# Anyone else here on the fence re: abortion?



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I just can't figure out what I believe on this issue.

I know I believe this: babies feel pain, intensely. Once the fetus is actually a baby: ie, arms and legs, mouth, etc., my gut tells me that this tiny infant can feel pain.

I also don't agree with most pro-choicer's slippery slope arguments: if you outlaw abortions at 20 weeks, it will gradually slide down until abortion rights are terminated altogether. This argument is highly illogical... I mean, how far do you go with this? Would a newly born infant in a dumpster be okay? Or would it only be okay if it was "aborted" in a hospital, under the guidance of a physician? Truly, a line needs to be drawn here. The question is, where?

I honestly don't have a problem with abortion when it is truly still a clump of cells. It's just not a baby yet, IMO. But that could certainly be argued, huh? Again, where would one draw the line? We can't make laws based on people's opinions.........

And I'm all for women's reproductive rights.............. but........ again....... when is it a reproductive right and when is it a baby? Whenever the woman decides she wants to think it's a baby?







:

I appreciate all input here. I think I'm going to debate everyone's belief pretty intensely so I can learn more and get a better feel about where you are coming from. It's not that I'm asking for opinions and then attacking them...... quite the contrary. I honestly learn best when I can play devil's advocate and get all of my questions and thoughts out in the open.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

candiland, this is exactly where i stood a few years ago. i had been a very passionate pro-life activist...

and then decided to actually think about all sides of the issue. i did a lot of research, and a lot of soul-searching.

ultimately what i realized was that i didn't want anyone to be able to tell me what to do with my body. i learned a lot of women's history that i hadn't known before, and i realized how necessary it is that we have safe, legal abortions to women. (two great books i'd recommend you read are _The Fifties : A Women's Oral History_, and _Labour and Love: Women's Experience of Home and Family, 1850-1940_.)

yes, i do believe that a baby, from conception, is a life that has a spirit. and, i know from a medical standpoint that from around 9 weeks gestation, babies do feel pain ~ this is when their spinal cord fuses to their brain stem, their heart begins to beat, and motion (and feeling) begin.

Quote:

I also don't agree with most pro-choicer's slippery slope arguments: if you outlaw abortions at 20 weeks, it will gradually slide down until abortion rights are terminated altogether. This argument is highly illogical...
this may _seem_ "highly illogical," but, it's already happening. fetal rights laws are being used to stifle women's choices about birth and reproduction. it *is* a slippery slope, and it doesn't just continue on into eliminating all abortion rights, but also into other reproductive planning, family planning, birth control, and a woman's choices while pregnant, through the birth process, and including what she wants done for or with her babies after they are born. it is a whole civil rights issue.

i really feel that for as long as the baby is within the mother, it is the mother's choice on what is done with her child, and her body. even if we outlaw abortion, or restrict access, women will still desire control over those aspects of her life and will keep on seeking methods of abortion ~ many of which are unsafe and do nothing but harm to both the mother and child. we need to free up access to all aspects of this issue -- birth control, family planning, counseling, sexuality and contraception education, information about STDs, and abortion services -- while keeping it the mother's choice, and allowing her the right to choose when and how many babies she'll have, how and where she'll give birth, and how she'll raise them (i.e., no circ., no vax, etc.)...

so... that's where i stand.

thank you for keeping an open mind.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

,


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

myheartslight, good for you to have a conviction, but the op very specifically asked for people on the fence, ppl who saw both sides of the equation. "going out and getting some" really doesn't address both sides now does it?

candiland, I'm not at all on the fence either, so nothing "useful" here, but I do feel that after about 3 months of gestation abortion is really a procedure that should (and usually is) performed with strong medical indication only. The whole "elective late-term" myth is right-wing propaganda, imo.

How abortion works in the Netherlands:
Up till 3 months, abortion is fully available and covered by insurance. There are relatively very few "going out and getting some" abortions, because teenagers and older wo/men have free/cheap, anonymous access to educational resources and birth control. Morning after pills and "overtime treatment" (quick d&c up till 4 weeks after conception) are also available and always include counseling.

During pregnancy, ultrasounds and other tests are not routine, so there are very few late-term abortions of "abnormal" fetuses (trisomy, other "deviations"). I always have the idea that many pro-life Americans conveniently "forget" that many late-term abortions are of abnormal or even unviable fetuses ~ can a society accept those babies and pay for their care?

Anyhoo, this also means that the Netherlands have a relatively high rate of perinatal deaths ~ unviable fetuses that are "caught" on u/s elsewhere, will often be born here (often at home







). There is at present a big social debate on whether to include u/s and blood tests for all pregnant women, or about stronger medicalization of pregnancy in a broader sense. Money has traditionally been the big issue ~ why offer diagnostic tests to low-risk groups? (pg women are not tested for hiv, std's, other blood things either, unless indicated) Why view pregnancy as a disease?

Anyhoo, abortion rates are low, due to education/availability of resources on the one hand, and demedicalization of pregnancy on the other. I think prolifers should include both these factors when politicizing their opinion. (I mean, emotionally I'm a prolifer, meaning I'd never have an abortion myself, and I understand and respect many womens' feelings of grief and loss after having one. But politically, being prolife to me means that you must do everything possible to decrease abortion risk, which is definitely more than offering kids stupid badges that say "i'm a virgin"







: )


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

I appreciate all input here.







[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dakota's Mom (Apr 8, 2003)

I guess some people would consider me on the fence. I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that all life is sacred. I myself could never have an abortion. I had an appointment for an abortion once. But I kept thinking, what if this is my only chnce to have a daughter. My only daughter now has two wonderful children of her own that would not be here if I had had that abortion. I can not take a life. However, I will defend to the end your right to do what you feel best for you and your body. We need to keep abortion legal and safe for the women who need this. I feel that for some it is much better to abort an unwanted child than to end up abusing that child because you didn't want it or weren't able to take care of it. As an adoptive mom, I think that adoption is a wonderful option. But there are cases when this is just not the best option. Women need the right to make decisions over their own bodies. The government has no place inside a woman's uterus. The government has no right to legislate morality. It's up to each individual to chose what their moral values are. For me, abortion is not an option. But it must be an option for those who need it.

Kathi


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

I'm on the fence about 'the abortion debate', and that this issue so often takes center stage in American politics when there is so much going on.
It's legal, people should just move on and devote their energy to dealing with some of the bigger problems we are facing in the world today.
I see the whole issue as an emotionally wrenching distraction.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Hmmm....... I have a lot to mull over here. A lot.

I've seen pictures of embryos/festuses at various stages of development.... and at eight weeks they have limbs, eyes, etc. The compassionate person in me is screaming and crying for these little people. But the spiritual person in me is telling me that you can't legislate morals (which I mentioned in another post on this forum.)

Maybe I'm having difficulty because it seems like some people - whether prochoice or prolife - hold certain philosophies about abortion that should naturally carry over into other areas of their lives.... and it sometimes does not. For example: prolife, but for who? If someone wants a truly compassionate, Godly society, we would not have a punitive justice system. We would not support war - the killing and torture and maiming of unborn children, born children, and men and women alike. That's why a lot of prolife Bush support greatly troubles me.

I know of some prochoice mamas in cyberspace who believe the issue is totally black and white: always the woman's choice, no matter the age of the fetus or whether the woman needs a second or third trimester for health reasons or not. But many of these same women would outlaw spanking and circumcision in the name of children's advocacy...... formula would only be available by prescription...... and blah, blah, blah................ so many would like to legislate certain moral issues and not others.

Can everyone see why I'm so friggin' confused? :LOL On one hand, I don't believe in legislating morals...... I'm probably the most liberal person I know IRL. But abortion after a certain point seems no different to me than disposing of a full term infant capable of living outside the mother's womb.... if a babe is born at 25 weeks and lives, it would be killing..... but if it's aborted, it would be legally accepted....

