Question Political Spectrum

[prophecygrrl]

I agree with all of this except that women who drink/smoke/do drugs while pregnant should not face the consequences. If the woman makes the decision to carry the baby to term, I believe they also make the choice to take care of it while it's in the womb. Babies can become permanently disfigured and disabled from their mothers drinking/smoking/doing drugs while they're in the womb. Once you decide to carry that baby to term, you choose to treat it as you would a living being because you intend to make it a living being. Choosing to carry a pregnancy to term AND choosing to do something that is well known as a pregnancy "no-no" is abuse in my book. That's consciously choosing to hurt the baby.... and by that I mean you intend that baby to live with the consequences of your actions after you give birth to it. In my opinion, you should too. You've permanently damaged another life (and it's a life because you've chosen to make it such by choosing to carry it to term)

I'm not saying they shouldn't face the consequences at all. I'm saying that pursuing legal means to do so is unreasonable. It could very easily lead to a legal slippery slope that IS gender biased. Under that same logic, men who smoke around their pregnant wife could be brought to trial and imprisoned for endangerment or have their children taken away because cigarette smoke is harmful. Men who abandon their pregnant wives to raise their unborn child on her own could be as well, considering that they're also adversely affecting the baby, just indirectly. Situations are all very different, and to set a legal standard when a) the line between conscious harm and personal rights has not been drawn and b) when the question of whether the fetus is considered a life is disputed.

It's obviously wrong to consciously hurt an unborn child that way if you have every intention of birthing it and raising it, but those consequences should be personal- not legally punishable.

Also, in the case of substance abuse, it's a little dismissive to say that it's full-on conscious responsibility. That's ignoring the possibility that in many cases, issues of alcoholism and addiction are not simply bad habits, but issues that could be brought by genetic predisposition and heavy external pressure.

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

The discussion has been fairly skewed towards women so far, but that's merely because it's difficult to talk about a foetus in the context of a man! Men should not have sex if they are not prepared to face the consequences either, of course. And while abortion is a legal thing, it's of course going to be the woman's choice. It would be nice if there was a way to make it a joint choice between the parents, but that's obviously not going to work in many, many cases. In the end, the woman carries the baby and so it's up to her to make that choice.

Men should definitely be required to do everything they can to look after a child they bring into the world. But it is a biological fact that they do not have to carry the baby in their womb for 9 months prior to it being born. It just is. Nobody here has defined a woman by her womb.

If it were possible for me to get pregnant, for example, I would take that very seriously. And if I were to become pregnant, I'd put that innocent life above my own standard of living for nine months. I see life as more important than that. Perhaps it's unfair that women are the only gender with the potential for pregnancy, but - to me - that isn't a good enough reason to end the life of an innocent. I don't see at all how that is a misogynist view.

Also, I'd like to clarify what I was saying before about pre-natal negligence. I'm not talking about having a glass of wine, or continuing to go to work, or anything legal like that. It's the things that - if the child were to be born - would equate to abuse that a woman should (theoretically) be held responsible for. Taking illegal drugs or getting absolutely drunk fairly often being the most obvious (accounting perhaps for diminished responsibility where severe addiction is the main cause, of course). You wouldn't inject a child with heroin, you wouldn't give a baby alcohol. That's what the issue is.

Maybe I was unclear, it was about 2 in the morning where I am when I wrote that post. The sexism/misogyny I was talking about is that a lot of anti-abortion logic puts undue reponsibility onto the mother. It assumes that her problems are her own fault without accounting for institutional weaknesses and overt misogyny, and any responsibility of other people is sublimated because of a "life" at stake. Yet if unwanted pregnancy is her problem alone, why aren't decisions about that said problem ALSO considered entirely hers? In taking away choice, you take away autonomy. Taking away autonomy from a marginalized group solely because of their sex? What would you call that?

You attribute responsibility, but not respect. That, at the very least, is unfair.

Also, as a man, you do not share the lived experiences of women. You can try to put yourself in a woman's position, you can read about our experiences, you can have an opinion, but you are not a woman living in a society that is BUILT on male privilege. It is privileged and inappropriate to equate "what you would do" with "what every woman should do" because again, fundamentally, you do not share the lived experiences of women.

If you believe a woman is capable of choosing life every single time regardless of her situation, doesn't that mean that the concept of choice IS important? That women can make that choice for themselves? That's another issue I don't understand. I think most pro-life and pro-choice supporters can agree that abortion is not a desirable choice to make.

There are better ways of lowering the incidences of abortion than forcing one option on people.

