Abortion?

[StoryJunkie]

not to be the devil's advocate or anything, but I'm pretty sick of people blaming the government for things one person did. A government is only as good as the people it appoints or hires. That's what it amounts to. I don't like it either, but when law and morality are suddenly two different things, I think that very bad things are going to happen.

I'm interested in knowing how law and morality are different. How would you seperate church and state? Go ahead, I wanna see your head explode.

[redsliver]

I'm interested in knowing how law and morality are different. How would you seperate church and state? Go ahead, I wanna see your head explode.

Law and morality differ in a very simple way. Law comes from a community, morality is personal.

To separate church from state you need to know why you are doing it. First, you live in a country where you are free to disbelieve in as many gods as you like. So if you are free to disbelieve in Allah then you shouldn't have laws telling women they need to cover their heads in accordance to Islamic law. If you are free to disbelieve in YHWH than you should be able to work on Saturday. If you are free to disbelieve in Jesus than you should be allowed to masturbate. Giving the populous the right to not believe in religion and then forcing them to pray in school, post the ten commandments at court rooms, not allow gay couples to marry, not allow a woman to treat her body as if it were her own is disgusting. I doubt you'd allow Scientologists to make a law banning psychology, so how could you sit by and allow Christians to make Christian laws for non-Christians?

I think the major problem is people think religion and morality are related. I have morals, I would try to never let myself, through malice, negligence or ignorance, injure someone else (mentally, emotionally or physically,) and I am anything but religious.

[Guest Masatar_Torlyl]

not to be the devil's advocate or anything, but I'm pretty sick of people blaming the government for things one person did.

Who's blaming the goverment for what? I never saw that anything like that in this thread. The only thing that remotely fits that accusation is my statement about even if abortion were made illegal, it wouldn't stop them from happening.

[Nanaea]

Very well stated, Red. I couldn't agree more.

I have been exploring my thoughts on abortion ever since my sister in law freaked out when she realized I was a liberal. She had assumed that we had similar views on certain issues, and one of them was abortion. When I couldn't say that I believed it should be illegal she was... I guess the word would be -- disillusioned.

When I was young and naive I was firmly pro-choice. I didn't see anything wrong with abortion as I believed a fetus was just a mass of rapidly dividing cells without a soul until the moment it was born and took it's first breath. I'm not looking for a debate over that point, so just move along folks. Now that I'm older, wiser, and have had the experience of being pregnant I have a bit of a different view on the subject.

At this point I've asked myself a few simple questions. Does abortion kill a human being? Yes. Do I believe killing human beings is wrong. Yes. Do I believe abortion is wrong? Maybe. Do I feel that I should force my morals on somebody else who may not share my views? No. While I personally could never have an abortion, I fully support a woman's right to have one. Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I'm okay with that.

Nearly every religion has some variation of the Golden Rule, and that is how I try to live my life. I think the world could be a much better place for everyone if more people walked their talk, but just like so many other things, too many people who call themselves devout *insert religious affiliation here* conveniently forget that one simple rule.

[StoryJunkie]

Abortion in Russia

The Soviet Union was the first nation to legalize abortion in 1921. It is well known that Soviet Communism encouraged abortion as a badge of women's liberation under Marxism-Leninism.

About 60 percent of all pregnancies in Russia end in abortion, according to Vladimir Kulakov, head of Russia's Scientific Centre for Obstetrics and Gynecology. Only Romania has more abortions per capita.

In addition, about 6 million Russian women are infertile (out of 38 million females who are of child-bearing age), and medical authorities consider abortion to be a "major cause" of infertility, Kulakov said. The number of infertile women is set to increase, as at least one in 10 abortions in Russia is performed on a teenage girl.

According to a compilation from the Demographic Yearbook of the European Council and an analogous Demographic Yearbook by the United Nations, Russia is the only nation in the world where abortions consistently outnumbered live births by a ratio of about 2 to 1. In 1970, for example, there were 1.9 million births and 4.8 million abortions. Today, with more access to real contraceptives, that number has decreased: for every live birth there are between 1.3 and 1.5 abortions, depending on the statistics you look at.

