|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2001 : 14:40:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This earth is already extremely overpopulated.
Off topic, but what in the world do you base this statement on?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2001 : 18:11:45 [Permalink]
|
I have no idea TD - I can't find it. 
TD is that viablity outside the womb? Because extremely premature/low birthweight babies tend to have more medical problems as they get older.
Tarquin, I don't know what the welfare/childcare system is like in Canada. Anectodal evidence to support my claim that state childcare is not essentially in the best interest of the child. My neighbor is a foster mother. Each child that comes into her home comes with only the clothes they are wearing. No other outfits are provided for them by the state. As a foster mother she trades clothes back and forth with other foster parents. How do you think that makes a child feel when they go to school and their clothes are secondhand cast-offs? They get no new clothing allowance for these kids.
Also, some states have a maximum number of years that a foster child can remain in the same home. IOW, a child is passed from place to place, without regard for the emotional attachments that child has made. Additionally, some children do not survive their foster parents. It's my understanding these cases are rare, however, the potential to put a child deliberately in harms way is frightening.
Another question to you Tarquin: What of the woman who becomes pregnant despite using contraceptives? and What of the woman who finds that the fetus she carries has a defect (perhaps a genetic problem that runs in her family), should she be forced to carry to term a child that might not survive outside the womb?
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2001 : 11:02:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have no idea TD - I can't find it.
Actually this is something lbjrs said.
quote:
TD is that viablity outside the womb? Because extremely premature/low birthweight babies tend to have more medical problems as they get older.
This is what I meant about 'working out the details'  . I would think that we would want viability outside the womb with the minimum of health problems. Basically, we could say, if a woman was pregnant and wanted to get rid of the fetus, she could abort if the baby wasn't viable, or have induced labor to go ahead and have it (if it was safe to do so). But again, I'm not stating a firm stance on my part, just giving you an idea of what direction I would go in.
quote:
What of the woman who finds that the fetus she carries has a defect (perhaps a genetic problem that runs in her family), should she be forced to carry to term a child that might not survive outside the womb?
This is going to be the biggest topic on abortion in the very near future, IMO. As our knowledge and application of genetics becomes much more common, choosing the sex of a baby, finding (and hopefully being able to repair) genetic defects, and aborting babies based on their potential genetic qualities will become commonplace. Things will definitely get hairy around here if they ever find a genetic cause of homosexuality! /shudder
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/24/2001 08:39:29 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2001 : 03:45:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is going to be the biggest topic on abortion in the very near future, IMO. As our knowledge and application of genetics becomes much more common, choosing the sex of a baby, finding (and hopefully being able to repair) genetic defects, and aborting babies based on their potential genetic qualities will become commonplace. Things will definitely get hairy around here if they ever find a genetic cause of homosexuality! /shudder
I was referring to things like where a childs muscles harden. (I would like a better memory then I could tell you the specific term for this particular disease.) There is no known cure for the disease at this time. A little girl in the news locally just died from this disease. She was only 18 months old. I understand that the pain she was experiencing while she lived was excrutiating. I too shudder to think what would happen should they determine a genetic cause for homosexuality. However, I think there will be enough time yet before this can be identified for more people to become tolerant of those who are different. (OK, maybe I'm being a bit optomistic here...)
quote:
This is what I meant about 'working out the details' . I would think that we would want viability outside the womb with the minimum of health problems. Basically, we could say, if a woman was pregnant and wanted to get rid of the baby (pre-baby? fetus?) she could abort if the baby wasn't viable, or have induced labor to go ahead and have it (if it was safe to do so). But again, I'm not stating a firm stance on my part, just giving you an idea of what direction I would go in.
Well, I think viability begins when we can measure actual brainwaves from the fetus. I know there is a specific point in pregnancy when this happens. However, I think an amnio can't be done until later than this date, so a caveat to this would be to allow for the genetic viability of a fetus.