I'm pro-choice. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It does not mean that I want women to have abortions all day, everrrrry day. I want fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions just as much as the next person. And while abortion is not ALWAYS a life-changing decision for a woman, many (and perhaps MOST) times it IS. No one should have to make that choice, but the reality is that they DO have to. Working towards fewer unwanted pregnancies, having comprehensive sex education for teens, access to birth control or condoms, etc. are much better alternatives than outlawing abortion entirely.

Also, take note that outlawing abortion is DANGEROUS. It means women can't have LEGAL ones, not that they can't have ones at all. And illegal, unsafe abortions kill WOMEN, whose lives and personhood are NOT disputed. Ignoring that for the sake of a "life" IS straight up misogyny. Pro-life does not save women's lives. It puts their lives secondary or equal to a being with disputed personhood.

 

[Kean]

Joan the Vampire Slayer agrees: Speaking of, how do you feel about the recent bailout in Ireland? I've been hearing about it on the news.

Infuriated.

I actually couldn't begin to explain how despaired I am about the state of the country right now. The bailout is only symptom of a general apathy and greed that has sunk its nails into the country.

We basically need a total overhaul and restructuring of our political and system that clears house of the nepotism and cronyism that has run rife. I mean we didn't even get a choice about the bailout, we were just told it was happening. A government that will not last more than two months has signed on to a plan that will last at least 4 years. None of the opposition parties have been privy to negotiations either. Even the rate of interest that we have to pay back on is far too high for us to be able to withstand. It's just ineptitude abound.

We will have a general election early next year but given the lackluster quality that fills the opposition too, I'm honestly worried.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

I work as a youth counselor, and I work everyday with low-income, at-risk young mothers who are desperately trying to get their lives back on track after having a baby too young. Many of them dropped out afer becoming pregnant. After being dumped by the dead-beat father of thier children, they're on their own with no skills and even less prospects for supporting themselves and their children. Many of these girls come from religious families who discourage abortion. In this state, you can get an abortion without parental consent, but if you're a young girl with no money it's a moot point. And the few agencies that do offer affordable birth control have had their budgets cut so drastically that they're asking for public donations to stay afloat. I see these girls struggle and I can't help but think how much easier it had been for them if they had waited to have kids.

It's easy to say that teens should not have sex if they're not ready. But it's easier said then done. The reality is that they will have sex, there is nothing we can do. They will get pregnant. Should a mistake they made at 14 dictate their whole lives? Ruin their chances at success?

I dream of a world where abortion is not a dirty word, and where women do not need to feel shame at that choice.

I am pro-choice but I am not anti-child or pro-abortion. Pro-choice people are not unfeeling, heartless bastards. We just simply believe that a woman has a right to her own body, and if she does not think that she can provide for a child, she should not be forced to have one.

I guess my point is that if a woman says she does not want to have a child for whatever reason, that should be respected. My mother is a social worker and a foster parent and she once worked on a case involving a mother who was arrested for cutting her child's feet with razors so she wouldn't leave the house when she left her to work. Her child was tramatized. That same woman had said she did not want a child, but her religious family told her if she did have the child aborted they would disown her.

What's worse; allowing a child to live and to be brought into a life that they will be ill-cared for and miserable, or allowing them to die in the womb and prevent their suffering?

Also, to the men here who oppose abortion; what gives you the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies? I am asking this honestly and without spite.

Not to mention, as prophecygirrl pointed out, that outlawing abortion would be a massive health issue. It is dangerous. Even if it was made illegal, women would still get them by unskilled doctors. One of the big reasons women fought so hard to get it legalized was to save the many women who were dying getting the procedure done by unskilled and unlicensed doctors.

There are better ways of lowering the incidences of abortion than forcing one option on people.

Thank you. Like, for instance, increasing the availability and lowering the cost of birth control, and educating the public on its correct use? 😉

Also, take note that outlawing abortion is DANGEROUS. It means women can't have LEGAL ones, not that they can't have ones at all. And illegal, unsafe abortions kill WOMEN, whose lives and personhood are NOT disputed. Ignoring that for the sake of a "life" IS straight up misogyny. Pro-life does not save women's lives. It puts their lives secondary or equal to a being with disputed personhood.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Maybe I was unclear, it was about 2 in the morning where I am when I wrote that post. The sexism/misogyny I was talking about is that a lot of anti-abortion logic puts undue reponsibility onto the mother. It assumes that her problems are her own fault without accounting for institutional weaknesses and overt misogyny, and any responsibility of other people is sublimated because of a "life" at stake. Yet if unwanted pregnancy is her problem alone, why aren't decisions about that said problem ALSO considered entirely hers? In taking away choice, you take away autonomy. Taking away autonomy from a marginalized group solely because of their sex? What would you call that?

