Abortion?

[ReallyCrazy]

One who irrationally hates females.

A misandrist hates males & a misanthrope hates people!

oh, then I'm a misanthrope fo sho. I think everyone in this earth should be aborted.

[Nate]

oh, then I'm a misanthrope fo sho. I think everyone in this earth should be aborted.

ummmm.... haha?

sorry, but didnt we have a thread on this earlier? i would be interested to see whether i bothered to explain myself then

[PY]

Mr Mxyzptlk: I'm speechless. The sheer arrogance of that position, that you would presume to make decisions about anothers' life like that and sleep well. Well, I'm stunned. I don't know where to begin.

T_C : I'm truly interested to here what you find so 'arrogant' and 'rupugnant' about some of those comments in the essay? Is it the whole essay or just certain parts of it?

In my opinion, the essay raises some interesting points which could legitimately be used in the argument for and against abortion. But surely what has been said before in this thread (and in previous ones) is no more or less hardline than at least most of the thoughts expressed there.

OK, I give up. Basically, what I'm saying is I'm wondering why this article has gained such a strength of reaction from you. You obviously don't have to answer if you don't want to but I am intrigued.

[chris.hinton]

My View is that it should be the womans choice not anyone else is but what i dont like is a woman gets Pregenant and she splits up with the babys father... then she has an Abortion out of spite

that is not fair

[Top_Cat]

I'd feel scared and move out of the country, sounds like its being ruled by a bunch of feminists.

You've got a nerve, no kidding. You should try to do some reading on those feminists who have given you the opportunity to vote for your government, demand equal pay for equal work, actually allow you to enter the workforce at all AND decide the destiny of your own life should be you raped (for example) or inadvertently end up pregnant. And you're scared of these women? Think of what would have happened to you had they not existed.

Great, but I dont. There are plenty of people that are longing for a child, and due to different circumstances, simply cant have one. My best mate is adopted , so this maybe clouding my better judgement, but I see it as a huge positive to give an "unwanted" child up for adoption.

Yeah but EVERY unwanted child? Think about the scale of what you're advocating.

They would certainly not be forced to keep the child. You could probably say that they are forced to keep the child alive! But again, its a human life in my view and should be treated as such. I understand that what a rape victim goes through is out of my comprehension, but I simply dont think the kid should be killed because of who its father is.

Well this is obviously where we differ; I dont believe a child is a 'human being' at conception. So we differ. Either way, neither of us should be able to get in the way of the choice a woman should be able to exercise in relation to her own body. Yes, I'm saying her rights to determine the course of her life as she sees fit DO trump those of the foetus, particularly if she's been raped.

And lastly, I dont hate women, Im just against abortion. Just because Im a girl doesnt mean I should be all for it. Why youve singled me out as a misogynist among other pro-life opinions, I dont know, but its pretty offensive in my view.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't directly true. Your views on abortion put you in a similar bracket to male misogynists. We all have to confront harsh truths about ourselves sometimes.

Bit harsh, mate. I can't speak for Linda' s reasoning, but if you think a life is defined at a certain point, and all lives are sacred (regardless of quality), I may accuse somebody of woolly thinking, but it doesn't have to be motivated by misogyny in the slightest. Maybe a lack of empathy or naivety as to the wider implications of policy.

Yes but if, in deciding that all lives are sacred, you decide that the rights of said life override the rights of a woman to control her own life's destiny, you're erring on the side of misogyny in my opinion. It's not the statements themselves but the subsequent events which are party to them.

BTW, there are legions of female misogynists. Check out some of over 60's set or the women involved in "men's rights" organizations. Kinda reminds me of a situation where someone I knew called somebody out for being a misogynist, and somebody said "but he's GAY!". As if that somehow made it impossible.

I typed it wrong. What I meant to say was that she is the first one I've 'met'.

T_C : I'm truly interested to here what you find so 'arrogant' and 'rupugnant' about some of those comments in the essay? Is it the whole essay or just certain parts of it?

In my opinion, the essay raises some interesting points which could legitimately be used in the argument for and against abortion. But surely what has been said before in this thread (and in previous ones) is no more or less hardline than at least most of the thoughts expressed there.

