Pro Choice?????

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

...especially as exemplified by sex-selection abortion!

[Alex+R 0]

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

...especially as exemplified by sex-selection abortion!

Who the hell would do that!?

[garya505 2]

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

...especially as exemplified by sex-selection abortion!

Who the hell would do that!?

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then what is wrong with that?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

...especially as exemplified by sex-selection abortion!

Who the hell would do that!?

I seriously hope you're not being sarky here.

Known to be rampant in India since 1982--initially, amniocentesis and CV Biopsy were used to determine gender; later ultrasounds (especially PORTABLE units).

Even MORE prevalent in China, due to its one-child policy.

In much of China and India (exceptions in the latter are the states of Kerala and Meghalaya), there is a very strong preference for sons over daughters.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

[ace13 0]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

[Karen_L 1]

I've seen children so badly abused by parents that didnt really want them but kept them because they felt they had to "take responsibilty for their actions" and that equated to keeping a child they didn't want as a penance for having sex.

I agree with everything you said, esp. this part. I think it's a bad idea for the government to treat pregnancy and childbirth as a woman's punishment for being a hussy and having sex.

The government isn't restricting abortion as punishment for anything. It's about the right to life of the fetus vs. the woman's right to terminate that life.

I said that as a reaction to many sentiments expressed here, which have amounted to "Well, she made her bed (with ruffled, sweaty sex-sheets), and now she has to lie in it!" My argument was that, among many other reasons abortion should remain legal mentioned elsewhere, a government shouldn't also adopt that sort of position.

As I said before, I think it's impractical and absurd to expect the supreme court to seriously limit women's access to and decisions regarding their own bodies, especially after the right to do so has stood for more than 30 years now. It's a slippery and scary slope and it would open the door to further government control over an individual's person. Next it might be enforced birth control if a woman is deemed to have too many children, then it might be illegal to do certain things that put a pregnancy at risk, like smoke or drink coffee. Once you say that a fetus has rights equal to the right of a born person then it sets the stage for policies that go beyond merely the right to gestate and be born, but also the right to gestate under certain controlled conditions, which would further limit the mother's rights to... well... herself.

It's not about controlling people's behavior or limiting decisions, it's about human rights, and defining exactly who (and what) is human and has those rights. Of course once you define that, limits on behavior and decisions follow.

My personal opposition to abortion is from a human rights point of view, not religious.

Refuse to choose. Women deserve better than abortion.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

The Declaration of Human Rights set down by the UN -- article one. Human beings are born with these rights. Article 25, about the dignity of children, addresses children being BORN under certain conditions.

A question: Let's say the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned and all abortions are made illegal, what would the punishment be for woman who attempt to do it themselves or get it done illegally by a doctor? Would she be tried for murder if caught? How much time would she serve if found guilty? The same as if she killed a child that's already been born? Would it matter how far along she was in the pregnancy?

ETA: Declaration of Human Rights

IMO, abortion is wrong. I can see where some cases people want to make it legal such as rape, or in this chicks case (maybe). But still, it is wrong. A child is a gift from God. There are many people that can't have children that would give anything for a baby. I don't care the case, I think adoption is STILL the best option. Someone in my area did that as well, same scenario, she got off scott-free.

You need to do some research on the adoption/foster care system in the US. Giving a child up for adoption does't neccessarily equal giving them a better life. There are some really horrid cases out there and I have had friends who have seen it up close. I think that abortion at an early stage should be allowed as long as the adoption and foster care system remains the way that it is. Children don't get adopted as easily as we would like to think and once they pass a certain age the chances of being adopted decrease. There are sickos out there who take in foster children just for the money that comes with it and the children end up living miserable lives full of abuse and neglect. While there are people out there who "would give anything for a baby" many would rather spend loads of money getting fertility treatments then turn to adoption. Or they just resort to adopting overseas, as is the latest trend.

Killing babies will not solve the foster parent issue, welfare, homelessness, single-parent families, or neglect. Historically, I think it would be fair to say that since abortion has been legal, those things have gotten worse in this country.

If you study slavery, people said that getting rid of slavery would be bad for blacks and even torture because they said that blacks could not take care of themselves and were better off as slaves. They were wrong on that one, too.

Every life is precious from natural conception to natural death and deserves protection. Those that are most fragile-the young and old-who can not defend themselves, need the most protection.

Exactly. A civilized and compassionate society protects it's weakest and most vulnerable from those who would do them harm.

I question whether an unborn baby is really a member of society while it's still in the womb.

Edited October 26, 2006 by Karen_L

[Saddle Bronc 124]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Incorrect--there is considerable immigrant population from India and PRC. In some states (CA for example), doctors are somewhat hesitant to reveal expected child's gender to oriental or Indian women.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Incorrect--there is considerable immigrant population from India and PRC. In some states (CA for example), doctors are somewhat hesitant to reveal expected child's gender to oriental or Indian women.

Probably why I used the qualifier "particularly" -- I'm sure it happens, it is very rare. I worker for a reproductive services clinic in an area with a high immigrant population and it never happened there.

[almaty 19]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

ace, everything has borders..

[garya505 2]

The Declaration of Human Rights set down by the UN -- article one. Human beings are born with these rights. Article 25, about the dignity of children, addresses children being BORN under certain conditions.

A question: Let's say the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned and all abortions are made illegal, what would the punishment be for woman who attempt to do it themselves or get it done illegally by a doctor? Would she be tried for murder if caught? How much time would she serve if found guilty? The same as if she killed a child that's already been born? Would it matter how far along she was in the pregnancy?

ETA: Declaration of Human Rights

I question whether an unborn baby is really a member of society while it's still in the womb.