You attribute responsibility, but not respect. That, at the very least, is unfair.

Also, as a man, you do not share the lived experiences of women. You can try to put yourself in a woman's position, you can read about our experiences, you can have an opinion, but you are not a woman living in a society that is BUILT on male privilege. It is privileged and inappropriate to equate "what you would do" with "what every woman should do" because again, fundamentally, you do not share the lived experiences of women.

If you believe a woman is capable of choosing life every single time regardless of her situation, doesn't that mean that the concept of choice IS important? That women can make that choice for themselves? That's another issue I don't understand. I think most pro-life and pro-choice supporters can agree that abortion is not a desirable choice to make.

There are better ways of lowering the incidences of abortion than forcing one option on people.

I'm pro-choice. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It does not mean that I want women to have abortions all day, everrrrry day. I want fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions just as much as the next person. And while abortion is not ALWAYS a life-changing decision for a woman, many (and perhaps MOST) times it IS. No one should have to make that choice, but the reality is that they DO have to. Working towards fewer unwanted pregnancies, having comprehensive sex education for teens, access to birth control or condoms, etc. are much better alternatives than outlawing abortion entirely.

Also, take note that outlawing abortion is DANGEROUS. It means women can't have LEGAL ones, not that they can't have ones at all. And illegal, unsafe abortions kill WOMEN, whose lives and personhood are NOT disputed. Ignoring that for the sake of a "life" IS straight up misogyny. Pro-life does not save women's lives. It puts their lives secondary or equal to a being with disputed personhood.

Ok, first, I just want to say that although I may be male, there have been two other people in this topic who have expressed views similar to mine, and they have both been women. Just remember that. I'm not going to say any more on that subject.

I have never said that unwanted pregnancy is the woman's problem alone. However, the choices she makes can only be made by her. She has to decide what the life at stake is worth.

Now I've already said in this topic that I would not call myself pro-life, so I'm pretty aware of the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion. Nobody wants the abortion rate to be high. I completely agree with all of the measures you have mentioned in reducing the unwanted pregnancy rate. Without an unwanted pregnancy you don't have to ever face the choice of termination. The problem I have is with the justification for abortion that the foetus is not alive, or is not a person. It is, and I've stated my reasons for saying this previously.

I've also not addressed the matter of legality. What I have said so far has purely been on a moral/rights based level. You are entirely right in saying that making abortion illegal will drive it underground - and has done in the past. Stories of backstreet abortion are horrific, and I would never want that. A balance has to be found, and I'm not going to pretend I know where that is. All I'm saying is that the choice that is being made is between a life, and something that is not a life. It really is as simple as that.

I have nothing but respect for women who have to make that choice understanding all the true implications of it. But it is clear that a lot of people don't understand. 33% of women who had an abortion in England and Wales in 2008 had already had one or more in the past. 1 in 3. Now, there is probably a tiny percentage of that who have found themselves at the end of extremely unfortunate circumstances, and have seen no other option, and I'm not judging them. But 1/3. That is a huge number. And this is down to lack of education, and lack of respect for what abortion actually is.

The concept of choice is important. But so often, the choice is too easily made. And I simply cannot see how someone can choose to end a life like that. Now, that's not saying that I think abortion should be illegal. That comes with a whole other set of problems, and seems to do much more harm than good. But it doesn't mean it should be readily available either. And it doesn't mean that the very choice itself should be treated as sacrosanct.

---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------

I work as a youth counselor, and I work everyday with low-income, at-risk young mothers who are desperately trying to get their lives back on track after having a baby too young. Many of them dropped out afer becoming pregnant. After being dumped by the dead-beat father of thier children, they're on their own with no skills and even less prospects for supporting themselves and their children. Many of these girls come from religious families who discourage abortion. In this state, you can get an abortion without parental consent, but if you're a young girl with no money it's a moot point. And the few agencies that do offer affordable birth control have had their budgets cut so drastically that they're asking for public donations to stay afloat. I see these girls struggle and I can't help but think how much easier it had been for them if they had waited to have kids.

I dream of a world where abortion is not a dirty word, and where women do not need to feel shame at that choice.

I am pro-choice but I am not anti-child or pro-abortion. Pro-choice people are not unfeeling, heartless bastards. We just simply believe that a woman has a right to her own body, and if she does not think that she can provide for a child, she should not be forced to have one.

I guess my point is that if a woman says she does not want to have a child for whatever reason, that should be respected. My mother is a social worker and a foster parent and she once worked on a case involving a mother who was arrested for cutting her child's feet with razors so she wouldn't leave the house when she left her to work. Her child was tramatized. That same woman had said she did not want a child, but her religious family told her if she did have the child aborted they would disown her.