I'm sure that times have changed since then, but man, that Russian revolution left a bad taste in my mouth. This is but one of them, and frankly, I didn't know or care about it until like a few years ago. But it makes a kind of twisted sense, doesn't it? I mean, I've heard stories in the Ukraine after 1919 regarding suicide rates amoung young women. I've heard stories about how the monasteries were shut down, and everyone in them disappeared. "Siberia" they said. One of the first things the Communist regime did was take over the media. They told the newspapers what to write, and if you didn't write what they approved of, well, too bad for you. No one knows the holocaust that happened in the Ukraine where millions were starved to death, the borders were closed. The word "genocide" was not part of the human language until the Russian revolution.

This was an attempt at separating church and state. So. Am I wrong? On the one hand, the wonderful example of the middle east by Mr. Sliver, and here, an opposite one, of the scale upon which you have no clue.

Just because things are "OK" now with Russia, do not think for one minute that the things done behind the iron curtain are forgotten. They might want to sweep things under the carpet, but they were things that were done.

(Man, I thought for sure someone was going to bring up the Russian revolution! What do they teach you in school?)

[redsliver]

SJ communism requires the separation of church from people because "religion is the opiate of the masses" and as such a religious person cannot provide to the common good as well as an atheist because he is giving part of himself to God. The separation of church from state is different because its goal is to remove bias from legislation not from the hearts and minds of every person.

[Guest achtungnight]

I'm with you on this issue, Nan.

[Guest Masatar_Torlyl]

I'm sure that times have changed since then, but man, that Russian revolution left a bad taste in my mouth. This is but one of them, and frankly, I didn't know or care about it until like a few years ago. But it makes a kind of twisted sense, doesn't it? I mean, I've heard stories in the Ukraine after 1919 regarding suicide rates amoung young women. I've heard stories about how the monasteries were shut down, and everyone in them disappeared. "Siberia" they said. One of the first things the Communist regime did was take over the media. They told the newspapers what to write, and if you didn't write what they approved of, well, too bad for you. No one knows the holocaust that happened in the Ukraine where millions were starved to death, the borders were closed. The word "genocide" was not part of the human language until the Russian revolution.

This was an attempt at separating church and state. So. Am I wrong? On the one hand, the wonderful example of the middle east by Mr. Sliver, and here, an opposite one, of the scale upon which you have no clue.

Just because things are "OK" now with Russia, do not think for one minute that the things done behind the iron curtain are forgotten. They might want to sweep things under the carpet, but they were things that were done.

(Man, I thought for sure someone was going to bring up the Russian revolution! What do they teach you in school?)

This is an invalid arguement and I fail to see the point. Of ourse if you want to argue that abortion is more harmful to a woman than pregnancy, I can do that. Otherwise, I have no idea how or why this thread has gotten so far off-topic and I don't think I will stick around.

I was really looking for a debate on abortion here but... it seems to be missing.

[StoryJunkie]

I think a debate needs to have all the elements in it. You can't stick your head in the sand once you have all the information you need in order to make a sane decision for yourself, and to let others know. Ignorance is death as far as I'm concerned, and hey, women died in childbirth just as much as they did any other way. But the legality of it (abortion) came into being through the communist regime, which was my point, and not really off topic. I think that should be a consideration.

SJ communism requires the separation of church from people because "religion is the opiate of the masses" and as such a religious person cannot provide to the common good as well as an atheist because he is giving part of himself to God. The separation of church from state is different because its goal is to remove bias from legislation not from the hearts and minds of every person.

Oddly enough, those who "give themselves" to God (and Red, I'd go a step further and say they ought to be giving their entire being, not just part if they are following the doctrine correctly) consider themselves more connected to their fellow man. To legislate for the people, the legislators have to realize that the people are not all atheists. One wonders if by that statement all atheists are as politically goal-oriented as the average joe, or are they just as disillusioned and uncaring as everyone else (regarding political participation) Also, one wonders if atheists can make "good" legislation for religious folk.

[redsliver]

Yes, StoryJunkie, abortion was first legalised by a Russia that oppressed and murdered thousands. And chemotherapy came from experiments on the mentally retarded, and then there are the advances of medical science due to nazi experiments on the Jewish. Because the origin of something isn't in good and pretty, that isn't call to condemn it. You put a stop to the practices that are dangerous and evil, yes, but that doesn't mean you refuse learn from them.