Somebody help me! My brain is bleeding... :LOL


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

For the record I am almost as anti-abortion as I can be. I know I could never have one. Well, as well as anyone can claim to make a future choice like that. If I were certain that trying to carry the child would kill me and leave my existing child without a mother I guess I would have to give it a lot of long hard thought.

That said, I don't think my personal feelings on the matter give me the right to decide for everyone else. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves.

I firmly believe that most people in this country have moderate views on the subject. I would define moderate as in the area of "It ain't a pretty solution but it is a womans right" and "Eight months along? You have to be kidding me!"

The problem is that the extreme right, primarily the Falwellian religious right are hell bent on denying anyone the right under any circumstances. They openly celebrate every legal limit on abortion as the foot in the door that will get them to the promised land, i.e. zero abortions, 100% abolition. As a result those who would like to keep abortion legal and safe are forced to fight every single attempt to place legal limits on it.. because that's the foot in the door! Thus, as with so many important issues of nuance the debate is framed entirely by the extremists and the 80-90% in the middle get disgusted and quit the field.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I'm not really on the fence but thought I would add my opinions on this.
I am pro-choice. I have had an abortion. That said at this time in my life I would not have another abortion (okay if my life was at risk I would really have to think long and hard about it). I never would have had an abortion past the first trimester, I personally would not feel right about having one after that point. When a fetus feels pain does affect how I personally feel about abortions past a certain point. I do feel a certain way about women who have multiple abortions but I still would never want to take their rights away. I if abortion is outlawed it won't go away from what I have read the % of abortions is less now than it was when it was illegal, so really legalization has not increased it's occurence. The only ones who will be hurt if abortions are illegal will be poor women, the elite have alway had access to safe , medical abortions.
Btw,I am one of those people who is pro-choice but I would LOVE to see circumcision outlawed. I could go into why I think they are not inclusive topics but don't want to start a debate about abortion or circumcision.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

g


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

A newborn boy is here , he is born and shouldn't have to endure a medically unecessary, sexually altering cosmetic surgery because his parents think foreskin is an eye sore or has no value, or he needs to look like daddy, or they are just ignorant about circ in general. I feel it should be illegal for doctors to preform it because it has no medical benifit and is does have known side effect one being death. For me it isn't a parents' right issue, it is an issue of wether or not doctors should be able to preform such procedures w/o the consent of the patient (which would be the one who owns the penis).


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I would say two things to you hearts light: One is that your belief that it is a human being is just that- YOUR belief. One not shared by all. I don't think anyone should be allowed to dictated the behavior of others based on their beliefs. I also don't promote trying to de-legalize circ, for what it's worth but am very interested in ending it as a common practice through education.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

My own beliefs are pretty well set, but I suppose that many would consider me on the fence because I don't believe that it's all black and white.

I have more issues with the politics than the so-called morality of the pro-life movement; I'm really curious as to how many pro-lifers have a)adopted an infant, b)adopted an older child, c)offered any personal or financial assistance to mothers in need, d)carried an unviable fetus to term... or any number of other things, I could go on and on. Not a single one of the many strident pro-lifers I've met has done *any* of those things. Most people who have done any or all of them see the issue as more than black and white, and are much more open to discussion.

The other problem I have is with the idea that someone else's moral code should be applied to me. What gives them that right? As far as I'm concerned, freedom of choice = separation of church and state, plain and simple. This is a religious issue, and it's yet another example of the religious right trying to take over the country. It makes me physically ill to think about! Forcing religious issues into the courts under the guise of morality is distinctly un-American.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy*
The other problem I have is with the idea that someone else's moral code should be applied to me. What gives them that right? As far as I'm concerned, freedom of choice = separation of church and state, plain and simple. This is a religious issue, and it's yet another example of the religious right trying to take over the country. It makes me physically ill to think about! Forcing religious issues into the courts under the guise of morality is distinctly un-American.


----------



## Ary99 (Jan 1, 2002)

Just wanted to chime in. . .I am pro-life although in college I saw things from the otherside. I marched in the pro-choice rallies and even help ed my college roomate when she needed transportation to a clinic. Since I've had a change of heart, my husband and I have been foster parents to an older child in need and helped her create an adoption plan when she had an unplanned pregnancy. We knew ultimately the decision was hers as to whether or not to get an abortion, but I can tell you now she is very happy she decided to have her daughter and give her parents. So, as far as people who considered themselves pro-life not actively participating in helping the BORN children in need, I just wanted to say we are out here!


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

,.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

There is a difference between a just fertilized egg and a 5 day old zygote. There is a difference between a 6 week old embryo and a 12 week old fetus.
There is a difference even if you want to call them all a child, to me an embryo is a potential child all kind of things can stop that progression.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

nn


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I think an egg is a potential baby as well, so is a sperm for that matter. However I do not feel a loss every month when I pass one of my eggs thru my body. I do not think I have just lost a baby. If I had a miscarriage I would feel as if I lost a baby. If it was an early one I would still feel a loss but not as great of one as if it was a late miscarriage.
It is matter of perspective imo and none are right are wrong. Just don't try to make laws for me using only your perspective and morals.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

n


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

hmmm didn't think this post was about me (and what I have done, nice). Just stating my opinions here just like everyone else. My last post wasn't really directed at you. My last sentence in that post was a general "your" btw.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

That said, I don't think my personal feelings on the matter give me the right to decide for everyone else. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves.
ITA!

I was anti-choice for a long though, then on th efence, and now strongly pro choice. No one has the right to tell others what to do with their life, ESPECIALLY if they are not there to deal with or help with the consequences.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

[


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Okay everyone - take two GIANT steps back.

The wasy this thread is headed, it will go the way of so many previous abortion threads. Please, don't continue in the personal vein, head it back on topic, and remember that EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.

Keep your posts respectful and civil and continue this discussion in a non-argumentative tone.

Thank you.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
For the record I have helped many pregnant mother in lots more ways than you listed and I have carried a NON-viable fetus to 33 weeks. She's almost 2.

If she's almost 2 now, then she was definately viable. Let's not make this a discussion about the inadequacies of medical technology. Were you told that your baby had no kidneys? Did you have amniocentesis to determine that she had trisomy 13 or one of any number of conditions which are _incompatible with life_? Or just a few ultrasounds which indicated that there might be a problem with heart or brain development? There's a big difference. Try finding out that your child definately has a condition which is 100% fatal, where you'll have to plan a funeral before your child is even born.

Most "pro-life" people aren't concerned about life, really. They're only concerned that women don't have abortions, because they believe that their moral code is superior to that of everyone else. Pro-choice *does not mean pro-abortion*; I can't stress this enough. When I say I'm pro-choice, it means that I believe that every woman should feel that she really does have a choice. Adoption isn't an option for everyone who gets pregnant, and nor is keeping the baby. Is it better to bring another unwanted child into the world? There are loads of them. Watch an episode of Adoption Story on TLC and pay attention to the commercial. How many of those kids have you fostered/adopted?

It's a hard truth to face, but unwanted children are a reality. There aren't nearly enough people willing to take these kids into their homes, especially if they're over the age of 3. And what about sibling groups? A lot of these kids don't want to be separated, because they've already been ripped away from everyone/thing they know and love.

I really think that fewer women would have abortions if they really felt like they had a choice about what happens to their child. The fact is, they don't have choices in most places. Screaming "let your baby live!!!" and waving signs at them doesn't give them another choice, it just makes the very difficult decision that they've already made more difficult. It's thoughtless. How come you don't see people standing in front of abortion clinics saying "Hey, if you don't want to do this, I'll give you a real option. You can come live with me, I'll pay for your prenatal care and the time you'll miss from work/school/whatever, and I'll take your baby and raise it as my own." ? There's a real choice, then. Better still, why aren't these people throwing condom parades and passing out copies of "Taking Control of Your Fertility" and basal thermometers to everyone they meet who's pubescent? If more women knew about fertility awareness, I think there'd be a lot fewer unwanted pregnancies.