What's worse; allowing a child to live and to be brought into a life that they will be ill-cared for and miserable, or allowing them to die in the womb and prevent their suffering?

Also, to the men here who oppose abortion; what gives you the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies? I am asking this honestly and without spite.

Not to mention, as prophecygirrl pointed out, that outlawing abortion would be a massive health issue. It is dangerous. Even if it was made illegal, women would still get them by unskilled doctors. One of the big reasons women fought so hard to get it legalized was to save the many women who were dying getting the procedure done by unskilled and unlicensed doctors.



Thank you. Like, for instance, increasing the availability and lowering the cost of birth control, and educating the public on its correct use? 😉



I couldn't agree more.

Of course, there is no denying that this isn't a perfect world, and that unwanted pregnancy can cause utter misery. It's also extremely apparent that there is so often no infrastructure or support systems there for people who find themselves in such a situation, and that's deplorable. I think I've answered the points about legality above

About why I get a say? It's because I'm not talking about what a woman does with her body, I'm talking about what happens when an innocent life is created. I understand completely that you feel that a woman should have the right to choose what goes on in her own body, I'm simply offering the counter-point that a child has the right to be alive. The rights, unfortunately, clash in the most horrible and undesirable way.

I just set the very, absolute baseline at the right to life. I'm not saying that someone who is pro-choice doesn't value that right extremely highly, but you simply cannot say that you hold it inviolable. I think that's the difference between the two camps. There's a tiny, tiny difference in it, but that's what divides.

 

[Tome]

About why I get a say? It's because I'm not talking about what a woman does with her body, I'm talking about what happens when an innocent life is created. I understand completely that you feel that a woman should have the right to choose what goes on in her own body, I'm simply offering the counter-point that a child has the right to be alive. The rights, unfortunately, clash in the most horrible and undesirable way.

This is the only thing that keeps me from being entirely pro-choice. There is ANOTHER life at stake. It's not only about the woman. I still stand with what I said though, that it should be up to the woman carrying this new life to decide. But, it's a thin line between what is right and wrong.

I'm actually going to ask the women here who are pro-choice, do you consider it right to refuse this new life to be born due to problems/troubles that the fetus has no control on whatsoever? Should that be put in the backseat for the woman's concerns?

Hopefully I don't hurt anyone's feelings with these questions, because it is not my goal. I'm just curious to have others opinions on this. 🙂

 

[mayfever]

I've been trying hard not to get into the abortion debate, but I feel I do want to say something after all.

1) We can't know for certain when an embryo stops being a lump of cells and becomes a foetus, that is entirely a matter of belief. I agree though that 24 weeks (almost 6 months!!! another month and it could be born and survive!) as is the legal limit for abortion in the UK is way too late. It's three months in Germany and even that is cutting it a bit close in my opinion.

2) It is not natural for a mother to kill her unborn, and if she does it anyway (for whatever reason), the consequences will be momentous; some women never fully recover. It is therefore vital that she receives professional counsel both before and after the procedure so she can make an informed decision.

3) Fundamentally, a woman should have the right to decide what's going to happen to her own body. Having sex doesn't equal being prepared to be a parent (that's the Just Say No logic which is so bigot that I can't even begin to express how much it makes me want to heave).

4) I'm not at all sure what I think about the right to abort disabled or sick foeti until after the legal limit for "normal" abortions. Once they have passed this, their right as a human being / person has been acknowledged, and denying them that would, for me, come close to euthanasia. This is something I feel quite strongly about; we cannot create live, so we can't take it away. That is God's prerogative.

All that said, if I got pregnant and it was unplanned (which it would be because I'm not planning on having kids any time soon), I still wouldn't get an abortion even though I appreciate having the right to. I'm 25 and I do want kids eventually, and while having one a little earlier than planned would definitely force me to change a lot of plans I have made for the next couple of years, it would not kill me or ruin my life. Personally, I do believe that human life begins at conception, and I don't think I could do it. But then again, I'm almost done with uni, my parents would certainly help me and all in all, I live in a very supportive environment. I'm fully aware that not every girl is that lucky, and I refuse to assume a stance where I tell others what to do or not to do with their lives.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Having sex doesn't equal being prepared to be a parent (that's the Just Say No logic which is so bigot that I can't even begin to express how much it makes me want to heave).

I just want to say, that having sex should equal being prepared to be a parent. However, there are so, so many ways now to responsibly have sex without pregnancy occurring, so this isn't about just say no. It's about doing it responsibly and taking precautions. (And I'm talking about both men and women here.)