OK, I give up. Basically, what I'm saying is I'm wondering why this article has gained such a strength of reaction from you. You obviously don't have to answer if you don't want to but I am intrigued.

Will do.

Considering that an abortion is technically the taking of a life and a doctor commits his life to maintaining health and saving people, such a practice is a major contradiction of duty.

Two parts to this; one of them debateable and the other palpably wrong. The notion that a foetus is 'human' is debatable and the Hippocratic Oath doesn't say what the author infers anymore. These days, the more modern versions suggest that a doctor do all they can to ameliorate suffering of a patient and if that means euthanising someone, so be it (although contradicting the 'I will not do anything unlawful' part are laws in some countries which don't allow euthanisation). This part of the Oath was removed or altered for this reason (different countries take slightly different oaths so YMMV).

Alternatively, there are several 'non-professional' means of getting an abortion. These are sometimes called 'back-street abortions' and are performed by unqualified persons. In Trinidad and Tobago, these are rather common due to the relative secrecy and affordability.
A very persuasive and factual point against abortion is the reality of serious health issues as a result of the procedure. Whether professional or non-professional, there are common negative repercussions to abortion operations. In fact, abortion has been listed as either the first or second most prolific killer of women in Trinidad and Tobago for each of the last five years, according to the WHO (World Health Organization). With manual mechanisms, of removal and killing of the foetus there is always the chance of transmission of disease (especially when performed by an unqualified surgeon), internal damage and infections. Such infections have been noted to prevent the mother from ever conceiving again.

The author is talking worst-cases as if they are common which is patently not the case if a curette is performed in professional conditions. IF done in the 'back streets', certainly the danger is very real. This is the danger which a government who criminalises abortion will face head-on with mothers turning up dead and/or sick on hospital doorsteps.

Such occurrences are relatively rare with professional procedures, but are still quite viable.

Of course they happen but they're nowhere near as common in a professional environment.

This argument is sound, backed by facts and can be summarized with one question, "Is it really worth risking your life for?"

That, in my view, is the choice of the individual. Banning abortions takes away that choice. I think that is abhorrent.

Although the life of the mother may or may not be at risk in an abortion, one thing is for sure; the life of a child has been taken.

No that's NOT 'for sure'; it hasn't been determined to any credible degree whether foetus's can be classified as human at conception or later down the track and likely never will be. That statement is easily proven to be non-credible if states without the evidence to support it.

Technically and biologically speaking, once there is a heartbeat, there is a life.

Define a 'heartbeat'. If it's just electrical impulses, you're still talking a few weeks after conception. If you're talking when some embryonic stems cells have actually differentiated to form a heart, again, you're talking about seven weeks from conception on the track towards birth.

As such, the ending this life by another human being may be construed as murder. Furthermore, the fact that the termination was due a conscious decision makes it premeditated murder.

For one, murder by definition must have sufficient mens rea to be predetermined by definition so if it isn't pre-determined and the offender wasn't sufficnelty aware of the consequences of their actions, it's not murder. Minor technical point.

Second, whether this can be construed as murder is again open to debate as it's not clear one is killing 'a life' when aborting a foetus.

The unfortunate and unfair occurrence of rape and incest produces repercussions, which are no fault of the victim. Yes, it is unfair and it not right that anyone should suffer as such, but the harsh reality is that life isn't fair. The sooner we realize this, the better we will deal with the situation.
The argument is strong, but ultimately falls short. Rape for many victims is the robbing of an innocent life and abortion would equate to the same. Indeed, it is a worse injustice and more serious situation that a mother should rob her own unborn child of life, because that child is essentially part of her and there is an intimate connection. Abortion in the case of rape and/or incest will likely be legalized in Trinidad and Tobago in the near future, but I believe that it shouldn't be. If the un-consenting mother cannot support the child (financially or mentally) or is not willing to raise the child herself, she should place him under the care of someone capable and willing.

Where to start with this one?

First off, I reject vehemently the idea that someone can rationalise the curtailment of anothers' rights with 'life just ain't fair'. The phrase 'slippery slope' comes readily to mind. So are we to tell gay couples wanting legally recognised unions that 'life isn't fair'? What about the product of incest unions as stated above where the children are trisomy 21; is like just 'unfair' for them? Curtailing of anyone's rights is a HUGE issue and as such, the justification for doing so has to be one heck of a lot better than that. That's why abortion was decriminalised in the first place; it was realised just how much the criminalisation of was impinging on the inherent rights of women to decide what they are to do with their own bodies and by extension their lives.

