Obama reverses abortion policy - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-26-2009, 10:36 PM   #241
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:56 AM
i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 10:48 PM   #242
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.

I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability. You're absolutely right to put the focus on the fathers also, many fathers pay for abortions because they don't want the hassle of bringing a child into the world. They are AT LEAST equally to blame for the high abortion rate in many Western countries, if not more so.

(Sorry if I'm not being 'intentionally antagonistic and hysterical' enough ).
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 10:48 PM   #243
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Let's not stop with the woman. What about the doctor? What about the woman's boyfriend, husband, friend, mother, or whoever took her to the doctor and home? Aiding and abetting a murder, that's some serious jail time we're talking here.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 10:57 PM   #244
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.
Another unanswered question, dear.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 11:10 PM   #245
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability. You're absolutely right to put the focus on the fathers also, many fathers pay for abortions because they don't want the hassle of bringing a child into the world. They are AT LEAST equally to blame for the high abortion rate in many Western countries, if not more so.


The nature of the relationship with the father and whether or not he would support raising the child are huge factors in a woman's decision.

Men can also take charge of their own fertility.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 11:29 PM   #246
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability.
Unfortunately many on the pro-life side flat out reject this idea...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 11:39 PM   #247
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Unfortunately many on the pro-life side flat out reject this idea...
People in that category are more interested in restricting and controlling the behaviour of women than they are in protecting the welfare of babies.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 12:11 AM   #248
War Child
 
Alan Jamison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: pimp walkin the LBC
Posts: 640
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability.
Why should I have to pay for other people's irresponsibility (and immoral living, for that matter)? The key here is abstinence education, beginning in middle school.

Quote:
You're absolutely right to put the focus on the fathers also, many fathers pay for abortions because they don't want the hassle of bringing a child into the world.
"Hassle" of bringing a child into the world? MY LORD THAT MAKES ME ANGRY JUST READING THAT.

If these fathers were committed to their women before sexual relations, they wouldn't have to worry about abortion.

Never mind, this topic infuriates me.
__________________
Alan Jamison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 12:20 AM   #249
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:56 AM
I think people who are opposed to abortion shouldn't have one.
__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 12:34 AM   #250
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
Can you elaborate on the consequences?

...Equally important is to respect other people's views on the value of life and taking proactive measures to minimize unwanted pregnancy and otherwise enabling women wherever possible to choose life - without coercion.
The consequences--again, in a context where abortion is illegal--would be many, many more single mothers, with all the socioeconomic disadvantages that brings for both women and children. Because I'm pro-choice, I do support a woman's right to *choose* keeping and raising her child herself; I couldn't support barring single people from adopting either, given the huge numbers of foster children waiting to be adopted; and I'm fully aware that many single parents do a better job of raising their children than many two-parent families do (my own mother was a single parent for most of my younger siblings' childhoods, as well as the tail end of mine, though I wouldn't wish what she had to go through to make that work on anyone). But obviously many women choose abortion because they're absolutely unwilling to raise a child alone and they're just as unwilling to go through carrying and bearing one if it's not going to be theirs. And while it's hard for me to imagine a situation where I personally would have either of those feelings for long, I do understand why many women do, and it's not my place or anyone else's to tell them: No, your obligation is to suck it up and accept your destiny as a biological vending machine, since you can't find it in you to experience life in utero as a blessing worth sacrificing for. That's both because I believe it is wrong, period, to force women to bear children, and because I feel the consequence of greatly increased numbers of single mothers (which I think would be inevitable) would be bad for society in general.

Actually holding those "views on the value of life," and physically living them out through your own blood, sweat and tears, in the dignity of knowing that what you chose to do is what you truly believe in--that makes all the difference in the world. But short of somehow reducing pregnancy to a socially (and physically, financially, and professionally) inconsequential experience, I don't see how you're ever going to arrive at a place where many women won't be deeply unwilling to carry and bear a baby they didn't want. So yes, those women will most likely choose to have an abortion--or, if you forbid them that, then realize that most of them aren't going to warmly embrace adoption as an 'alternative.' Because why hand anyone else the only 'compensation' you'll ever get for going through all that; why let people who've never walked in those shoes take away what feels like the best shot you've got at reclaiming the respect that was denied to you. Abortion is an alternative to going through with a pregnancy, adoption is an alternative to raising a child yourself; they are really two different things.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 01:50 AM   #251
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.
What are people doing about the murders of thousands in Iraq? Whether or not it's prosecuted, or the intent involved (which is really what we are discussing here) does not change what it is. If it takes a shocking term to remind us that we aren't exactly dealing with wart removal, so be it.