So, 1 second before it's born it's not a member of society and has no right to life and can be killed, but 1 second after it's born it has the same right to life as you or me so it's life is protected by law? Or is it when it can survive outside the womb, or is it when it has brain activity (at about 6 weeks), or is it when the heart starts beating (at about 22 days)?

Be careful, you could be on the slippery slope to becoming a born-again pro-lifer like me.

[ace13 0]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

ace, everything has borders..

[Karen_L 1]

The Declaration of Human Rights set down by the UN -- article one. Human beings are born with these rights. Article 25, about the dignity of children, addresses children being BORN under certain conditions.

A question: Let's say the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned and all abortions are made illegal, what would the punishment be for woman who attempt to do it themselves or get it done illegally by a doctor? Would she be tried for murder if caught? How much time would she serve if found guilty? The same as if she killed a child that's already been born? Would it matter how far along she was in the pregnancy?

ETA: Declaration of Human Rights

I question whether an unborn baby is really a member of society while it's still in the womb.

So, 1 second before it's born it's not a member of society and has no right to life and can be killed, but 1 second after it's born it has the same right to life as you or me so it's life is protected by law? Or is it when it can survive outside the womb, or is it when it has brain activity (at about 6 weeks), or is it when the heart starts beating (at about 22 days)?

Be careful, you could be on the slippery slope to becoming a born-again pro-lifer like me.

I have stated how I personally feel about the issue -- I think women should be free to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy and give birth, but I don't think limiting that freedom is unreasonable. I said previously that, for me, I would limit it to before the third trimester. Statistics (which I posted yesterday) indicate that nearly 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks of pregnancy, meaning that the vast majority of women exercise their option well before the third trimester. Saying "You are free to choose whether to have this child before your 28th week of pregnancy" wouldn't be unreasonable, imo. It's kind of like saying you can vote for whatever candidate you'd like, but not after election day. I also suggested the "cut off" could be once it is medically determined that a woman has gone into labor. But no, I don't think a zygote is a member of society.

I have debated this issue about 7 million times in my life. I went to Catholic school my whole life and we have discussed this to death. I have yet to hear any convincing argument for making abortion illegal. I don't think I will ever accept or agree with the anti-abortion position.

[Alex+R 0]

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

...especially as exemplified by sex-selection abortion!

Who the hell would do that!?

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then what is wrong with that?

Gary, if you listened to the people who said that being pro-choice was not about being pro-abortion, you might already know the answer.

Nobody likes abortion, and few people condone abortion as a means of birth control.

I'm saying that abortion is physically and psychologically painful in most cases and going through that to choose the gender of your child is insane, and no American woman I know would do it. Ok Sriniv says it is common in China (for obvious reasons) but not here, and no, this discussion does not cross borders, as it has to do with United States law.

[Karen_L 1]

The Declaration of Human Rights set down by the UN -- article one. Human beings are born with these rights. Article 25, about the dignity of children, addresses children being BORN under certain conditions.

A question: Let's say the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned and all abortions are made illegal, what would the punishment be for woman who attempt to do it themselves or get it done illegally by a doctor? Would she be tried for murder if caught? How much time would she serve if found guilty? The same as if she killed a child that's already been born? Would it matter how far along she was in the pregnancy?

ETA: Declaration of Human Rights

I question whether an unborn baby is really a member of society while it's still in the womb.

So, 1 second before it's born it's not a member of society and has no right to life and can be killed, but 1 second after it's born it has the same right to life as you or me so it's life is protected by law? Or is it when it can survive outside the womb, or is it when it has brain activity (at about 6 weeks), or is it when the heart starts beating (at about 22 days)?

Be careful, you could be on the slippery slope to becoming a born-again pro-lifer like me.

I have stated how I personally feel about the issue -- I think women should be free to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy and give birth, but I don't think limiting that freedom is unreasonable. I said previously that, for me, I would limit it to before the third trimester. Statistics (which I posted yesterday) indicate that nearly 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks of pregnancy, meaning that the vast majority of women exercise their option well before the third trimester. Saying "You are free to choose whether to have this child before your 28th week of pregnancy" wouldn't be unreasonable, imo. It's kind of like saying you can vote for whatever candidate you'd like, but not after election day. I also suggested the "cut off" could be once it is medically determined that a woman has gone into labor. But no, I don't think a zygote is a member of society.

I have debated this issue about 7 million times in my life. I went to Catholic school my whole life and we have discussed this to death. I have yet to hear any convincing argument for making abortion illegal. I don't think I will ever accept or agree with the anti-abortion position.

I still have hope for you. Many have changed their minds even after having an abortion themselves.

You can read about that here:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/voices/index.htm

I read a bit of that website last night and I will read more later today. I understand where it's coming from and I agree that for lots of women, the decision to have an abortion turns into an emotional nightmare. I never said it was an easy decision -- or even a good decision -- or that people who choose to have abortions will never regret it later. That has never been my argument. My whole argument has been that just because something is immoral or potentially regretable or bad, that doesn't automatically mean it should be illegal. (There are plenty of women who have abortions, but don't regret having them and consider it the best decision they could have made -- why should only the ones who think it was an awful decision be taken into consideration?) I have also said that a government shouldn't exert that level of control over an individual's body and the function of particular bodily organs because laws like that are a) hard to enforce b ) hard to define c) open the door to lots of other restrictions on what a person is or is not allowed to do with their own body

Anyways, I think this discussion has pretty much run its course since neither of us is going to change ideas lol (clearly). I'm happy to have debated it with you though

Edited October 26, 2006 by Karen_L