I am so confused.

[Lila64]

of course, what was I thinking

 

[corianderstem]

I wonder if Carlos has ventured back to the thread, read a few pages and then backed slowly out of the thread saying "Oh, HELL, no."

 

[~BrightestStar~]

I feel the sound "Eeeep! " might be involved too.

 

[diamond]

"Quoted For Truth"

although sometimes I like to pretend it stands for "quite fucking true," because sometimes that feels more appropriate.

i thought it was the latter.

<>

 

[kafrun]

I don't really believe the question is serious. I think it's designed to create a distraction and focus attention away from the essentially evil nature of abortion.

I don't think abortion is evil.. I'm sure very few abortions were performed out of cold-blooded disregard for life.

Well the anti-choice typically want the deck stacked in their favor:

Don't provide condoms
Don't provide healthcare
Don't provide welfare
Don't give the Mother a choice even if it kills her
Don't let the child marry if it ends up being gay

I don't agree with any of these ideas. Not all pro-life people are woman-hating, sex-hating conservatives

i will say, though, that i don't like the idea of "punishing" someone for having sex by forcing them to carry a baby to term.

I don't think of it as punishing, just holding people accountable for their choices.

1 i also think that if a child is conceived through rape and/or incest, and if we are to take the view that all life is sacred or deserves a chance, then allowing abortions in those cases belies the belief that, deep down, it's not about the precious life of the child but about punishing women for having sex.

I really have a hard time stomaching the idea of abortion, but the reason I say a choice should be given in the case of rape and/or incest is that while I haven't experienced and can't imagine either, as a woman the very idea disturbs me enough and I don't know what kind of additional trauma carrying the child to term would hold for the victim. It has nothing to do with holding that life any less sacred or punishing a woman for having sex(again, I don't see the connection with hating women or sex).. I know it comes across as contradictory, it's just a gut feeling I have.

how would you feel if part of sex education involved ways of being sexually intimate but not risking pregnancy?

it would seem to me that pro-life activists (not you, just saying in general) would be quite relieved that oral sex, mutual masturbation, and even anal sex are increasingly part of the sexual vernacular. no one's going to get pregnant with any of those activities, so why not encourage fellatio and cunninlingus? after all, it's all about the life of the child, so let's make sure that mom doesn't get pregnant by making sure that dad's semen stays outside her body. that, to me, seems a very responsible way to have sex.

or is it really just about being anti-sex?

For me it's not about being anti-sex at all. I'm all for a wide range of sex education, including the physiological issues, options, alternatives, abstinence, etc. It's just (again) about a gut feeling I have about people taking responsibilty for their choices BEFORE getting into any kind of situatation. If sex for two people is for the sole purpose of pleasure and not conception(as it shouldn't have to be), if the fact remains that you both have functioning reproductive systems, you have to know the risks and act accordingly depending on your relationship, circumstances, health, etc.. It's not easy or straight-forward at all, but as we see here, neither is abortion.

I still genuinely believe that once conception has occured, it's about the woman's body AND the developing life AND the fact that it's the father's flesh and blood and he deserves a say.

(I'm rambling.)

It would promote greater harmony through laughter, and at this point, I'm just laughing in that scary hysterical way to avoid crying for the next two weeks.

I agree.

Ok, I'll start: "I'm from Canada, they think I'm slow, eh?"

No pro-life person has ever and I mean ever answered these questions to my satisfaction:

1. When we criminalize abortion, what is the sentence the woman will receive when she gets an abortion done illegally? How much jail time should your wives, daughters, cousins, friends get?

2. Doctors who perform illegal abortions - how will we prosecute them, what will their jail sentences be?

3. People who drive the woman to the doctor or support her actions in some concrete way in getting an illegal abortion will be aiding and abetting a serious crime. What will their jail sentences be?

I really don't know. I certainly don't want to see anyone throw in jail or any woman to potentially die from having an abortion in some back alley because it's illegal. I just think there has to be a better way..