[StoryJunkie]

I'm just saying that there are all manner of negative connotations that really, one can take into consideration while making a life-changing decision.

Babylonians used to throw newborns away, as did the Romans. Farmers do it to animals all the time. Death is everywhere. I could debate the same side as everyone else. We are born to die. However, I am not so physically inclined, since the thought of pain blood and broken promises, and throw-away people just sicken me for some odd reason. I guess I shouldn't be so sensitive. I know I keep saying "I'm a cold bitch" and all, but you're debating with a person who cried (not just once) when picachu kept zapping the stone-cold Ash.

Some other trivial information I know about abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot

(scroll down to: Effects on humans and animals - Ergotism)

[Guest DarkVampWriter]

Although I didn't read through this thread completely but I am sure there are anti-and pro views for abortion. I just have to say this is my take on abortion (my views are blunt and graphic if u don't want to puke ur lunch then don't click the links below)

Awful

Murder

Human Genocide

Heartless

Mutilation

[Solaris]

Abortion should remain legal.

It is the woman's right wether or not to continue the pregnancy.

The woman might have genetic problems that she does not want to be passed onto her children and she cannot get herself sterilized because the some doctors and the pro-lifers don't think a woman has the right to say what is right for her body.

The doctors and the pro-lifers are wrong, the women have full rights to do whatever to their bodies and what is good for them or not.

If the woman wants to be sterilized and the doctor says no and refuses to give her birth control pills, and the woman gets pregnant, she has full rights to abort the pregnancy if she wants.

The pro-lifers should look at how many people are alive on this planet and then look at how much food they eat and how many areas are used for growing food plants and they will see that what we need is less children born.

I happen to be 36 years of age and I do not want to have kids ever. I got myself sterilized last October 2005. My doctor was very okay with giving it to me since she knew I was childfree and didn't want any.

Solaris/Beth

[Guest Adara]

Abortion should remain legal.

It is the woman's right wether or not to continue the pregnancy.

The woman might have genetic problems that she does not want to be passed onto her children and she cannot get herself sterilized because the some doctors and the pro-lifers don't think a woman has the right to say what is right for her body.

The doctors and the pro-lifers are wrong, the women have full rights to do whatever to their bodies and what is good for them or not.

If the woman wants to be sterilized and the doctor says no and refuses to give her birth control pills, and the woman gets pregnant, she has full rights to abort the pregnancy if she wants.

The pro-lifers should look at how many people are alive on this planet and then look at how much food they eat and how many areas are used for growing food plants and they will see that what we need is less children born.

I happen to be 36 years of age and I do not want to have kids ever. I got myself sterilized last October 2005. My doctor was very okay with giving it to me since she knew I was childfree and didn't want any.

Solaris/Beth

That's the point though. If a woman doesn't want to have children, she could get her tubes tied so that she may NOT have to go through an abortion. I don't know of any woman who would stop just because one doctor denied them.

Abortion is not a birth control pill. If this hypothetical woman was denied any type of surgery that would keep her from having children she doesn't want, she has the freedom and the right to proceed to look for someone who'll comply. I'm sure that for every doctor who wouldn't proceed with the surgery, there's another five who would do it.

To blame a child's life for one's inability to look for other options is stupid and down right inhumane. Also, pro-lifers don't say anything about getting your tubes tied. Where have you read that? They are against abortion, if you get YOUR tubes tied before a child is even conceived, well, I don't see how that would be an issue for them.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

That's the point though. If a woman doesn't want to have children, she could get her tubes tied so that she may NOT have to go through an abortion. I don't know of any woman who would stop just because one doctor denied them.

Abortion is not a birth control pill. If this hypothetical woman was denied any type of surgery that would keep her from having children she doesn't want, she has the freedom and the right to proceed to look for someone who'll comply. I'm sure that for every doctor who wouldn't proceed with the surgery, there's another five who would do it.

To blame a child's life for one's inability to look for other options is stupid and down right inhumane. Also, pro-lifers don't say anything about getting your tubes tied. Where have you read that? They are against abortion, if you get YOUR tubes tied before a child is even conceived, well, I don't see how that would be an issue for them.