It's my opinion that the pro-life movement isn't pro-life at all, only pro-birth. Post a poll around here and ask how many birthmothers got any kind of counseling after they gave up their babies, and for how long. Ask how many thought that they had an "open adoption" and have seen the children they gave up since their 3rd birthday. Ask how many would have jumped at the chance to have a real opportunity to parent those children, but felt pressured into giving them up to a family that could do more good. Ask how many have given up babies only to hear of them being mired in the system years later becuase of their race or behavioral issues or medical condition.


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Eliowny, I used to do clinic defense.

Once, we had a couple walk over to us. The didn't want an abortion, but weren't interested in adoption. They were young, immigrants, and desparate. So, we walked them over to one of the protestors who was with a local cpc(btw, in NYC, undercover investigations proved that they were providing false medical information to pregnant women). They said, right in front of us, that there was nothing really they could do to help, no help with finding a place for the young girl to live, nothing except send them to welfare, and give them some newborn clothing.

This pissed me off because these were the same people telling teens not to worry, that if they got in trouble they would help them find a place to stay. What they didn't mention was that they helped place both teen mom and baby in foster care. This young woman was too old for foster care. Promising women support and aid.

There are many sincere pro lifers. However, the vast majority of those I come accross have no interest in the woman after she gives birth.

so, for those on the fence, analyze whether women truly have a choice. How do you feel about the options women currently have? Are we truly providing women with support for all choices.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

QUOTE:
"For example: prolife, but for who? If someone wants a truly compassionate, Godly society, we would not have a punitive justice system. We would not support war - the killing and torture and maiming of unborn children, born children, and men and women alike. That's why a lot of prolife Bush support greatly troubles me."

I disagree. There are examples of Godly wars in the Bible, and God tells us to obey the government and that power is given to the government to punish us. I don't see how those things are ungodly, in a Christian sense, which seems to be the sense you are talking about.

I don't understand the "legislating morality" argument. If one believes that abortion is wrong, morally, and harmful to babies/fetuses, then why is this a question? We as a society obviously believe in legislating morality (murder/rape laws), and even many libertarians, who object to almost all government interference, usually agree that the government can legislate behavior that is directly harmful to others. So for thos eof you who personally believe that abortion is wrong or upsetting, why is it wrong to legislate it, if it's not wrong to make murder wrong? Really, I don't understand.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

It's a hard question to answer.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
We as a society obviously believe in legislating morality (murder/rape laws), and even many libertarians, who object to almost all government interference, usually agree that the government can legislate behavior that is directly harmful to others. So for thos eof you who personally believe that abortion is wrong or upsetting, why is it wrong to legislate it, if it's not wrong to make murder wrong? Really, I don't understand.

I just wrote out a really long reply to this, and it got eaten in cyberspace.









The short of it: anything that can't survive outside of my body no matter what heroic measures are taken is not, in my opinion, a person. So it's not 'murder' to remove it from my body, because it couldn't survive outside of my body anyway.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I just wanted to touch on the issue of "religion entering the courtrooms".

For me, it's not religious... I'm not a religious person. I consider myself a humanist. That is where it gets tricky. I think that if it is a person that can feel pain, it is... well... a person, I guess. Like I said, you could abort at 23 weeks or the baby can be born and live at 23 weeks. Is that *really* a choice? Or a religious matter?

That is where it gets gray for me. I guess I'm neither prochoice or prolife, 'cuz I guess I believe there needs to be definitive limits on what constitutes a being capable of feeling pain....

oh, no, my brain is bleeding again :LOL


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Am not on the fence at all.

That said, and the reason why I'm posting to a thread where I don't meet the OP's criteria ...

In response to this issue on the thread, the problem with any reasonable argument about criminalizing abortion is that *it won't end abortions.* _It will only drive them underground._ They will continue to happen, just with greater danger for the women who undergo them. It will continue because the need for the procedure will continue.

Kind of like criminalizing circumcision (not to derail the discussion, but as Sheacoby brought it up







) ... it's happened already many times in history. Though when it happened, it was never a routine procedure like it is today, it was only done as a religious ritual. And whenever it was criminalized, the religious ritual just went underground, and all those involved put their lives in danger to do it ... and many were imprisoned or killed for doing it ... but it continued to happen. Because the need for the religious ritual continued.

BTW, I will never understand the 'pro-life' rationale for allowing an exception in the case of rape. A baby is a baby is a baby, no? Why is it the baby's fault if daddy was a rapist? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.

Will say that I'm deeply uncomfortable with abortions done past a certain stage, so maybe there's some fence-sitting on the question of when it's appropriate to say that it's just too late ... but that is a personal discomfort. And what a woman and her doctor decide is necessary is not my personal business, because it's not my personal body involved.

Am not on the fence either about the issue of universal access to low-cost or even no-cost birth control and fertility awareness education.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Sorry more off topic discussion,last time okay!!

Amy, I think circumcisions performed by medical doctors on infants should be outlawed since there is NO medical reason for doing them. They are only done for cosmetics reasons other than religious circs which I'm not even talking about. Of course I think education is key with RIC but doctors who perform this procedure should be held legally responsible (and some of them will!!) for performing a cosmetic procedure w/o the consent of the patient.
The fact that medicaid has quit covering RIC in many states HAS lowered the rate of RIC in those states. In other countries where circ is not done except for religious reasons the circ rate is low. It is illegal in Italy and as far as I've read parents aren't doing underground circs on their sons there.
Medical doctors aren't the ones doing the procedure when it done for religious reasons anyway. So even if it becomes illegal for medical doctors to perfom RIC it wouldn't effect religious circumcisions as far as I can tell. The vast majority of parents in the US who circ are not doing so for religious reasons.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
I personally would like to see a law passed reserving abortion for serious rape crimes ect. ..

Okay, but how about unserious rape crimes?










who would decide what's serious enough? Not the woman, obviously, becuase in your ideal world the woman is not the person who gets to decide to abort. Men, perhaps? Policiticians? Cops? The rapist himself, even?


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Would the woman have to go to trail to PROVE she had been raped before she would be allowed to abort? What if she prosecuted the man but the jury found him not guilty(happens all the time and the man was infact guilty) could she then not abort. Would only women who had obvious signs of rape be allowed to abort? Would date rape count or is it not serious enough?


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I agree, the rape thing seems illogical, b/c if I wanted/needed an abortion badly enough, would a "I was raped?" answer allow it to happen? Would I need to experience degrading tests, questions, and procedures to prove I wasn't lying? THAT, IMO, is a slippery slope.

But I wanted to touch on this, again, b/c I'm not getting any answers that make sense (to me, they probably make sense to you, and that's fine):

By Amy:

Will say that I'm deeply uncomfortable with abortions done past a certain stage, so maybe there's some fence-sitting on the question of when it's appropriate to say that it's just too late ... but that is a personal discomfort. And what a woman and her doctor decide is necessary is not my personal business, because it's not my personal body involved."