 

[VisionGirl]

I'm actually going to ask the women here who are pro-choice, do you consider it right to refuse this new life to be born due to problems/troubles that the fetus has no control on whatsoever? Should that be put in the backseat for the woman's concerns?

I don't consider it right to tell another woman what to do with her body. I don't presume to know what's right for her, even if maybe I have been in similar situations. Every person is different. I had an unexpected 4th pregnancy. I am a married woman with a stable, financially secure home. I have excellent family support & a flexible career. I loved/love my baby, but it was a stressful pregnancy for me, I won't lie. I wasn't sure how I would handle 3 children (3 boys at that) while working, being of "advanced maternal age", and grieving the death of my father. It hasn't been easy, but that's life. I can't imagine what a woman would choose if she had been my age, was a single mother, worked at a minimum wage job & lived in substandard housing, & could barely feed & support the children she already had. Not my body, not my pregnancy, not my choice.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Ok, first, I just want to say that although I may be male, there have been two other people in this topic who have expressed views similar to mine, and they have both been women. Just remember that. I'm not going to say any more on that subject.

I have never said that unwanted pregnancy is the woman's problem alone. However, the choices she makes can only be made by her. She has to decide what the life at stake is worth.

My post wasn't only directed at you. 🙂 The male privilege part was, but the rest of it was largely in response to all the other anti-abortion rhetoric that has been on this thread. Some of which, before a mod stepped in, was extremely disrespectful towards women and DID treat unwanted pregnancy with a heavy dose of sexism.
Saying that a woman can't have an abortion because she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place if she didn't consider the consequences? That is a gender biased statement, variations of which have been argued as truth on this thread.

The sexism is very obvious there- it takes two to conceive. While the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are for the woman to bear alone and it's true that only she can make the final decision on whether to keep it (that is, ignoring the severe social pressure, bullying, and harassment that women who consider abortion very often are subject to), that statement draws the point of responsibility at the time of initial sexual activity- a time in which, except obviously in cases of rape, a man and a woman BOTH participate in.

I also didn't mean to imply that your opinions are unfounded for the sole reason that you are male. The fact that you are a man still matters, however, when you speak about issues of women's health. The shared opinion of several women doesn't change that.

I have nothing but respect for women who have to make that choice understanding all the true implications of it. But it is clear that a lot of people don't understand. 33% of women who had an abortion in England and Wales in 2008 had already had one or more in the past. 1 in 3. Now, there is probably a tiny percentage of that who have found themselves at the end of extremely unfortunate circumstances, and have seen no other option, and I'm not judging them. But 1/3. That is a huge number. And this is down to lack of education, and lack of respect for what abortion actually is.

Oi. :/ I want to like your post for respecting women and wanting to also reduce unwanted pregnancies, I really do. But these are very classist and judgmental arguments. Abortion is much more heavily concentrated among working class and poor women and minorities than it is among middle to upper class white women. Your statistics on women who have more than one abortion do not provide the proper context in which women have abortions in the first place. While it is true that lack of education is a terrible reality and that it contributes to the problem of unwanted pregnancy, it does not indicate a "lack of respect for what abortion actually is". No, lack of education, poverty, systemic/institutional oppression are also HUGE parts of why women choose abortion multiple times. It is not simply a lack of respect, and when I say that argument is classist, I'm referring to your assumption that it is.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I also didn't mean to imply that your opinions are unfounded for the sole reason that you are male. The fact that you are a man still matters, however, when you speak about issues of women's health. The shared opinion of several women doesn't change that.

Ok, I get that, but what you also have to concede is that it's not only an issue of woman's health. It's also an issue of a child's right to life, and they can't speak for themselves.

Oi. :/ I want to like your post for respecting women and wanting to also reduce unwanted pregnancies, I really do. But these are very classist and judgmental arguments. Abortion is much more heavily concentrated among working class and poor women and minorities than it is among middle to upper class white women. Your statistics on women who have more than one abortion do not provide the proper context in which women have abortions in the first place. While it is true that lack of education is a terrible reality and that it contributes to the problem of unwanted pregnancy, it does not indicate a "lack of respect for what abortion actually is". No, lack of education, poverty, systemic/institutional oppression are also HUGE parts of why women choose abortion multiple times. It is not simply a lack of respect, and when I say that argument is classist, I'm referring to your assumption that it is.

Sorry, I actually think I agree with you here but I may have expressed myself badly. The lack of respect for abortion that I mentioned usually stems directly from the lack of education, infrastructure and support available for people who are making this choice. These factors absolutely need to be addressed.