As for overpopulation, I know that many third world countries are struggling due to overpopulation or the inability to support their current populace (that would make it overpopulation, IMO). It's extremely difficult to convince many to limit themselves to one or two children. Though China strictly enforces the number of children a woman is allowed to bear. Any pregnancy beyond that set number is terminated by the state. This policy is to control their population. Unfortunately, many couples are limited to one child and as a consequence girl children are being killed or abandoned because they would rather a male child. This is an old prejudice that is held in most patriarchal societies - carry on the family name.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2001 : 08:02:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, I think viability begins when we can measure actual brainwaves from the fetus.
I've heard this is anywhere from 6 weeks after conception (the fetus would hardly be viable), to somewhere in the last trimester. Anyone have any info on this?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2001 : 08:36:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I was referring to things like where a childs muscles harden. (I would like a better memory then I could tell you the specific term for this particular disease.) There is no known cure for the disease at this time. A little girl in the news locally just died from this disease. She was only 18 months old. I understand that the pain she was experiencing while she lived was excrutiating.
Sounds like an article I was reading, if the child suffered any trauma it could have happened to her just so..
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/11/bone.disease/index.html
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
Tarquin
New Member
Canada
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2001 : 12:54:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As to the "child's" right to choose argument that is laughable when you look around and see those stricken with REAL poverty, disease and abuse. Let's compare how many children die each day due to these to how many die to abortions in a year.
Because some children live in poverty, others should not live? Odd argument, perhaps I've misinterpreted your point.
When there is a defect that leaves the child's health or the mother's health in question, then abortion should be considered an option, not in any other circumstance.
Foster care isn't so bad in Canada. Foster parents are required to meet a set of criteria for the children (bed, bedroom, experience with kids of similar age etc..) and are given money to spend on the child. The foster parents that I know take this to heart, and genuinely care for these kids. I'm not so bold as to say there are not exceptions. But Foster care is to be temporary. Adoption is the preferred alternative, and I know of several families with an adopted child (myself included).
Have you considered that maybe YOU were a candidate for abortion? Some babies are born messed up, I was born an alcoholic junkie, adopted 6 months later, and had a pretty normal life. The fact that so many people can toss a life away because it hasn't been born sickens me. The selfishness is too extreme.
{*._.*}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 00:46:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've heard this is anywhere from 6 weeks after conception (the fetus would hardly be viable), to somewhere in the last trimester. Anyone have any info on this?
I've heard anywhere from 17 to 20 weeks. Still not viable outside the womb. I don't know. I guess that's the problem. Amnio still can't be performed until the 26th week, I think.
quote:
When there is a defect that leaves the child's health or the mother's health in question, then abortion should be considered an option, not in any other circumstance.
So if I'm raped and become pregnant as a result of that rape - I have to carry the bastards kid for that!? Thanks but no thanks!
From previous posts, I gather, you consider conception the point of the begining of life. So offering RU 486 as an alternative contraticts your position of no abortions except to save the mother's life or prevent the suffering of the child from genetic malformation. So you would, by your own stance, force me to carry a child that was forced on me. I'd like the option to make that choice. I don't want it forced on me by men who think they know what's best for women.
quote:
Foster care isn't so bad in Canada. Foster parents are required to meet a set of criteria for the children (bed, bedroom, experience with kids of similar age etc..) and are given money to spend on the child. The foster parents that I know take this to heart, and genuinely care for these kids. I'm not so bold as to say there are not exceptions. But Foster care is to be temporary. Adoption is the preferred alternative, and I know of several families with an adopted child (myself included).
That's all well and good. However, here also, foster parents are required to go through background checks. That doesn't mean they are qualified to raise children. Candace Newmaker was adopted, does that mean her adoptive mother was qualified to raise her? Um, don't think so.
quote:
Have you considered that maybe YOU were a candidate for abortion? Some babies are born messed up, I was born an alcoholic junkie, adopted 6 months later, and had a pretty normal life. The fact that so many people can toss a life away because it hasn't been born sickens me. The selfishness is too extreme.