When does it become the BABY'S body, is what I'm wondering aloud here. It seems it is only the baby's body when the mother decides it's so. Like I said a few times before, if a baby is born at 23 weeks and a mother kills it, it is infanticide..... yet one could abort and it would be okay. When do we distinguish a baby's right from a mother's right? It gets really tricky for me.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

I too am very uncomfortable, if not downright horrified, with the idea that someone might have a late term abortion. When does it become the babies ody? Well, in a way, it is always the babies body. From the moment of conception, those cells have an imperative to survive. But the rights of that baby can never supercede the rights of the mother, early or late in term.
The line is drawn when the baby is born, and morally that is kind of an arbitrary line, but legally, the only way we can draw it.
I think having a late term abortion for no good reason is wrong. I think most people do. That is why they are so rare. But there is no place for the law to get involved in such a decision.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I've never been interested in debating abortion here at MDC but I am another person who is "on the fence" in some ways. I'm happy to give my opinions but I'm not sure that I'll debate them if they are picked apart. I am pro-choice primarily because I don't like the alternative. However, I do agree that the line must be drawn somewhere and I'm not that comfortable with *birth* being that line. I think I like the idea of drawing the line where a fetus could most likely survive outside the body.

Also, I'm not a person who would morn a normal early miscarriage either because I wouldn't consider that my child - a potential child, yes. For me there definitely is some grey area as to when a fertilized egg becomes a child.

Then there's the issue of abortion related to fetuses that are diagnosed to have major problems. This was my original conflict (back when I was a teenager) with being pro-choice. I am uncomfortable with the idea that a woman can decide to abort an abnormal fetus because of an equal rights issue. Now, I'm a mother and the whole thing is gray for me when it comes to this issue.

The adoption thing is interesting to me. I don't think I could give one of my children up for adoption - I would much sooner consider an abortion than giving a child up for adoption. I would also like to see adoption be a better option (more affordable, especially). I would/do seriously consider adoption but we could barely afford it.

Oh, DC is awake&#8230;gotta go, I haven't read any responses yet, btw.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

"I'm really curious as to how many pro-lifers have a)adopted an infant, b)adopted an older child, c)offered any personal or financial assistance to mothers in need, d)carried an unviable fetus to term... or any number of other things,"

Speaking as a pro-lifer, I donate diapers, wipes and baby clothes to our local crisis pregnancy center to give out to moms in need. I have let a pregnant acquaintance and her two children stay at our house until she found somewhere to live (and our home is always open to women in need). My dh and I are planning on becoming foster parents. I have some parenting books and magazines in my car waiting to be mailed to a pregnant 15 year old that I've been talking to on AIM who decided to keep her baby.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

Just my .02

My favorite statement on this issue, for me was summed up on a bumper sticker:

"Abortion is a disease, not a crime, stop the war"

I'd like to see there be no more abortion in the world, I really would. But I don't think the best way to do that is by making it illegal. Even Mother Teresa said in an interview I was just reading, "I don't want to talk about wether it should be legal or not..." [what followed that I don't remember ver batium] '...no one should want to abort a child.'


----------



## gaffa (Sep 1, 2002)

I hate the idea of abortions. They really make me sad, because I do believe that a separate life force is present as soon as the baby implants BUT I would never say that it is my business to dictate what is right for everyone and situations occur where I think people really need to do it for their own sanity and safety.


----------



## OwensMa (Apr 15, 2004)

Personally, I think it's a woman's reproductive right to be responsible. There are very many forms of birth control available, the simplest being abstinence.


----------



## mama2j&t (Apr 26, 2004)

I am not sure where I stand completely, but i had a thought while reading through this. When a person says they are 'pro-life' I think that is interpreted as being 'anti-choice'. Maybe instead of focusing on whether or not abortion should be legal, or with more restrictions, etc. it would be more useful to try to reduce the number of abortions being performed, while leaving the mother with a legal right. However, I think there is such a negative stigma of being pro-life, that this would be interpreted as trying to de-legalize abortion, rather than just trying to educate, counsel, or offer options other than abortion. I think that the only way to reduce the number of abortions (which I would think would be most peoples goal) is to change the attitude of women regarding abortion. Maybe so that it would be a last resort instead of an easy out that it seems that many women use it as. (I know I am generalizing and that is not always an easy out)


----------



## brandywine (Mar 25, 2004)

I'm very 'on the fence' about abortion. I believe life begins at conception, and that killing is wrong. I believe that by excercising her 'choice' an abortive mother shows that she values her own life and choices more than the life and choices of others, namely her child. We can't know that because a child is born into less than perfect circumstances it will lead an unproductive or unhappy life. Many people are born into imperfect circumstances yet most are still glad their mothers did not abort them. I knew a girl in high school who was conceived in a rape situation. She was a lovely girl, very smart (she was awarded a full ride scholarship to George Fox) and she was a very uplifting person to be around. I'm sure her birth was difficult for her mother, but that difficulty has been overcome by the good this girl brings to the world. All that being said, I don't think that making abortion illegal will help prevent abortions, it will only prevent safe abortions. Also, I have a hard time with this issue because I've had an abortion. I was 13, and was encouraged to abort by both my parents and the parents of the father, also 13. I felt it was wrong at the time, but I selfishly chose to go on with my happy care-free teenage existence at the expense of innocent life. I regret it, and I don't recommend it to others.

Editing because I got spacy and forgot to mention the part where I'm fence sitting: Having had an abortion then has allowed me to grow up into the good mommy I am now. Maybe that would have happened anyway, but I think it's more likely I would have turned out like my own mom (certainly I would have had to live with her and be dependant upon her for much longer). She too got pregnant early, did a terrible job raising her kids and has been a long term substance abuser. I regret having an abortion, but sometimes, because I've been so blessed in my life since then, I'm grateful for it, in a guilt-ridden way.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

I think abortion is wrong. I think it is the same as murder. I think it has nothing to do with a woman choosing for herself/her own body, because a baby (fetus, embryo, whatever anyone call is, to me, a baby, a human being) is a baby. It's part of you, but it's another self. and by aborting you are killing someone else. I cannot stand abortion, I think it is selfish and in my country it is illegal. I wish it was illegal here as well. It's not about taking away power from women.. it's about respecting our babies. I am all for adoption, it's a much better alternative when it comes to choices, when a woman cannot keep her child. Just my .02 cents...


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

Personally, I think it's a woman's reproductive right to be responsible. There are very many forms of birth control available, the simplest being abstinence.
abstinence really isn't an option for everyone, nor is it a desireable option for many.

birth control fails.

and although i do firmly believe that _everyone_ needs to take responsibility ~ in all aspects of their life, not just reproduction ~ i think it's unfair to put it all on the woman's shoulders. there are many women out there in abusive relationships... being coerced or downright forced into sex... who don't have access to contraception... who are too young to get birth control pills... whose doctors refuse to give them birth control. example: when i asked for birth control pills at 14, my doctor said i was "too young" and "shouldn't be having sex anyway", so refused to give me any way to protect myself. i had to try to rely on my then boyfriend (an extremely abusive and controlling a$$hole anyway) to not only go out and buy condoms but also wear them consistently, which didn't happen.

you want to talk about scared? i didn't know this guy's sexual history. at the time i was worried about getting pregnant, but looking back, i'm glad i didn't get AIDS.

if we really want to get into the responsibility issue, why don't we say that our entire culture should take responsibility for giving women freedom, education, and options.

i'm not articulating this as well as i'd like.

i just believe that there need to be choices for everyone. once doctors stop limiting access to EC and birth control... once men stop abusing women... once we open up sex ed to everyone and actually teach everyone what they really need to know... once we provide protection to everyone who requests it, regardless of whether we personally, morally agree with what they choose to do... then maybe abortion rates will actually decline and people will be happier.

but making abortion illegal isn't going to fix anything; it's just going to throw us back down the path of women having zero reproductive rights.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

"Reproductive Rights" are what women in China need- where there is a cap on the number of children you are allowed to have. They are not allowed to have children because they have been deprived of their reproductive rights. Don't get killing confused with the right to reproduce- the fact it, abortion is the main tool that is used to DEPRIVE women of TRUE reproductive rights.

love Sarah


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Leah- I think your post was very insightful... but the problem is, legalization does trivialize it, and the people who have put so much effort into legalizing and keeping it legal- have a conflict of interest now in dehumanizing the lives of babies and the dangers of abortion- as well as ignoring the social problems that legalized abortion has created... both short and long term. There is a social implication because we have this "option", now we should use it. Now, because of the emergency out- young sexually active people do not have to feel the same responsibility toward eachother or the serious consequences of sexual activity which the threat of unplanned parenthood would require them to come to terms with. Some men who impregnate women do not feel obligated to support their children because they see the woman's choice to not have an abortion as her lost chance to opt out of parenthood... and her decision to keep the child as her assuming FULL responsibilty for that child.

