Too Pro-Life for Pro-Choicers, Too Pro-Choice for Pro-Lifers (FYM Challenge Spinoff) - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2003, 09:32 PM   #1
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Too Pro-Life for Pro-Choicers, Too Pro-Choice for Pro-Lifers (FYM Challenge Spinoff)

I started a thread about abortion a while back, but I know it came from my trip to NYC, which was in October--so I suppose it's okay to start another one.

In response to a website called www.feministsforlife.org and a question raised by whenhiphop..., I'll try to state my views on this. I'm almost twenty-one years old and could finish college as early as this December (though I'll probably wait until May '04). I'm not sexually active, but I have been, and if I got a boyfriend I would probably be sexually active again. At this point in my life, it's easy for me to be pro-life; the guy I'm kind of seeing at the moment is a little older than me and has a good job, and I'm almost done with school and could conceivably get a decent job within a year or so.

But I have never been raped. I have never been faced with pregnancy while I was poor, in an abusive relationship, or living in an abusive home. I'm not a member of a religious sect that might disown me--or worse--were I to become pregant. And I realize that even in the United States, there are women who face such situations.

Am I pro-life? In theory, yes. I believe that life should be respected--who doesn't? I would love it if every child were a wanted child. It would be great if we as a society could guarantee to poor, frightened women that the children they were about to bear would be welcomed, fed, sheltered, and schooled. It would be even better if we could say those things and also guarantee that the woman would be employed, that decent, affordable child care would be provided, and that she would have opportunities to better herself. That is, unfortunately, not universally so, even in these great United States. But that is what would have to happen, I believe, to end or even noticeably reduce abortion.

So am I then pro-choice? In practice and for the moment, yes. Ultimately I believe that I do not know where life begins, and probably only God knows that. And while I've been fortunate in my life to have health insurance and thus have access to safe, affordable birth control, many women are not so fortunate. And women are raped, and women are abused, and women are poor. These are all reasons that abortion happens.

If we as a society want to end abortion, we must end rape, abuse, and poverty. And that is not going to happen. I strongly support birth control, emergency contraception, and adoption. But I also support Roe v. Wade, at least for now.

So that's where I am.

I predict that this thread will see at least 20 replied by tomorrow afternoon.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 09:48 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Hmmmm *thinking*

Now what if we had the possibility of ensuring a raped woman that her child will get good care? But anyway she wants an abortion. Not for the reasons you metioned, but for the reason that she doesnīt want to carry a baby in her body for 9 months that she might never think of as being "her baby"?

What if a woman is not raped and would be secured enough to give her child a good life, but she is "sexually active" and her pregnancy "just happens" because she is careless? You could surely say its not right she (and he) were that careless, but thats no reason why she should decide for the child if she doesnīt want it - or is it?

Now, what about the man? What if the woman wants an abortion, but he would like to bring the child up, to care for it, to nurture it? Should the woman have the right to say "no", if there is a presumably good father who could take care? Everyone agrees, >I guess that when the situation is the other way īround, (the woman wants the child, the man doesnīt), he has to pay for the rest of his life, which is fair. What about equality in decision?

I am for living children, like anyone else, I guess, but I think there are far too many complex situations, so I canīt say yes or no to abortion in general. I think everyone has to decide for him/ herself. And its complicated enough that there are two potential parents.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 09:52 PM   #3
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 07:34 AM
There is a similar thread going on in Goal is Soul, "its been 30 years" (just FYI).

I just think legalizing abortion hasn't solved many problems - feminists still chant "every child a wanted child" - I don't think legal abortions have helped make that dream happen, I think it's much more of a problem than it ever was.

And if women are too poor to have children, why don't we just tell them to get rid of a few that they already have? No one sees that as an option, so why is it ok to get rid of the 'newest' child?

You know, I realized that I am pro-choice - choose to keep the baby or choose to put it up for adoption. Yes, in the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many foolish things when there are other reasonable alternatives available. That's just the point: People choose.

Sometimes they make bad choices, but the choice is still their own. There's no coercion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because the state won't put him on welfare. Both have other options.