So, what if all of these other methods fail? YOu can get pregnant even if you get your tubes tied. The only way for a person to make absolute sure they will NOT get pregnant would to get their ovaries and/or uterus removed.

Furthurmore, I still fail to see how it's anyone elses job to tell me whether or not I can get an abortion. Yeah, I get the whole "life is precious" argument (even if I don't fully believe it.)

Look, if a woman REALLY wants to have an abortion, a law won't stop her. We've seen that already. Wire hangers and knitting needles do not make a great substitute for a proper, clean, abortion clinic. You may think it's inhumane, but there are many who would say that to take a woman's right to choose whether or not she'll have an abortion is inhumane as well.

You can spout morals all you want, but when it comes down to it, your morals are not universal and not everyone will be able to appreciate it. If you're against abortion, don't have one. That's what I'm doing, that's what many women will do.

When it comes to abortion, it can NOT be a moral debate. It needs to be a debate of hard cold facts. When abortion was illegal, women died off all kinds of scary shit because they threw themselves down stairs, chugged down gin or saw street docters. Furthermore, there are FAR too many people on this planet. 6 billion, give or take.

As I said before, we can do with a LOT less people in the world. While noone would abide bye randomly knocking off a third of the population, abortion is the only route viable to us. Not only that, but most of the time, you're saving that child from all levels of hell.

Of course, abortion is not a blanket solution. More people need to be taught and encouraged to use birth control. More women need to get on the pill or get their tubes tied to lessen the amount of unwanted pregnancies and subsequently, unwanted children. Therfore, abortion wouldn't be quite so necessary.

In a better world, everyone would only see it as a last ditch effort. In a perfect world, Abortion wouldn't be needed at all.

[Guest Adara]

I wasn't aware Humanitarian thinking was a moral dilemma.

I was objecting to Solaris' "What if 'doctor' wouldn't tie "insert woman here" tubes so she needed to take birth control pills and got pregnant so she has a right to get an abortion."

I have no problems with anyone looking for a surgical solution to avoid having children. Honestly, if you don't want to have kids, its perhaps one of the better less cumbersome of the solutions. (After the recovery time that is.) But to use abortion as a "plan b" because ONE doctor said they wouldn't tie your tubes?

That's why I stated that for every one doctor who wouldn't do it, I was sure there were about five who'd help said woman out.

If we as women are going to go have sex, we should really begin thinking of the possibilities that we may reproduce by doing so. If this doesn't seem to be one's cup of tea, there are SEVERAL forms of birth control that can be used alongside a surgery.

I don't really care how anyone tries to dice this topic. An abortion is still ending a life. It has nothing moral to do with it, but has everything to do with taking a life being the wrong thing to do.

This is my biggest issue with all of this; If I go and have sex, and for whatever reason something goes wrong ei: condom breaks, Missed Pill, foam didn't work, I STILL have about 48 hours to get a plan b pill. If you don't want to get pregnant and something happens, even if you're uncertain, why not get this pill and AVOID getting pregnant altogether? There are solutions to help in NOT conceiving a child. Abortion is just one of those desperate, "I failed to think this through to every possible outcome" solutions that I don't agree with.

We're suppose to be the smartest beings on this planet, shouldn't we be able to find a solution that doesn't involve killing someone?

[Nanaea]

I don't really care how anyone tries to dice this topic.  An abortion is still ending a life.  It has nothing moral to do with it, but has everything to do with taking a life being the wrong thing to do.

It has everything to do with morality....

mo·ral·i·ty

n., pl. -ties.

• The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
  

Taking a life is generally accepted as wrong. That is a moral standard. Saying that abortion is wrong because it ends a life is based on that moral standard. I'm not saying that I disagree with your view, just pointing out that your logic is flawed.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

This is my biggest issue with all of this; If I go and have sex, and for whatever reason something goes wrong ei: condom breaks, Missed Pill, foam didn't work, I STILL have about 48 hours to get a plan b pill. If you don't want to get pregnant and something happens, even if you're uncertain, why not get this pill and AVOID getting pregnant altogether? There are solutions to help in NOT conceiving a child. Abortion is just one of those desperate, "I failed to think this through to every possible outcome" solutions that I don't agree with.