I recently was at a protest (I was protesting ACOG and infant circumcision) where some pro-lifers were also protesting and I got to watch, as an uninvolved person, what was going on. The most shocking thing I saw was a man in a car driving past who yelled proudly at them that *HE* had NINE abortions. And he was laughing proud of it. They were HIS. WOW. That was a real eye opener to me.

Who was this guy? Clean cut looking business guy driving a nice car. I was trying to imagine going on a date with him. Going all the way with him... what would his attitude toward me be? What were his thoughts as he penetrates me knowing that eight times in the past he has gotten someone pregnant and driven them to the clinic to kill their child. What would he do to me if I did not "choose" to have an abortion? Do you think that a guy with eight abortions under HIS belt would really let me give birth to a child with his DNA marker? Do you think that he would be truly let me make a "choice"? Was getting women pregnant maybe his OBJECT? His thing? Had this pervert actually, through legalization... develped a lust for manipulating, impregnanting, maniputating again and ultimatly killing their child? How else could it be? NINE times!? That can't be a fluke... maybe for the women it was an accident.... but for him-? NINE times? That's no accident... that is a predator of the type which I had never even thought could exist! And he is out there today- no doubt picking up and wooing women with good looks and big paycheck, sweet talk. And he is the CREATION of "our right to choose" because if we didn't have this "right to choose" one of the mothers or uncles or grandfathers or grandmothers of one of those nine dead children would have put an end to his murder spree. He would not be so proud. He could not have driven a half block further without a brick though the windshield... but as it was- fifty witnesses to his confession stood helplessly as he drove away... because after all, it's legal.

And then there were women who became irate screaming at the calm protesters, who were standing, almost slumped sleeping, against their giant 5foot x 10 foot dead baby graphic signs. Many of the protesters were exhausted. they had been on the road a long time, they stood and took the screaming without flinching. Some people call them fanatics... but the only people screaming out of control were the women who were standing before images of beautiful children demanding that they had a right to kill them. They were literally foaming at the mouth. The transformation from a normal person to a screaming frenzy- it happened in a moment- as soon as they saw the beautiful chlidren in the pictures - they became incensed. And they were on the side of the man in the car. They hadn't heard him... but I had, and I couldn't help but see the innocent irony in their defense of his abuse. They were also defending HIS right to knock women up and demand they kill their children. Because we want to sleep with men like him... we can't help ourselves... we need to be able to murder the offspring... he will beat us up or maybe kill us if we don't... the baby has got to die- one way or the other- help him abuse me in the safest way possible! We don't want to marry respectable stand up guys... we want to slut around with users and losers, men who don't respect the life of a child!! It's our right to choose losers! Sex is not sacred, abortion makes it a playground- sex is not for having babies, it's only for babies if that's what you choose.

To bad for you baby if you mistook the bump and grind for an act of procreation. Stupid you. Dead you. Stupid you god, we didn't mean it, we didn't want this one, maybe another day... don't call me, I'll call you.

I saw a picture from the march on Washington... three young women in white tank tops with their belly buttons showing- carrying the circle shaped abortion signs... and on their shirts, written in pen: "Sluts for Choice"

Children are going to die because these sluts want to be sluts... are proud of being sluts. Would they had DARED to display their arrogance like that BEFORE abortion was legal... when they were trying to get it legal? When we were sold the idea that poor immigrant mothers of eight are going to die in a back alley if we don't give them a safe abortion... and now- it's been reduced to protecting the rights of sluts to be sluts? That's how legalization has cheapened and trivialized the death of these children.

I was totally on the fence, like another poster in this thread, I thought that it was just a political distraction intended to divide people or cause dissent within groups united on other issues. I thought it was just a cheap shot. People try to use abortion all the time to bring the circumcision debate to a stop. And it works some of the time. People DO use "the issue" for that reason, but it wasn't until I had to look at those giant pictures of thise children for days on end that the reality of what is happening to THEM really hit me. On April 29 I thought it was a political issue... and by May 3 I understood that there are people dying... and it's not political- it's their life.

I just read the book "Lime 5: Exploited by choice" and I was stunned at how little I knew about some of the details of the harms of abortion. Yes the book is very extreme- but everything is footnoted and referenced... I was stunned.

I'm also open to hearing suggestions for other books if anyone has recomendations.

Love Sarah


----------



## daricsmami (May 18, 2004)

Quote:

Leah- I think your post was very insightful... but the problem is, legalization does trivialize it, and the people who have put so much effort into legalizing and keeping it legal- have a conflict of interest now in dehumanizing the lives of babies and the dangers of abortion- as well as ignoring the social problems that legalized abortion has created... both short and long term. There is a social implication because we have this "option", now we should use it. Now, because of the emergency out- young sexually active people do not have to feel the same responsibility toward eachother or the serious consequences of sexual activity which the threat of unplanned parenthood would require them to come to terms with. Some men who impregnate women do not feel obligated to support their children because they see the woman's choice to not have an abortion as her lost chance to opt out of parenthood... and her decision to keep the child as her assuming FULL responsibilty for that child.
Social implications of legalized abortions?? People have been having abortions (legal or not) since the beginning of time. Teenagers (friends of my mother in fact) were having abortions when they were getting pregnant in the late 1960's. What you view as social implications is empowering to me...women actually being able to have a _legal_ choice as opposed to a back alley doctor.

Also- men have always been leaving the family behind. The difference know is that 1)people aren't forced to marry (not because of abortion, but because having a child out of wedlock is not seen as bad [as it shouldn't be]), 2)women aren't putting up with the crap they use to. Most women are not going to tolerate bs because they need a father for their child.

So if abortion is criminalized that leaves even more fatherless children.


----------



## Teensy (Feb 22, 2002)

I would describe myself as somewhat on the fence regarding abortion.

I have NO problem with abortifacients within the first few days or weeks (morning after pill, for example). I think abortion for any reason should probably be legal for the first 8 weeks so so.

I think abortion should not be legal except in life/death/serious health issue situations after 22 or 23 weeks.

It's the in between that I am not sure about.

I always considered myself to be pro-choice. But lately, I feel only somewhat pro-choice. I understand many of the arguments on both sides of the issue. I have sympathy for many women in a variety of situations. But...

When my SIL (DH's sister) had an abortion scheduled to be done in her 18th week of pregnancy, I became nauseous and so upset that I could not sleep at night. I kept looking at pictures of fetal development at 18 weeks and was horrified that she was going to kill my niece or nephew. I won't go into my SIL-bashing mode - but let's just say she is not a sympathic character. Ironically, the person who called to schedule the appointment was my previously outspoken as being VERY PRO-LIFE MIL. Pro-Life until it affected her life. I was so relieved when the day passed and SIL didn't go. This was not a baby with genetic health problems (it would also have been SIL's third abortion). My niece was born and could have been very quickly adopted had my ILs been open to that choice (which they were not; I did try to encourage them to consider it). My niece was born addicted to heroin/methadone (I get so enraged when I think about my SIL putting that poison into an innocent baby, but that's a whole other rant), but the doctors were able to wean her off of the drugs and she is a healthy, sweet baby who is loved.

Should the government make abortions illegal at some point before viability? I don't know.