And again, I've seen the results of unwanted children in adoption situations first-hand (Dad's a social worker) and aside from Linda's successful example, they are generally chewed up and spat out.

What if we started giving away all 'unwanted' children to families? Am I the only one who sees so many families put through hell 15 years down the track by a child hell-bent on meeting their biological father/mother, who gave them up because they weren't ready for children? And how about the resentment of that parent by the adopted one? Then there's the subsequent strain on public and private health systems by the likely influx of people affected by being 'unwanted' in their eyes. So much pain which can all be avoided.

No one wants to have to life in regret and yet so many have upon considering what could have been. By aborting the foetus and so preventing a life from being lived, you may be taking from the world a potentially monumental character. That unborn child may well have gone on to be someone or to do something great and it is a loss to humanity when this potential is not realized. The prospects of a human life are endless and the limits of human achievement are fairly the same.

This facetious because of equal probability is that the child won't amount to anything or have a propensity towards criminal behaviour, etc.

The unfortunate the reality of the situation is that this may be the only way to go, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a negative, if not a counterproductive mentality. That does not change the fact that it is robbing a child of the right to be born.

No-one has a 'right' to be born. The inalieable 'right to life' (as defined in philosophy, not law) refers to people who attain said right upon birth.

It is beyond me how anyone can bear to hinder the life of any child, let alone to terminate it. Everything in life happens for a reason and it is not man's place to 'play' God.

This one is just ludicrous. Man 'plays God' in innumerable ways in modern society. Making medicines to help people who would otherwise die, allowing people with disabilities to live with the aid of artificial breathers, performing heart bypass operations, etc., etc. Man 'plays God' in so many ways its' ridiculous to suggest that THIS and only THIS is 'playing God'.

'The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away' - one of the most famous quotations of all-time and in abortion discussion it is one of the most appropriate too. No child is a mistake and as such, no child should be treated as one - born or unborn.

I'm not religious in any way so maybe this is why I don't agree with the 'no child is a mistake' thing i.e. suggesting that it was 'God's will' that you have a child, ready or not. Some children are mistakes, in my opinion.

I just want to say I'm not 'pro-abortion' because it is a brutal, traumatising procedure. HOWEVER, as far as I'm concerned, the CHOICE whether to go through with one should always be there for those who so desire it because it's not my place to make a value judgement and decide whether that choice is removed. Essentially what I'm saying is that abortion is not a 'good' thing but a 'necessary' thing. Not all necessary things are good.

[Top_Cat]

My View is that it should be the womans choice not anyone else is but what i dont like is a woman gets Pregenant and she splits up with the babys father... then she has an Abortion out of spite

that is not fair

Some women might have that thought cross their mind but when they go to the clinic, they are thoroughly assessed (in this country at least) to determine their motivation and something like wouldn't be terribly common once the women realises what's involved in the procedure.

[Slow Love™]

Yes but if, in deciding that all lives are sacred, you decide that the rights of said life override the rights of a woman to control her own life's destiny, you're erring on the side of misogyny in my opinion. It's not the statements themselves but the subsequent events which are party to them.

Yeah, but IMO, just because somebody's got a position on something, it doesn't mean their motivations meet up with the worst exponents of the position.

I think that in order to call somebody a misogynist, you'd have to demonstrate something a little more tangible in their attitude about women in general. I don't think you could really say that Linda is a misogynist based on her beliefs on abortion.

I'd like to add that the constant demonization of feminists in our country (and the US) is extremely depressing (for many of the reasons you mentioned), and people (particularly women) do need to seriously evaluate where we might be without it, rather than re-iterating knee-jerk dismissals. Disagreeing with a kooky feminist here or there (there are kooky members of any ideology/cause) shouldn't invalidate an important emancipatory movement and the crucial advances they made.