You DO realize that, other then having your ENTIRE reproductive track removed, there is no failsafe, yes? Even with birth control pills, even if you take them RELIGIOUSLY, never missing a single pill, taking them at the exact same time every day, you can still get pregnant. Even if you couple them with spermicide and condoms, you can STILL get pregnant.

Now, let's say a girl was only using condoms, or skipped a pill or what have you, and she went to get Plan B, and didn't have sex again for, oh, 6 months. Within those 6 months, she could STILL find herself pregnant.

Furthermore, a woman can chose to get her tubes tied, and later on find herself pregnant (Note: If you ever go to get this operation, and if the docter says to you "There is 0% chance of you getting pregnant with this precedure", get a new doctor. He either doesn't know what he's talking about, or is lying to you).

So, tell me, what's a woman supposed to do if she get's her tubes tied/never misses a pill and STILL manages to get pregnant? Furthermore, she has no way of supporting this child/really doesn't want to give birth EVER/doesn't want this kid at all? Or, even better, she has a genetic fuck up that will almost definitly get to the kid. You can say adoption, but is that really better for the kid? I mean, seriously, we have ENOUGH unwanted children in the world. Do we really need to add more?

[Guest Adara]

Again, as I said, however it is diced, it is STILL taking a life. I suppose it all depends on whether or not we can justify it to ourselves is the real issue.

I suppose if someone really doesn't think that's wrong, well, that is their opinion and well, their right. But if we can justify this death, what keeps us from justifying others?

To me, it really has nothing to do with passing a law to govern over this. if someone's going to have sex they should be responsible for what they MIGHT produce. Having these terminal solutions seems to just scream out to those who are NOT responsible enough to say, "Here, you can fuck up and we'll fix it for you!"

My belief may not be shared by anyone of you, but I still have a right to express it. To me, it is wrong to kill any living thing simply because someone did not count on pregnancy being a part of consequence of having sex.

I have my opinion on this, and I won't be swayed on it. I suppose it just comes down with what someone can live with. I certainly don't see how anyone could justify a child's death, but that's just me.

[bookworm51485]

Again, as I said, however it is diced, it is STILL taking a life. I suppose it all depends on whether or not we can justify it to ourselves is the real issue.

I suppose if someone really doesn't think that's wrong, well, that is their opinion and well, their right. But if we can justify this death, what keeps us from justifying others?

To me, it really has nothing to do with passing a law to govern over this. if someone's going to have sex they should be responsible for what they MIGHT produce. Having these terminal solutions seems to just scream out to those who are NOT responsible enough to say, "Here, you can fuck up and we'll fix it for you!"

My belief may not be shared by anyone of you, but I still have a right to express it. To me, it is wrong to kill any living thing simply because someone did not count on pregnancy being a part of consequence of having sex.

I have my opinion on this, and I won't be swayed on it. I suppose it just comes down with what someone can live with. I certainly don't see how anyone could justify a child's death, but that's just me.

Your too determined to make things cut and dry. You refuse to accept that different situations require different actions. You've decided on this one "fact" and your sticking to it no matter how absurd, and I find that sad.

[Guest Adara]

I find it sad that most people can't seem to accept the opinions of others. Most of you want me to credit your views on this issue, but for some strange reason, I'm not given the same respect. Why? Because my view is different from yours. What is it to you if I consider abortion murder, ugly and selfish? In all honesty, I have a freedom to view it that way and for you all to insult me simply because you don't agree with it; well, I find THAT pathetic AND sad.

We have different opinions of it, and guess what, warfare IS still killing others, again people justify it, and that's basically that.

Why can't you all except that these are my views on THIS topic and respect them for what they are? Aren't you being as "sad" as what you think I'm being for so professing that my ideas are foolish? There's a saying in Spanish that says: "Uno no se mira la cola porque la tiene detras." Which means, one doesn't see one's own flaws, in this case, your own convictions of what I believe is right, simply because they are ours.

My beliefs are not respected because they don't concur with yours; perhaps what they say about us Americans is right. It has to be the way we want it, or not at all.