 

[kafrun]

I wonder if Carlos has ventured back to the thread, read a few pages and then backed slowly out of the thread saying "Oh, HELL, no."

Nobody has illustrated their point with colourful crayons, so I'm going to venture to say yes.

 

[corianderstem]

Ok, I'll start: "I'm from Canada, they think I'm slow, eh?"

Oh man. That's one of my favorites.

 

[coolian2]

All participants in this thread deserve the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in Field of Excellence.

Wait, no.

 

[anitram]

I really don't know. I certainly don't want to see anyone throw in jail or any woman to potentially die from having an abortion in some back alley because it's illegal. I just think there has to be a better way..

See I asked those questions because I suspected this is the answer.

I would hazard a guess that most pro-life people want don't want to or can't imagine women or their husbands/boyfriends or doctors in jail. And this is the clear and obvious effect of criminalizing abortion, particularly if you take the position that life starts at conception. Then you are not talking about a fine and a slap on the wrist, you are talking about real, live people who will be sitting in jails for ___ years (nobody seems to be able to tell me).

So there is a kind of cognitive dissonance going on here and I feel like many who are pro-life haven't really thought much about it, if at all. And that's really the easy way out.

 

[martha]

So no one ever answered our questions.

They never do.

 

[kafrun]

See I asked those questions because I suspected this is the answer.

I would hazard a guess that most pro-life people want don't want to or can't imagine women or their husbands/boyfriends or doctors in jail. And this is the clear and obvious effect of criminalizing abortion, particularly if you take the position that life starts at conception. Then you are not talking about a fine and a slap on the wrist, you are talking about real, live people who will be sitting in jails for ___ years (nobody seems to be able to tell me).

So there is a kind of cognitive dissonance going on here and I feel like many who are pro-life haven't really thought much about it, if at all. And that's really the easy way out.

Jailing women, husbands/boyfriends, and abortion doctors would have far-reaching and devastating effects. Lives would be altered and I'm sure depression and suicide could be a risk after the fact.

The same is true for abortion. So what's the answer? I don't know..

 

[martha]

So what's the answer?

Keeping it safe and legal and providing education and access to birth control so it's only a last resort.

 

[kafrun]

Keeping it safe and legal and providing education and access to birth control so it's only a last resort.

Perhaps. I don't think it's always a last resort at the moment and that's my problem with it. Actually, I know it with my recent experience. It really makes me ill. Both sides ought to spend less time slamming each other as evil and more time discussing HOW we can encourage it as only ever a last resort.

 

[martha]

more time discussing HOW we can encourage it as only ever a last resort.

You'll find that the pro-choice people are so much more about pregnancy prevention than the anti-choice people.

 

[kafrun]

You'll find that the pro-choice people are so much more about pregnancy prevention than the anti-choice people.

I'm not most "anti-choice" people. I'm just someone who's experienced this on a very real level.

As I said before, I just have a different idea of at what point you have choices and at what point you have responsibilities.

 

[martha]

As I said before, I just have a different idea of at what point you have choices and at what point you have responsibilities.

I'm sure you do. I've known women who've gone through this when I wouldn't have made that choice either. But once we take it upon ourselves to think we have the right to limit others' choices, then lines start getting drawn, people start losing freedoms, and pretty soon it's all gone. Pretty soon women are forced to have their father's children, pretty soon access to birth control is limited.

Don't kid yourself; you may not be typically anti-choice, but those you may vote for usually are. Look deep into their positions. It isn't pretty.

 

[Angela Harlem]

No pro-life person has ever and I mean ever answered these questions to my satisfaction:

1. When we criminalize abortion, what is the sentence the woman will receive when she gets an abortion done illegally? How much jail time should your wives, daughters, cousins, friends get?

2. Doctors who perform illegal abortions - how will we prosecute them, what will their jail sentences be?

3. People who drive the woman to the doctor or support her actions in some concrete way in getting an illegal abortion will be aiding and abetting a serious crime. What will their jail sentences be?

