Originally Posted By Mr X ***///Nobody except that woman should be the one making the decision to have that procedure performed on her body./// I disagree entirely since others, aside from the would be mom, are directly affected by abortion.*** Ridiculous. Whether someone is directly affected by something has nothing to do with whether they have any say in the medical decision of another. To take such a claim to the extreme, would you say that the mother of a rapist who forcibly impregnated a woman should be able to share in the decision of what is to be done, because the fetus in question is her grandchild?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I disagree entirely since others, aside from the would be mom, are directly affected by abortion.>> False. The only one DIRECTLY affected by the pregnancy is the woman who is pregnant. All other affects are INDIRECT. Until you've experienced an unwanted pregnancy, barboy, you cannot begin to fully comprehend the physical, emotional, and financial impact of that pregnancy. Men simply cannot place themselves into women's shoes and understand what this situation is like. They can try, but it cannot be achieved. Period. By controlling a woman's right to choose is to reduce her to the status of chattel. Taking away the basic right to control her uterus keeps her servile at the hands of those who would and could forcibly impregnate her. Women will never have equal status with men until the final decision to maintain or terminate a pregnancy rests solely in their hands.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Here's a novel idea: If you don't think you can care for a child...don't have sex. I know, I know...my expectations are far too high.*** It's a lot easier (and far more effective) to teach those sexually active folks how birth control works. Heck, you could even provide some free of charge!
Originally Posted By mele Men need to control where their sperm goes. After that, my body, my right to decide. barboy usually will throw out an obscure reference here to a woman doing something completely heinous to get pregnant or trick a man out of his semen. (Hey, you do like to pull out obscure situations in these debates, barboy! ;-) ) I'm talking in *most* pregnancies, a woman has the right to decide if she wants to keep the baby or not. I'm torn about a woman lying to get pregnant to control a man and/or his bank account. I still think that men need to control their sperm better but in some cases, there are women who will go to any lengths to have a man's baby. (Of course, they want to keep that baby for a payday, not abort it, so that argument is rather moot here). There will always be situations that are grey areas, where people cannot agree. As a whole, however, it should be the woman's right as she is the one who has to carry the baby.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Here's a novel idea: If you don't think you can care for a child...don't have sex.<< Let's not go there. I for one have accepted that some people will have a different outlook on this subject than I do. I don't necessarily believe that they are evil and I know that I won't be able to change their minds. And living in a pluralistic society means we have to compromise, as happened with the health care legislation regarding abortion.
Originally Posted By Mr X You call that compromise? They made things even MORE restrictive than before. That's not compromise, that's capitulation.
Originally Posted By barboy ///she along with her spouse, or parents and doctor are the ones who should make the decision to abort./// A medic should not be part of the decision team if the only issue at hand is a moral one. The medic should only offer ***MEDICAL*** advice. Once the medic delivers his/her medical opinion then he is out of the decision team, I say. Hypothetically if Wife and I were weighing whether to abort or not based on what is right, moral or spiritual I would talk with family/friends and possibly some church folk but I would not enlist moral advice from a medic looking to perform the procedure.
Originally Posted By Labuda Oh.My.God. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT of your entire community, barboy? Hate to break it to you, but abortion is a personal decision.
Originally Posted By barboy Labuda, you tell me to crawl back under a rock just because you say that I am "wrong" on the abortion issuse...... well this centipede thinks you are wrong too.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm for keeping abortion safe and legal, but I am also for sex education that is realistic, complete, and so thorough that abortion would be unnecessary in most cases (rape, incest, and the like being the exception). The problem we have is that many of the folks who are pro-life want to ignore the fact that people quite often have sex outside of marriage. Always have, always will. You can either accept that and address it through education, or pretend it doesn't exist and see the number of abortions escalate. I'm also in favor of people considering abortion having all the facts, of understanding completely what it is they are doing, and at least allowing them to consider putting the child up for adoption (and supporting them in that effort, too). Safe. Legal. Rare.
Originally Posted By Labuda I'm with you, 2oony. I may come across as more militant pro-choice than you, I think, but I'll attribute that to my ability get hot under the collar when facing willful ignorance.