 

[mayfever]

I just want to say, that having sex should equal being prepared to be a parent. However, there are so, so many ways now to responsibly have sex without pregnancy occurring, so this isn't about just say no. It's about doing it responsibly and taking precautions. (And I'm talking about both men and women here.)

But it does not. Even if you take proper precautions, there is still a risk. Condoms can burst, you might vomit or have diarrhoea within 12 hours after taking the pill etc etc.

Most kids these days (gosh, I feel old) start being sexually active around 16, I'd say. (I did, anyway. And I was very careful to protect myself, and I still had a few scares.) Would you have been prepared to raise a kid at 16? I most definitely wouldn't have. Remembering to swallow a pill every morning, or covering dangly bits in a piece of clingfilm doesn't necessarily equal readiness for parenthood.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

But it does not. Even if you take proper precautions, there is still a risk. Condoms can burst, you might vomit or have diarrhoea within 12 hours after taking the pill etc etc.

Most kids these days (gosh, I feel old) start being sexually active around 16, I'd say. (I did, anyway. And I was very careful to protect myself, and I still had a few scares.) Would you have been prepared to raise a kid at 16? I most definitely wouldn't have. Remembering to swallow a pill every morning, or covering dangly bits in a piece of clingfilm doesn't necessarily equal readiness for parenthood.

Of course, it can never be 100%. But the chances of that happening are extremely small. It's extremely unfortunate if it does, but people should be aware of the fact that it can before they have sex. Another issue that's down to education. This is why I hate abstinence only, and I want to be clear that's not what I'm trying to say.

However unfortunate it is, I don't see abortion as an answer. The child can be put up for adoption if the parents feel it is impossible for them to care for it. Killing them instead is just a non-option for me.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Very firmly leftist/socialist here. Also anti-gun and anti-marriage (gay, straight, whatever - IMO, the state should recognize none of them, which then is equality for everyone, too 😉).

As for the abortion debate... well, pregnancy is not a topic that in any way plays a role in my life. From a theoretical viewpoint, though, I think that denying women access to legal and medically safe abortions will create more suffering than a "pro-choice" stance, so from a pragmatic/utilitarian viewpoint, "pro-choice" is the way I'd swing. Yes, it's best of all if you take care not to get pregnant in the first place if you don't want a child, but if it happens anyway (and it will happen anyway, tons and tons of times, for as long as humans will walk this planet), I think a dead fetus (who might or might not be a person) is a smaller price to pay than the risk of several ruined lives of born people (who definitely are persons by anyone's definition). IMO, a child is infinitely better off never having been born than getting forced to live unwanted/unloved. (Besides, assuming that every baby wants to be born is a pretty far fetch, to me. Were the fetuses able of an informed choice about the situation they'd be born into, I do think a sizeable minority would ask to be aborted.) Quality of life is much more important to me than life, itself; I do not see life as an absolute value per se, so I don't have a problem saying that I'm certainly not "pro-life".

 

[Wishing Oceans]

Of course, it can never be 100%. But the chances of that happening are extremely small. It's extremely unfortunate if it does, but people should be aware of the fact that it can before they have sex. Another issue that's down to education. This is why I hate abstinence only, and I want to be clear that's not what I'm trying to say.

However unfortunate it is, I don't see abortion as an answer. The child can be put up for adoption if the parents feel it is impossible for them to care for it. Killing them instead is just a non-option for me.

Well, that's not really taking into account the abortions that occur because a woman has discovered that her to-be baby will have a birth defect (one that would substantially lower their quality of life) or has a fatal "problem" (per se) that would kill the baby very soon after birth.

That's also why I'm not sure if I agree with the '03 Ban on Partial Birth Abortions. Why bring a baby all the way to term if you know that it's going to die very soon afterwords?

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Well, that's not really taking into account the abortions that occur because a woman has discovered that her to-be baby will have a birth defect (one that would lower their quality of life) or has a fatal "problem" (per se) that would kill the baby very soon after birth.

That's also why I'm not sure if I agree with the '03 Ban on Partial Birth Abortions. Why bring a baby all the way to term if you know that it's going to die very soon afterwords?

It's not, but I've addressed those in previous posts. I'm not going to argue that there are some medical grounds that make abortion necessary. I'm not sold on birth defects, but I can understand termination in the second case. It's pretty much the same as turning off life support.

 

[Wishing Oceans]

It's not, but I've addressed those in previous posts. I'm not going to argue that there are some medical grounds that make abortion necessary. I'm not sold on birth defects, but I can understand termination in the second case. It's pretty much the same as turning off life support.