Should the government play some role in protecting babies before they are born? Before viability? I don't know. I understand the two-persons-occupying-the-same-space-mother-wins argument, but I also see a little helpless person with brainwaves who perhaps should have some rights.

I don't know. I don't know. I dont' know.

How's that for on the fence?


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:

Now, because of the emergency out- young sexually active people do not have to feel the same responsibility toward eachother or the serious consequences of sexual activity which the threat of unplanned parenthood would require them to come to terms with.
I don't think legal abortion has really changed the way young people view their responsibilty to one another. I think some young couples have and do feel very repsonsible for eachother and other young couples don't. Same goes for older couples as well. I don't think abortion has really changed that but maybe it has I don't know how we could really know that.
I also think a lot of young sexually active couples have always not thought too much of the consequences of getting pregnant. Hence why there has always be unplanned pregnancies.

Many years ago a few friends and I were driving by an anti-abortion protest and they were yelling all kinds of lovely things and of course holding their signs , someone in the car with me flipped them off and one of the protesters yelled at us "Your mom should have an abortion with you". How is that for irony. I don't know why I'm posting that but everytime I read these threads about abortion I think about it.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
Isn't it interesting how women are torn between what they feel is moral by their gut and between what we are told we should defend, womens right. I'd like to see more people concerned with reproductive responsibility but for some reason it's all been translated into "the right to be sexually irresponsible". I hate that thinking. (if your not with us you're against us) It's such BS that because a woman cares about the lives of babies in utero she's labled anti womans rights.

I think most of us here really do want to see much more education for young women and men on their reproduction. This in itself would lower the rate of abortionsand would do a lot to make young people more responsible for their reproduction. I know that I was quite ignorant about my reproduction when I was younger.
I would say you are anti-women's rights because you want your morals and opinions to dictate what women should be able to do with their own bodies. I respect your right to have those morals and opinions about abortion but I will never respect anyone for trying to make laws for me or anyone else based on them.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

I would say you are anti-women's rights because you want your morals and opinions to dictate what women should be able to do with their own bodies. I respect your right to have those morals and opinions about abortion but I will never respect anyone for trying to make laws for me or anyone else based on them.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Sorry more off topic discussion,last time okay!!

It is illegal in Italy and as far as I've read parents aren't doing underground circs on their sons there.
Medical doctors aren't the ones doing the procedure when it done for religious reasons anyway. So even if it becomes illegal for medical doctors to perfom RIC it wouldn't effect religious circumcisions as far as I can tell.

They are probably going to other countries to get it done. If they are Muslim (like the Turkish and North African immigrants) they are most likely returning to their home countries for the circumcision.

As I understand it, Jews have a particular person who specializes in religious circumcisions (I just can't remember the name right now...) The Muslims in my community do not have a particular person who performs the circumcision. The medical doctor does it. So making circumcision illegal for medical doctors would definately affect religious circumcisions, at least in this community.

Oh, and I'm also on the fence as far as abortion in concerned. I can't really understand either extreme. I was just thinking about this the other day, when I passed Planned Parenthood and saw people praying outside in the blazing sun in 90+ heat. Are their prayers less effective if they are praying in air conditioning? Man, that's conviction for you !

Or maybe just wanting everyone to see how pious you are?...

At any rate, I guess I'm just on MY side of the fence, which can't be catagorized according to the current 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' lables. Anyone want visit my side of the fence?


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Sorry to once again take this thread of topic, hopefully it will really be the last time, this time.

I believe it is Mohel that preforms Jewish circs. Hmm maybe Muslims could have a Mohel do it, I don't know how that works inregards to Muslims being a different religion. Saving a million or more baby boys a year from a painful, sexually altering, unnecessary procedure is worth parents wanting to religiously circ their sons to find another way. JMO, of course.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

Sarah, your last post was so moving. Thank you.

And for those of you that are on the fence, thank you too for being open-minded enough to honestly explore the issue and your conflicting feelings about it. You haven't allowed cognitive dissonance to bully you into embracing flawed perspectives.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

[


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Guess what I have MORALS too (hmmm I hope you aren't suggesting that I don't because I am pro-choice and have had an abortion). I thought you were for making abortion illegal again if not then sorry.
It would NOT be the same as you saying pro-choice people are trying to turn everyone into "murderers" , choice means every woman has a **choice** to have or not to have an abortion. Pro-choice people aren't forcing abortions on anyone. Now if there were a group of people who believed in making laws that forced women to abort then maybe you'd have a valid argument, that would however not be people who are pro-choice anyway.
If you are trying to outlaw abortions then you are definitely forcing your morals and pesonal perspective onto others and denying women the right to make the choice for themselves.
I made it pretty clear in my post you quoted that having an opinion about abortion being wrong doesn't make you anti-women's rights, now I thought you did agree with outlawing abortion (which imo would make you anti-women's rights) I guess I was wrong about that.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Most pro-choice people I know only get pissy with people against abortion when they want to make it illegal or call people who had one killers etc...
I personaly respect people's right to be anti-abortion I can even see why people are (eventhough I don't agree).
Eventhough I have had an abortion (which I don't find the need to keep secret but agree it is my right) I wouldn't have one now. I won't feel attacked until I am being so. If you started calling me a baby killer or the like I would feel attacked but with this conversation I don't all. I am at peace with the decision I made to abort so I don't take this stuff too personal, unless it is of course.
I'm confused do you sincerely like my logic or were you being sarcastic. As long as you aren't trying to make my decisions for me regarding my body I have no problem with your stance on abortion.
In my post before this one I was trying to say that I had misunderstood you and I thought you were wanting to make abortion illegal but you have said you are not.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

,


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sarah*
"Reproductive Rights" are what women in China need- where there is a cap on the number of children you are allowed to have. They are not allowed to have children because they have been deprived of their reproductive rights. Don't get killing confused with the right to reproduce- the fact it, abortion is the main tool that is used to DEPRIVE women of TRUE reproductive rights.

love Sarah

Oh, no, here we go, a lovely chat gone wrong...







The topic is for people on the fence, not for people with strong opinions to come in and start harping about the killing of babies.

But I don't see why you would suggest the same to Sheacoby, she said she'd had an abortion in the past, but wouldn't choose to have one now, that sounds pretty on the fence type of position to me. It's just she's more towards the pro-choice side and you're more to the pro-life side. I really wonder when I read polls saying 1/3 of people are strongly one side and 1/3 are strongly the other side, where 1/3 are uncertain, where people like you are listed.

Just .02 here, my dh is a very scientifically-minded person, and sees it this way: If pain is felt with neurological activity to the brain, and death is brain-death, or the de-polarization of the neurons, then correspondingly, abortion should be legal until there is neural activity in the developing brain.

Just curious what thoughts were on that.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Nope. I'm not for making sweeping generalizations of when aboriton should be legal. That should be between a woman and her health care provider.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Considering the extremes on both sides, I really don't understand how anyone isn't "on the fence". I'm not on the fence about having abortion safe and legal in some cases but the extremes certainly get me questioning the issue. As far as the pro-life people, I have never heard a single pro-life person who doesn't question the issue when it comes to the extreme cases. I think that admitting that on both sides is the key to coming to a better understanding ~ it's called common ground.

Sorry, I just got finished the page I missed. I just wanted to say that I resent people bringing up poorly behaved activists if they are clearly the minority. Not to be rude, but I see this tactic being used more often on one side. I've lurked on many abortion threads and I've never seen anyone here use the "radical" pro-life activists (you know who I mean) against the pro-life stance.

I have struggled and worked hard to keep an open mind about pro-life people and I could share some stories of why that has been difficult. I would appreciate the same effort.


----------



## yeah yeah yeah (Aug 8, 2003)

I don't know if I'm on the fence or not.