I hope I don't come off as sarcastic but this makes me really angry.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 09:57 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:34 PM
You donīt think legalizing abortion has solved many problems?

What about the many women that died or were suffering horrible infections because they consulted doctors illegally, doctors who really treated them bad? Those are things that practically donīt happen when abortion is legal. i think legalizing abortion has solved this problem at the very least.

Not that I would be pro-abortion, sure. But if pro.life means to be against abortion for whatever reason, I am not pro-life. Plus, the protests going on in front of some clinics are disgusting, too.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 10:06 PM   #5
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 07:34 AM
There may be less actual deaths than there used to be, but there are still many complications (blood poisoning, massive infections, punctured/lacerated internal organs) and several deaths each year due to abortion. Much of this is due to the assembly line set-up in the industry. Now these women aren't dead but are doomed to a life of guilt, depression, self-loathing, or breast cancer at an early age. I'm not sure that the problems now are any less or better than problems in the past - and there are millions more women affected today.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 10:35 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Ok, thats your opinion, I accept that, and probably you are right. We would need statistics for that, but lets not drown in those.

What about rape then, bonosloveslave?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 10:51 PM   #7
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 07:34 AM
Abortion doesn't 'unrape' a woman or remove the violence that has been perpetrated against her. Why complicate the crime of rape with the crime of taking an innocent child's life? Or, to put it another way: Why should the child pay with its life because its father is a rapist?
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 10:57 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:34 PM
I think the whole issue of abortion centers around the question of when life begins, not rape, poverty, or womens rights. Clearly, infanticide is not justified by any of the above but people do do that citing the above problems. At what ever point life is determined to begin, depending on who you talk to, after that point probably only the life of the mother would justify abortion.

I took a philosophy class that involved this issue and all the the professor was pro-choice, he did get everyone to recognize that the chief issue was when life began.

I don't have an honest answer really to that ultimate question. Another question is whether a person can be convicted of manslaugther if they are say in a car accident with a pregnant women and the women loses the Fetus/Baby.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 10:59 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:34 PM
It doesnīt unrape a woman, but probably you will agree that this might be a reason why she doesnīt want to keep a child. Because she never wanted it, its "not hers".

Why should a woman carry a baby in her body when she feels its not hers? Or, to put it another way: Why should she pay at least 9 months of her life bc the father is a rapist? Why should the child pay by knowing it was not only unwanted, but came on earth by a really bad act of violence?

And, especially: why do you want to forbid this woman to have her own thoughts and make her own decision about it? When she is closer to that baby than you ever will be. You could always decide to keep it in whatever situation. but why do you want to set up a rule that forbids the potential mother to deal with her life and the life of her potential child in her way?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:03 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:34 PM
I donīt think so, STING2. I think the questions of abortion also have to do with practical issues. Its a very practical thing to raise a child.

Sure, a philosophy professor, who is philosophing around and never can be raped or get pregnant, can afford to think different about it.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:07 PM   #11
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
It doesnīt unrape a woman, but probably you will agree that this might be a reason why she doesnīt want to keep a child. Because she never wanted it, its "not hers".

Why should a woman carry a baby in her body when she feels its not hers? Or, to put it another way: Why should she pay at least 9 months of her life bc the father is a rapist? Why should the child pay by knowing it was not only unwanted, but came on earth by a really bad act of violence?
I understand that might ease the mother's pain, it might make the mother feel better (though, it may make things more difficult, too). But even if it did, even if she felt great afterwards, is that a good reason to take the life of an innocent human being, because it removes the reminder of the terrible violation she experienced?

Should we allow the mother to summarily kill the guilty rapist if he was caught, so she would feel better? Then why should she be allowed to kill the innocent child to feel better?

STING2 is right - all these arguments ultimately hinge on the question, are we killing a human being? Humans don't have monkeys, humans don't have frogs, humans don't have gnomes - they have human beings.