And what of admin staff of facilities? Those who are on the payroll in some way, like cleaners of the facility? What kinds of sentences will they receive? Complicity is just not an issue the anti abortion camp think about. We're one of the few countries in the whole world who, for example, take complicity so far that we have the ability to prosecute victims of domestic violence who invite or allow their offender back into their home. Novel, no?

 

[kafrun]

I'm sure you do. I've known women who've gone through this when I wouldn't have made that choice either. But once we take it upon ourselves to think we have the right to limit others' choices, then lines start getting drawn, people start losing freedoms, and pretty soon it's all gone. Pretty soon women are forced to have their father's children, pretty soon access to birth control is limited.

Don't kid yourself; you may not be typically anti-choice, but those you may vote for usually are. Look deep into their positions. It isn't pretty.

I would debate whether choosing to terminate an unborn child is any less wrong than terminating one that's already born, but that's yet another point we could argue til we're blue in the face.

That's why I'm not a regular on FYM, it hurts the part of my brain that thinks

 

[anitram]

We're one of the few countries in the whole world who, for example, take complicity so far that we have the ability to prosecute victims of domestic violence who invite or allow their offender back into their home. Novel, no?

That's appalling. Have you not yet accepted the concept of battered woman syndrome and how that factors into decision making? Interesting.

We don't have anything like that here although there have been civil cases where children have sued their mothers for negligence when the mothers refused to leave abusive husbands. They're not often successful but they do exist.

 

[Angela Harlem]

That's appalling. Have you not yet accepted the concept of battered woman syndrome and how that factors into decision making? Interesting.

We don't have anything like that here although there have been civil cases where children have sued their mothers for negligence when the mothers refused to leave abusive husbands. They're not often successful but they do exist.

I didn't know what to think of it at first, but I've come around to it a great deal more. It's not due to being insensitive to the individual victims. It's actually a bit of a desperate attempt from the courts to get both victims and offenders to cease ignoring court orders, to accept the crime that it is. Scenario often involves the woman taking out restraining order against husband/boyfriend. The court approves it, encourages the woman to follow it through, obtain support, etc. Then she, in a later period of whatever emotional state, answers the phone or door and agrees to meet the offender. Statistically, the following period of contact will allow the abuse to resume. The police are yet again called to separate them and the cycle continues. From the court's perspective, this is not about only the individual woman it issued the order for originally. It is a blanket order the courts are allowed to issue to protect anyone and everyone who needs it. The idea of prosecuting women who ignore it is to address the very real problem of people not taking these things seriously. Opinion and perspective needs to change, we'd all agree. Domestic violence is to an extent still seen as something which should be kept behind closed doors so the couple can 'work it out'. We've got to change the idea that they are an order which can be dropped on whim, or ignored outright, if not for the women who are making bad choices, but for the women and girls who lack the capacity to make those bad choices, and are more powerless in their own decisions. It has to start with the weakest and cover from them up.

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

Right. I have to put my two cents in here.


I am pro-choice. If I ended up pregnant, I would want an abortion. That is my right.

I use birth control, and am somewhat infertile anyway due to an ovarian disorder, but if my some fluke or twist of fate I ended up pregnant anyway... I would not want the baby.

I don't like children. I would be a terrible mother. I am far too selfish and emotionally unstable. And before someone shouts that adoption is an option (and I won't even go into how messed up the adoption system can be in his country), I'll state that even if I didn't have to raise the child, I wouldn't want to have it, because I would invariably be passing on my own fucked up genes and anxiety/mental health problems to a child that does not deserve that.

To me, a fetus is not a baby until it can survive outside of its mother's body. Thus, I am against late-term abortion. But to me, early-term abortion isn't so much murder, as it is removal of something which is completely reliant upon the mother, and the mother should have the choice on what she wants to do with that.