[Slow Love™]

I should probably stop asking these questions (because nobody appears to wanna answer them ), but for the pro-lifers out there:

What's your position on children that are diagnosed with extraordinarily painful conditions that aren't expected to live more than a few days or weeks? Should they be aborted if spotted early enough?

Is there any level at which you would consider that the suffering of the child is a more persuasive argument than dogma? Would you say that "quality of life" is a significant factor, or would it be irrelevant?

[BoyBrumby]

It's certainly a topic that has provoked vigorous debate....

I'm in the pro-choice camp, which has been unfairly maligned as "pro-abortion". I seriously doubt anyone is really "pro-abortion"; it isn't something one can passionately advocate. Moreover, I cannot imagine anyone having the procedure lightly. In my limited experience the pull of parenthood is strong.

I've had no direct experience of abortion, but last year my SO & I had a near-miss on the unplanned pregnancy front. Briefly, she's blessed with a clockwork-regular cycle so in her "safe" part of her cycle we don't (or rather didn't!) use contraception. Unfortunately on this occasion she miscalculated after a night out (thinking it was day 8 rather than day 9) & 13 days after her special friend was due to visit there was no sign of her.

Now with our current situation a pregnancy would really slay us financially, so this would've been a mixed blessing. After a trip to Boots for the test kit & the blessed negative result I (& she) both found ourselves curiously down. I actually found myself mourning the child she was (probably) never carrying.

I hate to draw general conclusions from specific examples but I imagine my experience is far from atypical. I would imagine only a tiny, tiny fraction of terminations are decided on without serious pause for thought.

As a footnote the decorators finally turned up 18 days late (we don't know to this day why) & we're always hyper-careful now!

[Swervy]

My View is that it should be the womans choice not anyone else is but what i dont like is a woman gets Pregenant and she splits up with the babys father... then she has an Abortion out of spite

that is not fair

out of spite!!!!??? what about just general concern for the mother and baby's future

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, but IMO, just because somebody's got a position on something, it doesn't mean their motivations meet up with the worst exponents of the position.

I think that in order to call somebody a misogynist, you'd have to demonstrate something a little more tangible in their attitude about women in general. I don't think you could really say that Linda is a misogynist based on her beliefs on abortion.

Okay, fine, I'll concede that it's probably too strong a term. However, I think misogyny's colloquial usage isn't as strong as the dictionary definition would suggest. Not that it makes much of a difference I guess.

I'd like to add that the constant demonization of feminists in our country (and the US) is extremely depressing (for many of the reasons you mentioned), and people (particularly women) do need to seriously evaluate where we might be without it, rather than re-iterating knee-jerk dismissals. Disagreeing with a kooky feminist here or there (there are kooky members of any ideology/cause) shouldn't invalidate an important emancipatory movement and the crucial advances they made.

As usual, the extremists in any group invariably provoke people to demonise the rest. Muslim terrorists, for example. People almost invariably mix up 'feminism' (such as that advocated by Naomi Woolf) with 'extreme feminism' (such as that advocated by Andrea Dworkin).

I'm in the pro-choice camp, which has been unfairly maligned as "pro-abortion". I seriously doubt anyone is really "pro-abortion"; it isn't something one can passionately advocate. Moreover, I cannot imagine anyone having the procedure lightly. In my limited experience the pull of parenthood is strong.

This is one (extremely) important point that the people on the pro-life side of things tend to overlook. Deliberately in a lot of cases.

[chris.hinton]

out of spite!!!!??? what about just general concern for the mother and baby's future

Well some do it for Revenge... if it was a mistake and they split up.... if a Woman is raped then she should (If wanted) have an Abortion

[PY]

I should probably stop asking these questions (because nobody appears to wanna answer them ), but for the pro-lifers out there:

What's your position on children that are diagnosed with extraordinarily painful conditions that aren't expected to live more than a few days or weeks? Should they be aborted if spotted early enough?

Is there any level at which you would consider that the suffering of the child is a more persuasive argument than dogma? Would you say that "quality of life" is a significant factor, or would it be irrelevant?

I'll give it a go from my perspective but I think the reason why pro-lifers won't answer the question is because of the way we get tanked by people who don't agree with us and branded as various different types of fiends just because we have a view that doesn't give people ultimate choice.