Um, selfishness. That's your take. Have you ever spoken to a woman who's had an abortion. A friend in the Marines had an abortion. She was scared to tell her parents she was pregnant. She went to her grandmother who immediately took her to have an abortion. A year later she married, and tried for two years to get pregnant. Her reason for why she couldn't get pregnant again - god was punishing her. Told her to go talk to the Chaplain about it. Two months later she found that she was pregnant. The stress of what she was putting herself through over having abortion was enough to prevent her from getting pregnant. She was even told this by her OBGyn.
Another who had an abortion was in an abusive relationship she was trying to get out of. She chose to abort the pregnancy because she knew she would never be free of him if she had the child. She also considered the environment that the child would be exposed to if the father was allowed visitation. Her decision was that the abortion was better for all concerned, her and the child. She spent a month making this decision. When she asked me to drive her to the clinic I did. I may not have personally agreed with her decision, but the choice was not mine to make. She spent the weekend at my place, she cried the whole time. This is selfish?
I think you need to consider the position of the woman before you make a blanket statement regarding the mental position of women who have abortions. Neither of these two women took the concept of their abortions lightly. They live everyday with their decision. They have learned to accept that the decision seemed to be the only option at that point.
Thanks Kristin. But I'm almost sure that's not the disease this girl had. Her muscles weren't calcifiying, I don't remember much else than that they were *hardening*. Most children with this disease don't survive past three years of age.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 07/25/2001 00:51:38 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 04:07:31 [Permalink]
|
Just found the following quote and thought it rather appropriate to my personal dislike of making abortion illegal.
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed... If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over... Somebody like Susan Smith should be dead. She should be dead now. Some people will go, "Well how do you know God doesn't have a wonderful plan for her life?" He does, it's listed in the Bible. His plan for her is that she should be dead."
[Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, at the Aug 8, 1995 U.S. Taxpayers Alliance Banquet in Washington DC, talking about doctors who perform abortions and volunteer escorts]
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 06:23:38 [Permalink]
|
Randall Terry is a scary dude, but he is no more representative of the pro-life movement than Jane Fonda is representative of the pro-choice movement. Or Patricia Ireland. Or Barbra Boxer. Or Pat Schroeder; I'm sure you remember her.
quote:
She was scared to tell her parents she was pregnant. She went to her grandmother who immediately took her to have an abortion.
You don't mention her age at the time of the abortion. If she was a minor, then her grandmother was out of line by a wide margin.
quote:
So you would, by your own stance, force me to carry a child that was forced on me. I'd like the option to make that choice. I don't want it forced on me by men who think they know what's best for women.
This misrepresentation of a man's pro-life stance gets tiring. Yes, of course, there are men who want to decide what's best for women, but that position is not the position of the majority of men who oppose abortion--it's a straw man.
The position of most on the pro-life side is founded on the belief that the fetus is a life and as a helpless life deserves special protection; the 'right' or 'need' of the fetus to this protection overrides the right of 'choice' of the woman. Nowhere in this argument is the proposition that men should control women's bodies, but there may be a recognition that, in protecting the life of the fetus, the woman may not get her choice. Choice takes back seat to life--THAT'S the argument.
To continue saying that the pro-lifers merely want to control women is akin to saying that the policeman who intervenes when a husband is beating his wife merely wants to control the actions of the husband who is merely exercising his right to choose. After all, the wife has become an inconvenience...
All that being said, my position is not so drastic as that; I find myself, as I frequently am, fairly aligned with Tokyo, meaning the specifics are open to discussion because of the limits of our knowledge and abilities.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 23:24:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Randall Terry is a scary dude, but he is no more representative of the pro-life movement than Jane Fonda is representative of the pro-choice movement. Or Patricia Ireland. Or Barbra Boxer. Or Pat Schroeder; I'm sure you remember her.