*edit - I have read many, many stories of people who survived botched abortions, whose mothers changed their lives at the last minute and kept them, even those whose mothers gave them up for adoption - I have yet to see any who have said they wished they were never born.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:16 PM   #12
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

And, especially: why do you want to forbid this woman to have her own thoughts and make her own decision about it? When she is closer to that baby than you ever will be. You could always decide to keep it in whatever situation. but why do you want to set up a rule that forbids the potential mother to deal with her life and the life of her potential child in her way?
You don't think that the issue of life/humaness is key. But it really is. We have tons of laws/rules that regulate how someone deals with their life and their children. Child abuse and neglect is illegal. Murder of anyone after birth is illegal. Children have to be schooled. Parents don't get to make every single choice, they have a moral obligation to care for them. If you think they don't, then why the outcry over Susan Smith who drowned her kids in the car? Or the mom last year that drowned her kids in the bathtub? Because they were children. People. Human. That's what made it wrong. It's easy to justify removing something that's not human.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:25 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:34 PM
It doesnīt "remove the reminder of a terrible violation". But she might have the feeling its not her child, no? I donīt even think it makes her feel better. The compare that you are implying, like as if she was psychologically ill and now wants to "kill the raper", but instead "kills the child", is not quite the point.

The point is that pregnancy itself is a great thing, but can be tough - I think. Maybe too tough for the mother, and too tough for the upcoming child. Then, the second point is, why you want to forbid the mother to make her own decision about it.

Its not the question where life begins. If we all ultimatively agree that life begins with the first cell-splitting, my arguments stay the same.

Maybe we can neither imagine how she must feel. I am male, so I am lucky to not have to deal with those problems first hand, and I surely canīt imagine how it is to be pregnant. You are happily married, bonosloveslave, and hopefully you will never have to deal with those issues.

So we should leave the decision up to the one who has the right to decide. The child canīt speak up. To summarize it wants to be born, is not the right point - there are children in this world who think "Oh, if I was never born".

The right point, in my opinion, is to leave this decision to the mother. the relation she has with her potential child, is so intime, so near, that she should be the only one to deal with those issues. Not a ridiculous law that tells her what to do and whatnot.

I agree, though, that 40 millions of abortions is a high number, and (hope) that a relatively small part of this number was actually raped. I agree that there may be again a small number of women, who deal with pregnancy carelessly, who say "Who cares, I am too lazy to use other methods of security". And I agree that under those circumstances, it is not right to kill an unborn child - even if it stays the right of the mother to do so in the first three months.

The practical responsibility is just sth. you canīt negate. And you canīt negate the right of the mother to decide for her child. The child may have the right to live, under every circumstance, but as long as it canīt execute that right, the process of decision has to stay with the mother.

*plus edit1: its forbidden from the 4th month to make an abortion (dunno the U.S. laws though) - so mothers are not always allowed to kill their unborn children, you see?

*plus edit2: its an honor to discuss with someone actually caring that much for that issue at half past five in the morning, but I really have to go soon.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:35 PM   #14
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
If we all ultimatively agree that life begins with the first cell-splitting, my arguments stay the same.


So what is your definition of killing? I would propose something lto the effect of, taking the life of someone without their consent.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:51 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:34 PM
I think it is killing, but at that point I would allow two exceptions from the persecution of law:

Killing in the first three months can be justified, for abovementioned reasons. I also think that a majority of women who do an abortion, are pretty sure about the feeling they are killing their unborn, and donīt feel like "hey, it wasnīt a human being, so what". The definition in existing laws is there for Iuris which has to forbid to kill for whatever reason (if it has to have any sense).

And killing of Euthanasian reasons (f.e. someone who is so old, machines in hospital, braindead, only physical pain, and agreement beforehand etc.) can be justified too.

Actually, in the second case, I think death can be a gift.

Iīm not so sure about the first case.

But anyway, in my opinion the mother has more right to decide about the life of her child than the state.

(The state, or existing laws canīt ever say "Ok, we allow you to kill your unborn in the first three months". So they had to formulate it differently. But thats not the point.)
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

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 07:34 AM.


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