This is my take on what you ask:

I don't think that a child (I say child for a reason, as if nature was allowed to take it's due course then the foetus would become what pro-choice (*see end) people could not deny is alive) should be aborted for any reason no matter what. I just don't see any kind of justification for killing/aborting it. Who's to say that the child might not have a profound effect on someone's life once he/she is born and that the child might live if only for a few weeks to experience the few things we take for granted like nature's beauty, fresh air, seeing their parents. You may think, "what the hell is he talking about? The loony." but how can we know that these things won't be appreciated by the baby? I know this is a very naive outlook on life but I prefer to take a chance on something positive rather than being 100% negative.

Look at Kirsty Howard and how much pain and suffering that poor girl has had to endure. She was given six weeks to live in Feb 1999 and is still alive helping children across the globe with her fundraising and moving milllions across the globe. She was born with her heart back to front (only one other child in the world with the condition) and she was allowed to grow and look at the good it has done for her and others. This is a high-profile case and there must be many others like it.

On the other question, I don't think the human psych profile can cope with not taking the quality of life into account but I'm not sure how I'd react myself if I was told my child would not have a good quality of life but my overwhelming reaction would probably be 'life is better than no life'. I know that's going to get me berated but to be honest, from what I've read from some people in this thread, I honestly despair.

One of the main things is how people have tried to distance themselves and nit-pick between pro-abortion and pro-choice. If people have decided that women should have the choice then they have decided that they are happy with the choices that the women would thus be allowed to make. Therefore they may not like to be branded with being pro-abortion but that in a small way is what it is because you're saying that you're happy with what abortion stands for and what it is because you want to allow it. That is a fundamental fact of what pro-choice/abortion people are saying. You may not be saying whoop-de-do-dah abortions for all but you're saying you're OK with what goes on.

Now I expect to be called a bigot, a fascist, a women-hater or whatever if the trend continues but it's nothing to do with the fact that it's a woman (it'd be the same for men ) it's what abortion stands for. I'm not around the forums as much as some people around here as I don't have the net but if people want to reply then feel free but I may not be able to reply for a long time.

Peace out.

[Anil]

I'll give it a go from my perspective but I think the reason why pro-lifers won't answer the question is because of the way we get tanked by people who don't agree with us and branded as various different types of fiends just because we have a view that doesn't give people ultimate choice.

the problem that i see with your view is that you are trying to force everyone to your way of thinking while pro-choice people are fighting for everyone's rights including your right to opt against abortion.

I don't think that a child (I say child for a reason, as if nature was allowed to take it's due course then the foetus would become what pro-choice (*see end) people could not deny is alive) should be aborted for any reason no matter what. I just don't see any kind of justification for killing/aborting it. Who's to say that the child might not have a profound effect on someone's life once he/she is born and that the child might live if only for a few weeks to experience the few things we take for granted like nature's beauty, fresh air, seeing their parents. You may think, "what the hell is he talking about? The loony." but how can we know that these things won't be appreciated by the baby? I know this is a very naive outlook on life but I prefer to take a chance on something positive rather than being 100% negative.

Look at Kirsty Howard and how much pain and suffering that poor girl has had to endure. She was given six weeks to live in Feb 1999 and is still alive helping children across the globe with her fundraising and moving milllions across the globe. She was born with her heart back to front (only one other child in the world with the condition) and she was allowed to grow and look at the good it has done for her and others. This is a high-profile case and there must be many others like it.

agreed that some such children might have a chance to lead positive, reasonably normal lives...but for all such positive cases, there are many more negative cases which will understandably not be so high-profile...that again makes it a choice for the parents, especially the mother...

One of the main things is how people have tried to distance themselves and nit-pick between pro-abortion and pro-choice. If people have decided that women should have the choice then they have decided that they are happy with the choices that the women would thus be allowed to make. Therefore they may not like to be branded with being pro-abortion but that in a small way is what it is because you're saying that you're happy with what abortion stands for and what it is because you want to allow it. That is a fundamental fact of what pro-choice/abortion people are saying. You may not be saying whoop-de-do-dah abortions for all but you're saying you're OK with what goes on.

pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion...it just means that the person concerned, ie the pregnant woman should have the choice...and i am ok with what goes on...i don't know if you are trying to brand pro-choice folks as something bad(looks like that but i'm not sure what you want to say)...yes i am stating here that i am happy with what abortion stands for...i feel my stand is morally and practically justifiable...