Edit: Also ladies and gents, keep in mind I said RESPECT my views and opinions, not share or condone them.

[Guest echtrae]

If I may, I would like to gently remind everyone that the original topic was whether or not abortion should be legal. Not whether or not Adara is wrong or right.

** so back to topic **

When discussing laws, one has to keep in mind a few things regarding laws. Laws in a free society, are to protect those who cannot or are unable to protect themselves. Laws are to enforce equality when an inequality exists. Laws are to help define the limits of an individual's freedoms so that they do not encroach upon another's ability to pursue freedom.

So the question really should be not whether abortion should be legal, but "when does the fetus become a person?". Currently, (as I understand it, though I may be wrong) the law states that a person is created when the fetus is born. Personally, I have always felt that the fetus has become a person once it has reached the point of development that it could survive on its own. Before that point, the mother is free to do as she will. The law should do nothing but ensure her freedom.

Though, in my opinion the one factor that the law doesn't take into account is the father. In the case of consenual sex and the pregnancy is the product thereof, I have always felt that the father should be a participant in the decision and the process of the abortion. If the couple are on good enough terms to have generated the pregnancy, then they better be on good enough terms to go through the abortion together.

[bookworm51485]

I find it sad that most people can't seem to accept the opinions of others. Most of you want me to credit your views on this issue, but for some strange reason, I'm not given the same respect. Why? Because my view is different from yours. What is it to you if I consider abortion murder, ugly and selfish? In all honesty, I have a freedom to view it that way and for you all to insult me simply because you don't agree with it; well, I find THAT pathetic AND sad.

We have different opinions of it, and guess what, warfare IS still killing others, again people justify it, and that's basically that.

Why can't you all except that these are my views on THIS topic and respect them for what they are? Aren't you being as "sad" as what you think I'm being for so professing that my ideas are foolish? There's a saying in Spanish that says: "Uno no se mira la cola porque la tiene detras." Which means, one doesn't see one's own flaws, in this case, your own convictions of what I believe is right, simply because they are ours.

My beliefs are not respected because they don't concur with yours; perhaps what they say about us Americans is right. It has to be the way we want it, or not at all.

Edit: Also ladies and gents, keep in mind I said RESPECT my views and opinions, not share or condone them.

First, who said no one's respecting your views. I don't see anyone telling you to shut up or to quit talking, or blocking you from sharing your opinion. BUT a person can say what they think of it. Just because a person says something you don't like about an opinion you hold does not mean they are not respecting your opinion. I think your full of crap, but that's your prerogative. It's just unfortunately, your opinion is not something that can just be ignored and brushed off as just your opinion because people with your opinion are trying to force others who don't share that same opinion to do what THEY think is right. So I must say that in this discussion we really can't have a live and let live attitude against pro-lifers because they, by definition, want their choices to be forced on to those who don't agree with them.

[bookworm51485]

If I may, I would like to gently remind everyone that the original topic was whether or not abortion should be legal. Not whether or not Adara is wrong or right.

When a person states an opinion as if it's fact, it seems to me that it does boil down to a discussion as to whether or not the person is wrong or right.

[Guest Adara]

So basically as long as I said, "Okay to each their own." my opinions would NOT be full of crap and not absurd?

Well then perhaps I should just say this so that you all can stop insulting me, regardless of how backhanded or underlined they are.

Honestly, you're all calling my opinions absurd because I would VOTE "NO" against abortion? Wow, somehow, I can live with that.

Edit: AS I thought more about this, I realize that it's not worth getting everyone so, upset about it. I stated what I thought, what I feel, and well, as Abortion is legal now, well, I wouldn't exactly go and petition to have that changed.

If it were brought up as a law in the House and got put to the public, then I would vote no.

I of course, do not know if a fetus a few weeks old can feel, honestly, I don't think anyone really does. But if it did feel, and did scream in agony as it were killed, would you all still think it was a woman's body and still just her choice?

There was a point Echtrae made earlier that made me think. What of the father if the child was conceived through concensual sex? Though I think things like that would probably need to be discussed prior to any...intimate involvement. Though, people are known to change their minds.