Agreed. No he's not and I understand that Randall Terry is by no means representative of all pro-lifers. However, the fact that there are people out there that feel this way is frightening. I think that is more than borne out by the bombings at abortion clinics and the murder of abortion doctors. Though I haven't heard anything about this in a couple years.
Regarding Pat Schroeder - she was able to get my brother his seps check so he could get out of the Marines in time for his wedding. So she did do some *good*. 
quote:
You don't mention her age at the time of the abortion. If she was a minor, then her grandmother was out of line by a wide margin.
She was 18 or 19 at the time. She was in the Marines and home on leave when her grandmother took her to the abortion clinic.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you would, by your own stance, force me to carry a child that was forced on me. I'd like the option to make that choice. I don't want it forced on me by men who think they know what's best for women.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This misrepresentation of a man's pro-life stance gets tiring. Yes, of course, there are men who want to decide what's best for women, but that position is not the position of the majority of men who oppose abortion--it's a straw man.
This was a specific response to Tarquin's argument that all abortions should be illegal and any woman who has an abortion is being selfish. I will also admit my own personal bias colors this issue, mea culpa. My position all along is that abortion is not personally for me, but that it should not be made illegal. I disagree with third tri-mester abortions and am horrified by partial birth abortions.
quote:
The position of most on the pro-life side is founded on the belief that the fetus is a life and as a helpless life deserves special protection; the 'right' or 'need' of the fetus to this protection overrides the right of 'choice' of the woman. Nowhere in this argument is the proposition that men should control women's bodies, but there may be a recognition that, in protecting the life of the fetus, the woman may not get her choice. Choice takes back seat to life--THAT'S the argument.
And I understand their position. If you read back through my posts you will find that I believe life begins at some point inside the womb, however am uncertain as to the point of viability of the fetus.
And you will also notice that I personally do not believe in abortion. I am a single mother - the father is nowhere to be found. I could have chosen an abortion at the time, I chose not to because of my personal convictions. As for my friend I drove to the clinic, I never once tried to force my opinion on her nor did I ever encourage her choice. Everytime she asked me I simply replied that the choice and the decision were hers. That is my stance on the abortion issue until such time as society takes the time and effort to deal with the issues facing those who seek out abortions. The decision and choice are the individual womans and not anothers.
quote:
To continue saying that the pro-lifers merely want to control women is akin to saying that the policeman who intervenes when a husband is beating his wife merely wants to control the actions of the husband who is merely exercising his right to choose. After all, the wife has become an inconvenience...
I will say this again. The reasons a woman has an abortion are as many as the number of women who have abortions. Some choose an abortion because a child at that point would be an inconvenience, however, some choose abortion for other reasons. It's an individual choice and an individual decision.
In some cases it is a point of controlling women. Is this the majority, no. However, I will again say that society is unprepared to deal with and handle children who will be born to mothers who do not want their children. Society must educate it's children regarding birth control measures and allow access to these birth control measures. Then and only then should the issue of illegalizing or reducing the accessability of abortion be brought forth.
The core of the issue is the abhorrent lack of understanding in young men and women of the reproductive cycle and in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. It is primarily the pro-life *side* that also argues against teaching children about birth control methods other than abstinence. If I reach the conclusion that their view is - let's keep children ignorant of the issue of birth control and deny their current right to have an abortion - as misogynistic well...that's how I read the issue.
I too, am for the most part aligned with Tokyo regarding the issue of abortion. However, I don't think at this point our society is prepared to handle the number of children that might go as unwanted if abortion is made illegal.
We are, as a society, unwilling to teach children about contraceptives and their uses. We're unwilling to allow young women who are sexually active to use birth control or make it simple for her to have access to birth control. By young women I mean sexually active teens.
By some extreme pro-lifers even birth control is against their views. It is against the views of the Roman Catholic church I grew up in. In many cases the only type of birth control educators are allowed to speak of is abstinence. Yet we hear about 14/15/16 year old girls pregnant.