Ok, I'll check some of the older posts. 🙂 My gosh, there are a lot of posts in this thread!

It's been very fun debating with you guys. 🙂

 

[prophecygrrl]

Ok, I get that, but what you also have to concede is that it's not only an issue of woman's health. It's also an issue of a child's right to life, and they can't speak for themselves.

GAHHHHHHHH my internet crashed as I was typing up my response. Which was pretty lengthy 🙁 Damn it.

Anyway...

I accept that you believe a fetus is a person with a right to life. I obviously disagree, but that's not the point.

Yes, I think there is a legitimate question of personhood in a fetus. I know my answer and my opinion; However, I'm not going to try to argue that it isn't a person for the sake of this conversation. I don't think I can ever convince you of that it isn't, the same way you could not convince me that it is. That said, abortion is still a woman's issue. Why? The possibility of personhood is important to discuss and note, but that absolutely does not erase the oppression that many women face on the subject of abortion and the proposed rights of fetuses.

(Forgive my Ameri-centrism here in this next bit...I have to admit I'm horribly ignorant of how abortion is handled in other countries.)

The belief that a fetus is a person is one that much of the general public shares in the U.S., and in some states, the people in government/important positions of power believe this as well. It's true that legally nationwide, a fetus is not recognized as a person. But among different states over here? Women are punished on the logic that it IS a person. I can see from several of your posts that you regret the reduction of women's rights when it comes to abortion. I share the same concern, and that's why I'm personally pro-choice. My problem is when the proposed right to life of the fetus is often thought to be higher than the right of the woman and her personal health and safety. That's not fair at all, even if the fetus's proposed personhood is not up to debate. In a relatively extreme case, for one state earlier this year, the government actually passed a law that criminalized miscarriage. Does that sound reasonable to you? It certainly does not to me, but that law was passed on the logic that a fetus is of equal or higher standing than the woman whose womb it is in. Your view that a fetus is of equal standing manifests in the legal subjugation of women, and that's why I consider abortion primarily a women's issue, not an issue of right to life.

Sorry, I actually think I agree with you here but I may have expressed myself badly. The lack of respect for abortion that I mentioned usually stems directly from the lack of education, infrastructure and support available for people who are making this choice. These factors absolutely need to be addressed.

Yup, those factors abso-freaking-lutely need to be addressed. We're agreed on that. But fact is, it's not addressed. It's disregarded SO often on the issue of abortion AND in mainstream politics. Class issues, lack of education, lack of infrastructure, and race issues are not considered. They are systemic problems of society that arise because fundamental issues of privilege for dominant groups are ignored. And as long as they ARE ignored, not just in the abortion debate but in mainstream political arenas as well, the right to choose needs to remain intact for women who suffer for it.
That is not the sole reason choice is important, but it's a damn big one. 😛
------------------
I'd also like to mention social and sexual oppression when it comes to abortion. Looking at the abortion debate in this thread earlier, it's sad to see that the presence of sexism in much of anti-abortion rhetoric.

Generally, sexist attitudes against abortion are very prevalent, no matter where in the economic or social spectrum you are. This is especially true in the U.S., where abortions are considered shameful, female sexuality is policed, women who consider abortion are called 'sluts' or worse, and young girls are kicked out of their homes or disowned for having abortions or being pregnant. They are harassed and bullied at every turn and made to feel guilty, ashamed, and depressed.
I just want to point out for a second that sexually oppressive attitudes against women are MUCH more harmful than people commonly realize. I'm privileged and lucky enough to live in an relatively affluent community in which for most people, unwanted pregnancy does not become an issue of not being able to afford a baby, and illegal, unsafe abortions do not happen because women do not have legal access to or cannot afford them. But I am also a seventeen year old girl, and I've seen firsthand that sexual oppression has a lot of power when it comes to abortion as well. I know several of my teenage peers who have aborted their pregnancies in very, very unsafe ways because they're terrified of speaking up. This is a PROBLEM. They are terrified of actual ABUSE. And for what? For making a mistake. Or one case, not even being at fault- the condom broke, birth control failed, what have you. The point is, they put themselves at HUGE risk, and once again, this is why I'm calling abortion primarily a women's health issue. These are patriarchal, sexist attitudes that target women and pose severe risks to their personal health, in many instances resulting in injury or death. They are attitudes that specifically have to do with gender bias against women.