I am also a proponent of sex-education. I have friends who are involved in Africa working with people who are spreading or contracting disease simply because of a lack of information. It is however a bit of a jump to go from funding information to funding abortions; there is rather a big difference.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 01:59 AM   #252
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I do understand why many women do, and it's not my place or anyone else's to tell them: No, your obligation is to suck it up and accept your destiny as a biological vending machine
In all of this, I'm curious if we're missing the connection between the choice to become sexually active (which, like it or not, for both men and women) carries with it an inherent connection to the biological result for which sex is intended. As a result, I'm wondering if there is a difference between a pregnancy that is a result of an irresponsible decision, and a pregnancy that is a result of rape or incest? "Destiny as a biological vending machine" is putting it a bit crassly, but there is a sense of responsibility that comes along with sexuality, precisely because of the result.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 04:14 AM   #253
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:56 AM
^ If it's the moral status of life in utero that makes abortion 'murder' for you, then why would you make exceptions for rape or incest? They're not the fetus' doing; either it innately possesses the right to live save for threatening death or grave bodily harm to its mother, or it doesn't. And if it's not the moral status of the fetus that makes abortion 'murder', then what is it? Distinguishing those particular exceptions makes it sound as if your real interest lies not in preventing 'murder', but rather in harnessing the power of the state to enforce some particular vision of sexual morality (one which happens to place the lion's share of moral accountability on women). And speaking of particular moral visions, you almost seem to be adopting the classic Catholic stance here: that perpetual openness to the possibility of conception is morally incumbent on anyone sexually active, that being what 'nature intended' our sex drives for--which logically ought to rule out contraception (even in marriage) as well as abortion, nonmarital sex, and homosexual sex, since all those constitute rejections of 'nature's plan' in supplying us with libidos. Using contraception could not be a morally valid, 'responsible' act if you actually accepted the premise that having sex means agreeing in principle to accept pregnancy as its price; rather, it would be an abdication of moral responsibility, 'trying to have your cake and eat it too'.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 07:20 AM   #254
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
You know, there's an awful lot to be said here about the smugness of those who are dogging people who believe life starts at conception. There's a lot to be said about the automatic vitriol that even wondering whether the right to control one's own body includes the right to commit murder.

But I'm not interested in talking about that.

My wife and I miscarried late last year.

There are those who considered it seven-week old biological waste.

They were entitled to their opinion.

There were, however, those who felt that loss as deeply as anything they have ever experienced. Several of our friends also experienced miscarriages last year. We all experienced the same pain. It was a loss of life, of possibilities and opportunities unfulfilled. I would not wish that pain on anyone.

And I would be very careful about mocking those for whom life -- even in its early, formative stages -- is a sacred thing.

Because anyone who has been in the presence of death -- whether it is the death of a literal life, or merely the death of possibilities -- knows that it is not a moment to be taken lightly, nor casually considered.
Hi Nathan,

I am so sorry for your loss. My husband and I miscarried our second child six years ago. Believe me, I understand the pain of losing a child. I was 46 years old and quite surprised to be pregnant. Since, I was told after my first child, it would be very unlikely, I would ever conceive again. Cyst Disease on both ovaries, plus I was a very high risk pregnancy with Diabetes, at age 27, when I gave birth to my son. I was so sick the last two months of my pregnancy and I was in and out of the hospital, but he was worth every minute of it.

At age 46, I was thrilled to be pregnant again. And yes, I knew all of the risk, including Down's Syndrome. It wouldn't have mattered to our family. If our child would have had this and I could have carried him without grave health issues for me. We would have raised our baby. But, like your wife, my pregnancy ended right before the seventh week. The loss I experienced was like nothing ever, including losing a parent. It wasn't natural to have my child die before me.

For everyone else,

My point is. I am pro-life and there are too many abortions. Especially, in first world nations. I work in a OB-Gyn Clinic and some women do use abortion as a form of birth control. I am all for family planing. I do feel, as I have stated before, abortion should be legal, because for smaller numbers of women. Pregnancy can cause serious health or mental health issues. And I don't want to see these women take desperate measures. In regards to Africa, women and men need information on their own reproductive systems. Birth control and condoms should be made affordable to all. So children are planned. Abstinance is not working.
__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 07:55 AM   #255
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
^ If it's the moral status of life in utero that makes abortion 'murder' for you, then why would you make exceptions for rape or incest? They're not the fetus' doing; either it innately possesses the right to live save for threatening death or grave bodily harm to its mother, or it doesn't. And if it's not the moral status of the fetus that makes abortion 'murder', then what is it? Distinguishing those particular exceptions makes it sound as if your real interest lies not in preventing 'murder', but rather in harnessing the power of the state to enforce some particular vision of sexual morality (one which happens to place the lion's share of moral accountability on women).
I miss 80sU2 on this topic because as much as I disagreed with him 100%, I believe that at least he took a principled (to him) and consistent approach and was deadset against abortion in all cases, even if it were a 12-year-old girl raped by her father.

Either it's murder or it's not.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com