Society needs to teach children about all birth control methods, not just abstinence. To do any less is naive in the extreme. Following that society must be prepared to take responsibility for unwanted children and have a plan in place to do so, before it even considers illegalizing abortion.
Colorado took a major stance to prevent harm to infants abandoned by their mothers. A woman who abandons her child at a police station or fire department or hospital will not be charged under child endangerment laws. And, should the woman decide within one year after abandonment that she would like the child back she will be allowed that opportunity following an investigation of her circumstances by child welfare. This is a step in the right direction.
This law was enacted following the numbers of abandoned children not |
|
|
|
Pyrogenic
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 17:47:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What she did say is that if she had an abortion and donated the fetus to science she would feel that at least some good might come from the physically and emotionally painful experience of her abortion. She would not hesitate to donate.
The Evil Skeptic
What convenience! A nice way to further justify an abortion of choice. (It will benefit science...) What B.S.!
If you are a woman who 'chooses' to abort a healthy child for no reason other than your lack of interest in having it, you should have no rights regarding the scientific use of the fetus, and you should be sterilized so as not to be 'inconvenienced' again in the future.
-Pyrogenic
|
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 16:39:19 [Permalink]
|
I agree with Kil's girlfriend. I have signed my organ donor card. At my death, any body parts I haven't rendered useless will hopefully benefit someone else. Why should a fetus be any different?
As for profit, who should make it? The doctor is paid for the abortion. The fetus belongs to the "parents". Morality should not be a legal issue. If something is legally mine, I should be able to sell it.
Women are paid by the government to have more children than they can afford. In my opinion, that is more immoral, and does less good.
Boy, am I gonna make a lot of people mad with this one.
Wendy Jones |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 23:11:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you are a woman who 'chooses' to abort a healthy child for no reason other than your lack of interest in having it, you should have no rights regarding the scientific use of the fetus, and you should be sterilized so as not to be 'inconvenienced' again in the future.
Oh, so if I have a lack of interest in carrying a child because I a) cannot afford another child in my household, b) am mentally unprepared at that point in my life to care for a child or any of the other myriad reasons that women have for seeking out an abortion - I should be sterilized for the rest of my life! Who the hell are you to tell me what the hell I can do with my body!?
This is the attitude that really gets me. Garrette points out that the pro-life side of the issue is about the rights of the fetus. This is not about the rights of the fetus here - rather about denying the rights of the woman or forcing anothers opinion of what she should do with her body on her.
I have run into this particular attitude one too many times. That's why this colors my thinking so heavily. There was one SSgt I was under to believed that a woman who wanted an abortion should be locked up until she has that child.
Do none of you care what happens to the child after it's born? Those who murder their children are not sentenced as though they murdered an adult. They receive much shorter sentence. Ponder only received 16 years out of a possible 48 years in prison. Why? Does Candace count less than a fetus because she's already here? There are underlying social problems which must be addressed first. Then the abortion *problem* will take care of itself.
Why do we do so little to educate our young men and women about sex and preventing pregnancies. Why is the only thing we're allowed to talk about in regards to prevention of pregnancies abstinence - why can't we talk about the use of condoms. Why can't we provide condoms to children. There is this false impression that making condoms and birth control pills freely accessible to our young people that they will want to do nothing but have sex. Why? This is a misconception - lets educate our children instead of keeping it such a mystery - then maybe it won't be such an illiset (?) issue that they feel they must have sex as a form of rebellion.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 20:31:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why do we do so little to educate our young men and women about sex and preventing pregnancies. Why is the only thing we're allowed to talk about in regards to prevention of pregnancies abstinence - why can't we talk about the use of condoms. Why can't we provide condoms to children
Who is "we"? Public schools? Most can't adequately teach students the "Three R's". Now society is going to heap values, morality, and sexual conduct into the curriculum?
Teaching children about birth control and the prevention of sexually transmitted disease is the responsibility of the parent or guardian. I will agree that many parents/guardians are doing a piss-poor job.
Wendy Jones |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