Now I expect to be called a bigot, a fascist, a women-hater or whatever if the trend continues but it's nothing to do with the fact that it's a woman (it'd be the same for men ) it's what abortion stands for. I'm not around the forums as much as some people around here as I don't have the net but if people want to reply then feel free but I may not be able to reply for a long time.

Peace out.

i for one am not gonna call you anything...i don't even know you...but it's a load of bull when you say it's nothing to do with the woman, it's what abortion stands for...it's everything to do with the woman...it's the woman who gets pregnant, who carries the baby, who has the baby delivered or aborted...in a vacuum, abortion doesn't stand for anything...it's how the women concerned choose to use it or not use it...

[Son Of Coco]

I'll give it a go from my perspective but I think the reason why pro-lifers won't answer the question is because of the way we get tanked by people who don't agree with us and branded as various different types of fiends just because we have a view that doesn't give people ultimate choice.

This is my take on what you ask:

I don't think that a child (I say child for a reason, as if nature was allowed to take it's due course then the foetus would become what pro-choice (*see end) people could not deny is alive) should be aborted for any reason no matter what. I just don't see any kind of justification for killing/aborting it. Who's to say that the child might not have a profound effect on someone's life once he/she is born and that the child might live if only for a few weeks to experience the few things we take for granted like nature's beauty, fresh air, seeing their parents. You may think, "what the hell is he talking about? The loony." but how can we know that these things won't be appreciated by the baby? I know this is a very naive outlook on life but I prefer to take a chance on something positive rather than being 100% negative.

Look at Kirsty Howard and how much pain and suffering that poor girl has had to endure. She was given six weeks to live in Feb 1999 and is still alive helping children across the globe with her fundraising and moving milllions across the globe. She was born with her heart back to front (only one other child in the world with the condition) and she was allowed to grow and look at the good it has done for her and others. This is a high-profile case and there must be many others like it.

On the other question, I don't think the human psych profile can cope with not taking the quality of life into account but I'm not sure how I'd react myself if I was told my child would not have a good quality of life but my overwhelming reaction would probably be 'life is better than no life'. I know that's going to get me berated but to be honest, from what I've read from some people in this thread, I honestly despair.

One of the main things is how people have tried to distance themselves and nit-pick between pro-abortion and pro-choice. If people have decided that women should have the choice then they have decided that they are happy with the choices that the women would thus be allowed to make. Therefore they may not like to be branded with being pro-abortion but that in a small way is what it is because you're saying that you're happy with what abortion stands for and what it is because you want to allow it. That is a fundamental fact of what pro-choice/abortion people are saying. You may not be saying whoop-de-do-dah abortions for all but you're saying you're OK with what goes on.

Now I expect to be called a bigot, a fascist, a women-hater or whatever if the trend continues but it's nothing to do with the fact that it's a woman (it'd be the same for men ) it's what abortion stands for. I'm not around the forums as much as some people around here as I don't have the net but if people want to reply then feel free but I may not be able to reply for a long time.

Peace out.

I think you'll find the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion is that pro-choice = belief that it should be the woman's choice in all instances as to whether she wants to have an abortion or not. THe woman should be able to choose what she considers to be the best alternative given her situation

Pro-abortion would be more hardline towards abortion being the only option in certain cases. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice so I can't say exactly what the agenda behind pro-abortion would be but as I'd imagine it there'd be situations where a pro-abortionist would consider it compulsory to get an abortion (i.e: if the woman was raped, if the child is possibly deformed in some way, if the people involved cannot look after it) - and these are only guesses as I said. Pro-choice consider it the woman's (or people involved) choice at all times, no matter what the circumstances.

From a pro-life perspective, when have we started assuming we have the right to tell someone else what's the best option for them, their life and their body? I don't think we have the right to push our idea of what constitutes a life at a certain stage of development. Obviously, reading the posts on here, individual interpretations of this vary quite a lot and that's why I'm pro-choice - I like to see the people involved allowed to decide that for themselves, not have it dictated to them from an outside source.