I know that I would never, and, I mean NEVER have an abortion. Finances, single motherhood, whatever. If I concieve, that puppy is in there til it's done.

I miscarried about 3 years ago. It broke my heart. It was only 6 weeks along, and yeah, to me, I lost a baby.

But, I still wouldn't make it illegal, because of the girls I knew in high school that had abortions. Because of the kids I knew that were born to parents that didn't want them. Because it's not fair to bring misery into the world.

*Shrugs* I think that outlawing abortion is much more about controlling women's behavior than it is about "Saving the Unborn." I mean... if God were all that intent on every baby being carried to term, would there be women that miscarry over and over?


----------



## mealymama (Jun 8, 2004)

There are some creepy extremists out there on both sides of _every_ issue, but I believe that 99% of those who have strong opinions about abortion, one way or the other, are championing human rights... that's why I'm happy to see so many people on the fence about it... I think it shows that they love and value everyone, and don't want to make up their minds.
I would like to live in a society where men who beat pregnant women with the intent of killing their babies and dodging child-support could be prosecuted for murder, without lobbyists crying out that such a law will encroaching on womens rights. I'd love to live in a world where no one would dream of terminating a viable fetus, even an imperfect one, any more than they would smother an imperfect infant...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
I don't understand the "legislating morality" argument. If one believes that abortion is wrong, morally, and harmful to babies/fetuses, then why is this a question? We as a society obviously believe in legislating morality (murder/rape laws), and even many libertarians, who object to almost all government interference, usually agree that the government can legislate behavior that is directly harmful to others. So for thos of you who personally believe that abortion is wrong or upsetting, why is it wrong to legislate it, if it's not wrong to make murder wrong? Really, I don't understand.

I'm with you on this... I think that slogans like "keep your laws off my body" and "if you don't like abortion, don't have one" suggest that we have an anarchy, here, not a democracy. We obtain liberty through participation in our elective process, whether we are trying to liberate women or the unborn. Having said that, I _don't_ vote on the abortion issue, because a) it is not the only issue, and in fact, when applied to a platform it's usually associated w/ a belief system I reject and b)... all those things I said up there about the world I'd like to live in? I 'd also like to live in a world where, once the child is born, it will be clothed, fed nutritious food, housed appropriately, given a good education, and not shamed and neglected by the people who are the most adamant that it be brought into the world, in the first place.
So those who believe that pro-lifers are misogynistic, you might be surprised by how many are dismayed that there is no pro-life, anti-war, anti-death penalty candidate who would fight for programs to support disadvantaged mothers and children...
but even if there was, and that perfect world existed, there would still be women who just don't want those babies they're carrying, and as much as that breaks my heart, I'm not sure if I would ever want to tell them what to do. If that sounds contradictory to anyone out there, don't bother telling me, I already it. Being confused (AND BEING RESPECTFUL!) is what being on the fence is all about







:


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Mealy and Miss:

That's because not everyone views abortion as murder. An abortion takes away the POTENTIAL of a healthy baby, not the baby itself. Therefore abortion does not equal murder. That embryo or zygote cannot chose to live or die, be born or aborted or miscarried....BUT I sure as hell should have been able to chose if I wanted to engage in sexual acts with some guy....My neighbor had the right to chose not to be stabbed in the chest 3 times.

BUT(...and this is a huge but) these are PEOPLE we're speaking of. I am a person. he is a person. My miscarried embryo (however romantically and lovingly I speak of her and my loss) was not yet a person, and therefore did not have a say in the matter, had I chosen abortion. It hurts to type that, because the experience itself hurts and I did feel love, but when i sit back and think, I'm not sad because she felt pain, or even had a heart beat (which she didn't for either), but because of my loss over what COULD HAVE BEEN. Not over what was.

--Kelly


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

ok, this is a question and not passing judgement on anyone. ok? I just want pro-choice mamas to help me understand their POV because I care about listening to both sides. I am pro-life and I don't understand when pro-choice mamas keep saying it's their body, their choice. well, it's your body, but your baby is another being in there. how do you feel about taking the life of another being? do you believe life begins at some point later in the pregnancy? (again, not a personal question, just want to know what you think) and also, how can this go hand in hand with AP if we're all for being natural, peaceful mamas? I'm confused, and I'd appreciate your answers!

DISCLAIMER: I am not flaming anyone, either side. even though I am openly pro-life I respect your POV.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

loving, as far as how it can go with AP, please see the threat titled "AP and Pro Choice?", it explains A LOT. I'm not even going to touch that here.

2nd, how do I, as a prochoicer feel about "taking a life of another being"? I don't. Because that is not how I view it. As I said, it is a potential life. A being yes, but not a life. And personally, I've never had to make that choice to have an abortion, but would I if circumstances warrented it? Yes.

This "being" does not feel pain, have a brain, or a heartbeat in many cases.

I feel, personally, it is a life when it is able to live outside of the uterus. (please note that this varies widely among prochoice and antichoice alike)Does that mean that past 22weeks a woman should be forced to carry her fetus to term? No. Does that mean that I think it should be illegal to abort later on in the pregnancy? No. Does it suck that it happens? Yes. All abortions suck in that they are procedures that hopefully one day will not be needed, but are right now. BUT it's not my choice to cram my (or your) values down anyones throat.

I respect other's points of view to the fullest, although I do not respect their attempts to impose those views on others, or to try to make laws/restrictions based on those views. Much of the anti-choice centers and advocates base a good deal of their beliefs on religion....could I possibly count the number of times that I heard "God loves your baby" "Abortions make Jesus/Mary cry" "Read your bible! The baby leapt for joy in the womb! God gave the baby a spirit" etc etc etc... So okay, now what if some/many people do not follow the bible or believe in God/Jesus, etc? Would it be okay for me to make laws in America that ALL women must cover their hair, quit their jobs, walk behind men, and pork will be outlawed if that's what MY religion teaches? No way, that would be oppressive, BS and insulting. Where's the difference?


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Would it be okay for me to make laws in America that ALL women must cover their hair, quit their jobs, walk behind men, and pork will be outlawed if that's what MY religion teaches? No way, that would be oppressive, BS and insulting. Where's the difference?


Islam (which is what I assume you are referring to) does not require women to walk behind men. Nor are women required to quit jobs, or forced not to work. I understand the point you are making, but wish you could do it in a more tactfull manner!


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Umm...








:
I am so sorry to have offended you. I did not by any means mean Islam. (BTW-some Jewish and Christian sects also prefer or require hidden hair, no pork, etc) I was actually combining a bunch of religions and cultures that I have personally come into contact with (i know of 2 that expect the woman to walk behind the man, one even requires a certain # of "paces", or steps behind him). And to be truthful-it would not surprise me if there were a pseudo-Islamic tribe or sub-culture that also held some version of this belief. (I know true Islam to be a peaceful religion-I even seriously contemplated converting at one point)








I honestly do apologize. I didn't want to say something too far off the wall (i.e. "What if my religion required that everyone get a tattoo of a penis on their forehead") for fear of my point being discounted. BUT-I should have recognized that my post could have been interpreted as falsly referring to one specific religious group. Nor did I mean to change this into a religious debate, and I hope that you realize what my point was, that one person's religion should not be expected to be practiced or agreed with by all others.

Best Wishes, Kelly


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
do you believe life begins at some point later in the pregnancy? (again, not a personal question, just want to know what you think)

As to myself, I believe the spirit is near my body before conception. After they die in their previous life, they enter the spirit world, and then either choose, or have their new parent choosen for them. This can be just before conception or years before. I've even had a spirit hang out with me for a while then change his mind. As to when this spirit enters the body of the fetus, I'd say it varies from child to child. My youngest was connected to that tissue at the moment of conception, my oldest waited until about five months along, and when he "landed" in his body I felt it. My sister's son was moving in and out of his body shortly after birth, and we used a spell to bind him to it, but I think that is a rare occurance.

