever before, particularly teachers and social workers. Furthermore the legal definition of what constitutes abuse has changed in the time period, meaning that the law has become more sensitive to the issue as well.

While it is possible to argue that the child abuse cases are actually increasing in addition to higher reporting rates, there are a number of other social factors that would account for this increase, such as a transformation of family structures as well as a higher prevalence of violence in society.

[Carol&Marc 0]

I was just wondering if there were any cases where a woman that was going to get a abortion, but was murdered the day before and if the murderer was only charged with one count or two.This has always bugged the hell out of me, I guess it has to do with filling out the proper paper work! Also why is it that if someone wants to commit suicide they keep the people from doing it,its "their body" why dont we have suicide clinics,just wondering?

[faith 0]

Those of you who are pushing adoption as the alternative are not seeing the big picture. First of all, you are saying that some woman (who could be carrying a baby that will only live 6 months after birth due to genetic disease, or carrying a baby that is addicted to crack, or carrying a baby that poses a giant risk to her health, or carrying a baby that is a product of rape) should be a giant incubator for 40 weeks. For some women, not only is this a huge health risk (for example, my first son, I hemmorraged and my BP dropped to 60/30 immediately following delivery. I had gestational diabetes during the pregnancy. My second son, I had preeclampsia (toxemia) which if you read up on is extremely dangerous and hard on a body. This baby, so far all I have is aches and pains, I'm lucky so far) but it is a financial and social risk as well. What if that woman doesn't have health insurance? I know someone said that if someone wants to adopt the baby they will pay for the healthcare. But what if it's a crack baby or a genetically diseased baby, who's going to pay for that care now? What if the mother is just not "desirable" to couples looking to adopt? You got it.... you and me, the taxpayers. So then you have public aid footing the bill. Then what happens? You have this crack baby or this baby that's going to die or this unwanted baby that ends up in a state run institution for orphans. Firsthand, have you really ever seen some of these places??? I have. My aunt used to take in foster kids, so that was a big part of my growing up. Once a child reaches the age of 6 their chances of ever being adopted go way down. My point, adopting is not an always the answer for everyone.

My husband and I were talking last night. We were discussing the test we recently had done (Triple Screen - tests for genetic problems in the baby) and what we would have done had it come back there was a serious problem. Thankfully, it came back fine, but we discussed it anyway. The conclusion... if my doctor had told me that my baby had a serious genetic disease and would only live 3 months or 2 days or whatever after birth, or had some severe disease that would not even allow a live birth, we would like to know that we would have to option to abort the baby in those cases. Not that we know for sure if we would do it or not, but that the option is there. At that point we'd have to take in to consideration our family, our two other kids, and everything else.

I just feel that this is such a personal choice, that no one has the right to make that choice for a woman.

ET said that the moment the pregnancy test turned positive it was a baby for them. I agree. The moment I knew I conceived it was a baby to my husband and myself. I've had 2 miscarriages... and yes, even though those were at 5 and 8 weeks we called it the "baby." Conception is defined at fertilization of the egg. Implantation comes later. So for the person who said that she thinks it's ok for herself to take the morning after pill but not an abortion, she should think of that. The morning after pill causes the fertilized egg not to implant. Basically, it's a very early abortion. Is it a grey area? Probably, but why is it ok for the anti-abortion people to have grey areas and excuses as to why it's ok, but those of us who support the right to choose are told it's black and white and there are no grey areas, no exceptions? It's kinda hypocritical don't you think?

We're not trying to push abortions on anyone. We are just trying to defend our right to choose.

[ceriserose 1]

Also why is it that if someone wants to commit suicide they keep the people from doing it,its "their body" why dont we have suicide clinics,just wondering?

Because we live in a society that places the value of "life" for life's sake above quality of life.

There are people out there, medical professionals and laypersons, who are assisting the terminally ill or chronically diseased to die with dignity on their own terms. It's just hidden, like the back alley abortion clinics of the past. Maybe one day that right to choose will be an option as well.