Originally Posted By barboy Oh and Labuda, your assumption is very wrong. I was never for nor against this health care bill(law)..........I had/have no opinion either way about its passage since I never read its provisions. (I favor a public universal/far reaching system minus cosmetic procedure coverage and abortion funding, naturally)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I also take the unpopular position that young men ought to be much more the focus of sex education and held far more responsible. I know of so many situations where these guys get some action then head for the hills when a pregnancy (predictably) occurs. As a society, we've done a terrible job in that girls are assumed tramps while boys will be boys. Look at Tiger Woods. Imagine that his wife had slept with an equal number of men. Her life would be over. And this is how it always goes -- it's always on the women to be held to a standard of responsibility, while many men are not. If the political parties stopped arguing legal or not on abortion and put their combined efforts towards turning that around, perhaps the number of teen pregnancies and abortions would really drop. But I think both sides like abortion right where it is -- it's too valuable to have it any other way.
Originally Posted By barboy Hey Skinnerbox, getting to your #59 is the would be born ***DIRECLY*** affected? I think the would be born is directly affected since getting all cut up and sucked out of a warm environment is problably not much fun. Would you say that a husband who loses his would be son or daughter through abortion is not directly affected?? I say he would be directly affected. But if you like the term 'indirect' better then I can go with that too. 'Direct' or 'indirect' either way it still means the same thing in this context to me.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Bravo, FaMulan.<< Thanks, Labuda. As you can see, Female Sovereignty over her Own Body is a hot-button issue for me. And thanks for picking up the torch. Most Men have no clue what it is to have to even think about the law when they go for a medical procedure. Thanks to Mr. X and others who seem to have an understanding of this. >>Have you ever heard of the Draft?<< fkurucz, and that equates to safe and legal abortion how? Currently there is registration for the Draft, but no active drafting of people into the armed forces. If that happens, the new service members will have access to good and safe health care as well as training and education. Could they be deployed into a battle-zone? Yes, but they’d be able to do that knowing they’d have decent medical care if they’re injured. If the right to safe and legal abortion is ever removed from America’s Lawbooks, you will see the return of back-alley abortionists with little or no safety procedures to allow for survival of the procedure. There would be an increase in female mortality and injury due to the lack of good practices. 2oony, I couldn’t agree with you more in your views about sex education. As we learned from the Reagan-era drug policy, “Just Say No” does not work. “Abstinence Only” is a joke. Our children need to be taught the good, bad and ugly of sex in order for them to be able to stand up and say, “I’d rather not do that right now” and wait until later.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The thing I can't get past with abortion is that I don't think it's the government's place to force a woman to carry to term against her will - which, at bottom, is what making abortion illegal does. Safe, legal and rare is the best. And I totally agree that the more educated our young people are, the more rare it becomes.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Just for the record, the republican party is opposed to both - abortion AND education. Remember 'abstinence training'? It didn't work, but they don't care - it "fits" their moral framework of suppressing sex and suppressing knowledge.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Wow - so much here, so little time. I think some folks would freak with the sexual health tariffs and moves here in the UK. Each month I get our free condom distribution (to gay clubs and to clinics for all), Long Acting Reversable Contraception Stats, termination stats, STI stats, and teenage pregnancy stats. And as many of you know, before I started heading up the HIV prevention Programme in London, I spent most of my career in children services. What I will say is a holistic system works the most effectively, and the younger we engage with kids. If sex is painted as a fun thing, if taken responsibly, internationally, unwanted pregnancies and STIs are lower than an abstinance or negative campaign approach. Where abortions are carried out legally in the UK, we offer councilling and outreach to work with the women to understand why and if it can help others not need to pursue this course, or to stop them coming back. And the more liberal the policies on sexual health, the lower the child abuse rates. So my view is it should be down to each woman to decide. There are repercussions on the men, so it is disingenous to cast those asunder, however, as a liberal feminist, I do believe ultimately it is the woman's choice and us guys have to live with it. But I would fight tooth and nail if someone wanted to make it illegal. Having seen first hand the fostering system in the UK, and orphanages in Africa, India, and Romania, I think people need to take a big hard look. I understand the moral issues some of the religious folks have with it, I do. However, there are huge ethical dicotomies about most procedures. But when I see the state of mothers that carry there babies and don't want to, or the abortion refugees we cope with from Ireland, when I see their stats on child abuse and self harm, there is no doubt in my mind the option should be there. As for it being covered under social medicine, it has to be an all or nothing. Or what next, do we not treat smokers? Fatties? People with genetic conditions? Of course not, you are in or out. It is not pick and mix. And as far as medical economics are concerned, good quality sexual health policies and processes are cheaper than dealing with treatment further down the road. In the UK, a condom costs the NHS 9 cents. An STI screening $90. an abortion is about $700. However an HIV positive person costs $750,000 to treat for the duration of their life. A maternity delivery is about $20,000 if everything goes smoothly. Each Child that goes into fostering costs about $750,000 a year. And sadly 1 in 5 end up in prison or prematurely dead.