Many believe that the spirit enters with first breath, and I'd agree there's a certain binding at that moment that draws them into the physical world, as if they are two things connected to each other that become one with that breath. Certainly, that, not conception or first movement or anything else is what astrologers see as a defining moment.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
and also, how can this go hand in hand with AP if we're all for being natural, peaceful mamas? I'm confused, and I'd appreciate your answers!

As for myself, I look to what nature provides for our use. Along with some plants that work as contraception, there are lots and lots of herbal plants that will bring on a menstrual cycle, regardless of previous sexual activity. Most all of those will also bring on a "late" period within a few weeks. Somewhat fewer, but still many plants will induce abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy. Only a few will induce abortion by the second trimester, and they only work some of the time. Once you're in the third trimester, there's a couple of things that might work, but come at a risk to the mother, and then you start moving into things that induce normal labor, which herbally, is nearly impossible near the end of a pregnancy unless the body is already partially ready, and if it's not, virtually nothing will start it.

(For a good overview of these plants check out Susun Weed's "Wise Woman's Herbal for The Childbearing Year", usually listed as simply "The Childbearing Year".) To me, these were the gifts our creator gave us to use, and thus bring me to the conclusion, contraception is okay, including IUD-type contraception that prevents implantation or expels the uterine lining dispite implantation in the first moon of the cycle. After that, we should be cautious and careful, with much forethought, and avoid second trimester abortion if at all possible.

But it's hard for me to translate these beliefs into laws for all to follow. And I have a lot of empathy for those who truly believe that life begins at conception.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

but I also have a theory that those girls who leave babies in dumpsters are suffering from malnutrition, and that this induces a very animal part of our brain that says it's better for the child to die of exposure than suffer of starvation as a child, perhaps draining the resources of the mother and her ability to care for her other young. From a Darwinian point of view it has a certain logic to it.

What concerns me is, I wonder, with a society where even some of those who are overweight are considered "malnourished" because of poor diet choices, I wonder if women aren't making the decision to have abortions out of a primal instinct because they aren't feeding their bodies properly.

One day, when I go back to college, I want to study the links between diet, emotional state of pregnancy and infant bonding.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Umm...








:
I am so sorry to have offended you. I did not by any means mean Islam. (BTW-some Jewish and Christian sects also prefer or require hidden hair, no pork, etc) I was actually combining a bunch of religions and cultures that I have personally come into contact with (i know of 2 that expect the woman to walk behind the man, one even requires a certain # of "paces", or steps behind him). And to be truthful-it would not surprise me if there were a pseudo-Islamic tribe or sub-culture that also held some version of this belief. (I know true Islam to be a peaceful religion-I even seriously contemplated converting at one point)








I honestly do apologize. I didn't want to say something too far off the wall (i.e. "What if my religion required that everyone get a tattoo of a penis on their forehead") for fear of my point being discounted. BUT-I should have recognized that my post could have been interpreted as falsly referring to one specific religious group. Nor did I mean to change this into a religious debate, and I hope that you realize what my point was, that one person's religion should not be expected to be practiced or agreed with by all others.

Best Wishes, Kelly


No prob! I see what you mean, now. You know it is sometimes so hard the divine a persons intentions when you read their posts! No hard feelings, and my aplogies for calling you out!


----------



## mealymama (Jun 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Mealy and Miss:
That's because not everyone views abortion as murder. An abortion takes away the POTENTIAL of a healthy baby, not the baby itself. Therefore abortion does not equal murder. That embryo or zygote cannot chose to live or die, be born or aborted or miscarried....

This is all a matter of opinion. Some believe it is murder, some don't. If you subscribe to the idea that there is a silent holocaust going on in our country, then of course you think you should pressure your legislators. Besides this, not many pregnancies are caught and terminated at the zygote stage, considering it's no longer a zygote by the first missed period. By the time you know you're pregnant, there's a heartbeat and brain function. Even if you decide to terminate immediately you probably won't get an appointment for several weeks, and by that time the embryo is a fetus. Does that make it a person? I don't know. Is it a person at 23 weeks? In my opinion, yes. It's a complicated situation.
BTW, I'm not the littlest bit religious.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

By the time you know you're pregnant, there's a heartbeat and brain function.
Hmmm, a *lot* of people know they are pg (and have had an abortion) before that point!


----------



## mealymama (Jun 8, 2004)

I believe it has a heartbeat by 3 weeks, no? Which is usually when you know. When my BF aborted earlier this year she waited 4 weeks for her appointment, but this is a small town, and the PP in the next county is the only clinic that does non-medical-nec.
Anyway, IMO the heartbeat doesn't mean much, except that it adds fuel to some peoples outrage. I really wish they weren't fighting this "plan B" thing in the US, though, because I think it would take a lot of the emotion out of the issue if it were happening earlier... but some people would think I'm horrible for saying that.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mealymama*
I believe it has a heartbeat by 3 weeks, no? Which is usually when you know.

Mealy, no, the heart beat is not present until the embryo is 4-5weeks (or the woman technically being 6-7 weeks pregnant) SOMETIMES a bit before (i.e. 5 weeks, 5 days, etc). And even then, it is not a heart, it is the begining phase of what would become the heart, should the pregnancy progress.

What's the diff. between the 2? The "heart beat" that is seen is really nothing more than a hollow tube that begins to pulsate. It is not the round, four chambered, muscular organ that we have. It serves NO function at this point (there is not even blood circulating in the developing zygote).

MANY women find out they're pregnant less than 4 weeks after they've already missed their period--they would be missing the 2nd one in a row. Yes, I know this happens, but it is not the regular. And, yes, most women find out when they are 3 weeks, that's "average.

It is a zygote (or blastocyst...I didn't wanna break out the textbooks over technicallities, but....)until 4 weeks into the pregnancy (zygote age=2weeks). The whole rest of the first trimester, it is an embryo. Becomes a fetus at 12-16 weeks (depending on where you look-12 seems to be more common). MANY women have abortions in the first trimester, and with abortions, many offices and clinics have same week or even next day appointments--this is doubly true when you're talking about a medical abortion (RU 486).

Not being snarky, just trying to clear things up.









Best Wishes, Kelly


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Thanks for the information.

I have known people who went in for their early u/s before the heart started beating (and had to make an initial appt, etc...) so I knew it couldn't be *too* early.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

I remember taking a class in HS about "early human development" (I thought it was birth... toddlers type stuff, didn't realized I'd be spending a semester talking about pregnancy.) Anyway, we had all these handouts, and the final paper we had to write down (open book) when each of these new developments took place, and there was a two-three week difference between one set of papers and the other, it was obvious that there were different biases at work in what was supposed to be technical papers.

What's sad, is there's exceptions to everything, babies who walk at 9mos and babies who walk at 18, both normal... same is true in utero... I still remember one day I came in to my midwife's appointment, she was on the phone trying to find out if a couple had burial rights when their baby was born on the first day of the 20 week mark--20 weeks apparently being when you have burial rights. The woman came in to have a miscarriage, my midwife didn't share, nor would I expect her to, the details of wether the woman didn't want interference to extend her pregancy, or whether none were possible. But this baby she delivered, that was supposed to be a still-born, was born breathing on it's own. But when the midwife called around to area hospitals, none would take it because the woman wasn't at least 22 weeks along, and therefore, breathing or not, it wasn't a "viable fetus".

So, it had to be 20 weeks to have burial rights, 22 weeks to be considered a viable fetus/baby worthy of medical treatment, but abortion is legal up to 25 weeks. I'd like to say there's something wrong with that system, but then what happens when medical science makes fetus-transplants or artificial wombs a viable option?


----------