What I do with my body is my choice, and the government should have absolutely no right to interfere with that. The only people allowed to get all up into my vagina-business are me, my boyfriend, and once a year, my gynocologist. The government can fuck off.

 

[~BrightestStar~]

I just realized something, haven't we sort have devolved from the original point of the thread?
Carlos, as I understand it, was seeking some analysis of the candidates stances on abortions. I assume he wanted more than a simple pro/anti-choice label, but some examples perhaps of their past behavior on the issue, whether what they have said coincides with that they do, stuff like that...

we, as interesting as it has been, have simply turned this into another yes/no abortion thread.

I don't know if Carlos has already found all the answers he seeks, but I thought I would throw this out there into our fiery debate.

 

[RedRocksU2]

This is what started my dilemma;
Born Alive Truth


Bri, all I wish is for Obama to be more direct with his stance. I am still reading as much as possible on the topic.
You are right, btw....I started this thread because I wanted to find out more about both candidates opinions on the issue. The "Born Alive" issue is something that opened up my eyes to the matter more than ever before.

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

I haven't the time to look completely thoroughly over that site at this moment, although certainly at first glance, it seems to be bent on painting Obama as being completely against saving babies who survive late-term abortions.

But if you look deeper on that site, at the actual transcripts of the senate meetings (which the site only links to with text stating that Obama spoke against the bill, but doesn't quote), you'll see that Obama was for doing everything medically necessary to save viable infants that survive late-term abortions, but against certain terminology in the bill that could threaten to abolition abortions completely in the future. You have to be careful in how you set up something like that, to avoid people deciding that ALL fetuses are viable, and that under the bill, abortions should be banned altogether.

The site seems to be being run by people that are deliberately overlooking the fine print.

 

[RedRocksU2]

Correct. I am aware of that. Thanks.

 

[ntalwar]

The website belongs to a Section 527 organization (like the Swiftboat one).

 

[Varitek]

II just think there has to be a better way..

I just want to reinforce what a few others have said: The better way is loads of comprehensive sex education, and accessible and affordable birth control. (e.g. if viagra is covered by insurance, the pill as well as alternative methods of birth control should also be covered, and should be even more affordable.)

 

[Varitek]

In adding to anitram's post, if a female were to get an abortion and in asking what the punishment would be were abortion made illegal, would only the woman be punished? What about the male?

Great question, and one that doesn't get brought up enough.

Seriously, men and women equally make the decision to have sex. And most often, if a condom is not used, it is due to pressure from the male. Then, the women bears the physical, emotional and financial responsibility of a child, the man can walk away if he so chooses. (Yes, there are courts and child support payments, but these things don't always work, and don't replace true paternal responsibility.) If the woman decides to have an abortion, I am sure it is she who would be responsible if it were made illegal. (Men could always claim they didn't know, when it's convenient for them, as they do now.)

Now, I'm all for individual women consulting with the father if they are going to have an abortion, although I believe that should be an individual choice and never, ever legally mandated. (If I were pregnant, I would talk to the father before having an abortion. But because I am at a point in life where there is no freakin' way I want kids, I not only use birth control, but I make a point of not sleeping with someone if I know they are anti-abortion.)

But if you think about how it is practically played out, a woman always ends up with all of the responsibility and consequences of a pregnancy and an abortion. The man can choose to share in this, but it isn't forced upon him as it is the woman.

 

[martha]

You have to be careful in how you set up something like that, to avoid people deciding that ALL fetuses are viable, and that under the bill, abortions should be banned altogether.

It's no accident when that happens; that's why and how they do things.

 

[anitram]

Carlos,

I think you're Catholic, and more Catholics than not (but not all) are voting McCain-because of the life issue.


Stick to your conscience brother.

God Bless,
<>

Wow, what a surprise that you're WRONG.

And you're not just WRONG you're pretty much DEAD WRONG.

Pew poll:

You can read about how wrong you are here.