ETA: here is a link to the criminalized miscarriage case I mentioned. I should probably clarify that the intent was to stop illegal, unsafe abortions (but out of fear for the fetus, not the safety of the mother), and the main criticism of it is that the law gives vast power to the state to decide what is an attempt at illegal, home abortion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01abortion.html

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

IMO, a child is infinitely better off never having been born than getting forced to live unwanted/unloved. (Besides, assuming that every baby wants to be born is a pretty far fetch, to me. Were the fetuses able of an informed choice about the situation they'd be born into, I do think a sizeable minority would ask to be aborted.) Quality of life is much more important to me than life, itself; I do not see life as an absolute value per se, so I don't have a problem saying that I'm certainly not "pro-life".

Right here, you've said exactly what I believe but was afraid to say.

I have seen the damage that parents can inflict on their unwanted children. It's awful. It is both selfish and irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you can not adequately provide for it. Period.

Woman fought very, very hard for the right to choose. If that right was ever seriously challenged, you can bet I'd be on the front lines fighting with tooth and nail to keep it legal.

If I were to get pregnant now, I could provide for my child. But so many can't, and it's not fair to say that they are somewhat "wrong" or immoral because they would choose to end their child's life for the child's own sake. Or for the mother's, for that matter. The mother is worth more then her unborn fetus, imo.

Abortion is such a deeply political and emotional issue. I wish it weren't, but to be honest, this is one of the most civil and mature conversations I've ever had on this topic.

Just goes to show show cool everyone on here is. I knew there was a reason I still came on here. 😉

 

[prophecygrrl]

I'm actually going to ask the women here who are pro-choice, do you consider it right to refuse this new life to be born due to problems/troubles that the fetus has no control on whatsoever? Should that be put in the backseat for the woman's concerns?

Hopefully I don't hurt anyone's feelings with these questions, because it is not my goal. I'm just curious to have others opinions on this. 🙂

I agree that there are *some* ableist arguments made in the abortion debate when it comes to things like Down Syndrome or other disabilities that can be detected in the womb. Disabled should not be synonymous with inferior or unwanted.

However, most of the ableist arguments that I've heard are only worded in problematic ways. That's not an excuse for ableism, but it is a clarification: most of the people who would consider aborting a fetus with disabilities or birth defects do not actually think of the unborn child as inferior or undesirable.

There are so many other very legitimate arguments to aborting a fetus with disabilities to spare needless suffering. Tay-Sachs, for example, another condition that can be detected while the fetus is still in the womb, in which the child will become blind, deaf, unable to swallow on their own, in constant suffering, and most likely dead before the age of four or five, is one such instance. I'm not trying to imply that only conditions as extreme as Tay Sachs are acceptable, however. Aborting or not aborting a fetus that will be disabled is STILL the mother's choice, because all situations and conditions are different and their decision should not be subject to other people's opinions.

Also when considering disabilities or birth defects, even if there are chances (however small) that the child could be well-functioning, that the child could survive, or that the child's disability will not cause "too much" (in quotes because the idea of needless suffering in general should probably not be quantified...) needless suffering, you have to consider that not everyone has access to optimal health care or optimal living conditions. To assume mothers or prospective parents who choose to abort a fetus with disabilities/birth defects simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced or they are unwilling to make sacrifices is completely unfounded. Again, not everyone has ACCESS to a nurse on call, or breathing machines or expensive surgical procedures or even healthcare insurance. If they truly cannot afford to give that child the quality of life he or she deserves, it is classist and prejudiced to fault them for choosing abortion.

ETA: by "very legitimate arguments" in my third paragraph I did not mean to imply that those arguments are in favor of aborting every child with such severe disabilities. By arguments, I meant explanation or reason why one would perhaps choose to abort a fetus with disabilities.

 

[mayfever]

Also when considering disabilities or birth defects, even if there are chances (however small) that the child could be well-functioning, that the child could survive, or that the child's disability will not cause "too much" (in quotes because the idea of needless suffering in general should probably not be quantified...) needless suffering, you have to consider that not everyone has access to optimal health care or optimal living conditions. To assume mothers or prospective parents who choose to abort a fetus with disabilities/birth defects simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced or they are unwilling to make sacrifices is completely unfounded. Again, not everyone has ACCESS to a nurse on call, or breathing machines or expensive surgical procedures or even healthcare insurance. If they truly cannot afford to give that child the quality of life he or she deserves, it is classist and prejudiced to fault them for choosing abortion.

I agree with most of what you said, except in the third paragraph I think you're heading towards slightly dangerous territory. Don't get me wrong, I still agree it's the mother's choice, but do you really think money should be the decisive factor whether a disabled child should live or die?

I know it's different in America, where you don't have the same social net as we do in (most of) Europe, but to me, this seems like a very weighty argument in favour of universal health care, so that a mother doesn't need to abort a wanted but disabled child because she can't afford the medical care.