|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
quote:
Yes, a foetus is more than an appendix. And that invalidates the argument that it's the woman's right to choose, how?
The woman carries the foetus for nine months, goes through serious pain to squeeze it out, will probably be the primary care giver for the next 16 years*. Yes, it's her right to choose.
So the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic? It's a sorta 'payback' based on the physical pain involved in pregnancy/childbirth? I've never had it explained to me before. I'd rather thought it had something to do with empowerment and cultural change and that, not infrequently, there was an accompanying call for change in the role of women as sole primary caregivers.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
In my last congregation I had three families who had gone to China to adopt their children. There were no local children in Montreal available for adoption without the sort of wait (five, six years) which would make adoption prohibitive for a couple in their mid thirties. There was a whole community of little chinese girls - some of whom had health issues requiring extensive medical followup. Most of them, however, ended up as very healthy, happy little girls wandering around the wilds of Westmount with their little school uniforms and their Spice Girls lunchboxes.
Female equipment on a baby appears to be a health issue for chinese families who want a boy rather than a girl). There is significant economic hardship involved in bearing a female child and so families exercise their right to choose and send these children off to orphanages or simply abandon them and if they're lucky enough to make it through the night they end up at orphanages, tied into their beds.
I would suggest that we might consider asking the chinese government to institute clinics whereby the amniotic fluid of pregnant chinese mothers be tested to see if the fetus being carried is male or female. Notwithstanding the inscrutable chinese maidens of Westmount who've managed to find themselves families, there are presumably millions of chinese girls abandoned each year - not to mention the chinese families forced to bear the deprivation of raising a girl instead of a boy.
A mother should have the right to choose the conditions underwhich she goes to term.....
right?
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
That does happen RR.
The shortfall in expected numbers of female births in China and other Asian countries is of the same order of magnitude as all the abortions in the rest of the world. The normal use of abortion is to kill girls.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
I have to say, quite apart from all the other objections to such horrific practice, I really don't get the logic of this. Surely if you get rid of all female babies, you're eventually going to have no population at all?
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Raspberry Rabbit, I think the Chinese probably already have clinics like that, I know they're in all the big cities in India and it's very common for women there to have abortions after a sonogram shows a girl fetus. It's already becoming a problem for young men to find wives due to this imbalance of the sexes - maybe things will soon swing back and girls will be favored.
Erin in response to Rook on page 5: quote:
And I think that you are oversimplifying the issue, too, and in the process encouraging a society where inconvenient life is completely expendable upon someone else's whim, forcing a great deal of suffering and harm on humanity as a whole.
I think this is a fear of many pro-life people but I really don't think there has been any evidence at all that those who are pro-choice have less respect for life in the born population. For instance, the people who are pro-choice tend to be against capital punishment more often than the pro-life group. The same liberal group that votes pro-choice tends to vote in favor of life supporting bills for medicare, social security and free child care.
In fact there seems to me to be a very firm line-in-the sand for the pro-choice between born and un-born life, while it's the pro-life person who blurs the line when they say that a 4 week old embryo is exactly the same as four year old child but then say that it's okay to kill that embryo/child if the mother was a rape victim. I find that sort of thinking more dangerous.
I think an annual extra 150,000 children growing up in orphanages would also force a great deal of suffering on humanity. No matter how slack we get with adoption standards, and we really don't want to return to the place where old people were adopting boys for farm labor, there will be a huge number of children left over. Well meaning people who stretch themselves to adopt a child wont be able to keep up with the drug addicted mother who has a baby every year. I don't think the decision about abortion should be made based on economics, I'm just saying that making abortion illegal could contribute to, rather than end, human suffering.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cheesy
Apprentice
# 5268
|
Posted
Rat said
quote:
If that was God's purpose, then he/she ought to have arranged it a bit more efficiently, since the majority of fertilised eggs do not implant and are lost without any human intervention.
Surely the point is not that some fertilised eggs do not implant but that one is artificially inducing eggs not to implant. Personally, I would consider this abortion. Which I would not put on the same level as murder (unless the child was viable) but still a tragedy in every case.
C
--------------------
Vote scz. Please. Anything to get him to shut up. Lazy toerag. ps I was aka nosmo
Posts: 11 | From: devon | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
In fact there seems to me to be a very firm line-in-the sand for the pro-choice between born and un-born life, while it's the pro-life person who blurs the line when they say that a 4 week old embryo is exactly the same as four year old child but then say that it's okay to kill that embryo/child if the mother was a rape victim. I find that sort of thinking more dangerous.
I think an annual extra 150,000 children growing up in orphanages would also force a great deal of suffering on humanity. No matter how slack we get with adoption standards, and we really don't want to return to the place where old people were adopting boys for farm labor, there will be a huge number of children left over.
First off, I am most decidedly NOT in the camp of "abortion is ok if the mother was raped".
And are you really saying that it's better to kill an unborn child because of the life they MIGHT have? Gee, while you're at it, go lock up all the young black urban males because they MIGHT commit a crime at some point in the future.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
My views on abortion have undergone a profound shift since my four pregnancies, three live births and one miscarriage.
I started from Erin's very black-and-white viewpoint, with which I have some sympathy. It is not my view now.
Routine tests during my first pregnancy revealed a strong possibility of serious handicap in the foetus. Further investigations revealed no discernable abnormality except an extreme 'small-for-dates' problem, with very little amniotic fluid. I was advised that the baby was unlikely to go to term and might be abnormal. I was offered and refused termination.
The baby was born at 30 weeks, but at the same size as a 22 week baby - 1lb 6oz. She did not look like a normal baby in many ways - her skin was transparent, she lay flat out rather than curled. She could not breathe for herself and she could not suck. She was kept alive for 15 weeks by a ventilator and drips. The ventilator tube prevented her from crying audibly, although I could tell by her facial expression that she was in fact screaming. During those 15 weeks she screamed a great deal and never once smiled.
During her time in the SCBU (NICU in the US?) I watched a number of other handicapped children being looked after by nurses as their parents visited less frequently. At least two of them went home to foster parents in the end. To be frank, it was a miserable expereince, not at all like those 'Triumph Over Adversity' TV shows in which the baby miraculously survives intact and goes on to be a genius. Even the success stories often came back into hospital with every cold and cough.
The experience convinced me that there are worse things that can happen to a baby than to die before it is born. People talk glibly about 22 weekers surviving, but they don't see what is done to them. I would never permit it to happen to a child of mine again.
I would still find it difficult to opt for a termination of pregnancy, as I have a huge respect for life. But I would not condemn a woman who did. One of the pitfalls of being a mammal is tht you are dependant on your mother's goodwill for the period of your gestation. Until you are born, everything she does affects you, for good or ill.
My early miscarriage convinced me that life does not begin at ferilisation. There was no baby, just clots of blood. I simply cannot accept that a few cells makes a fully fledged human, with fully fledged rights.
I realise that all of these arguments are based on experience, not theology or ethics. I think them none the less valid. Fertilisation, gestation and birth are a process, not an event. Somewhere in that process, a new human being comes into existence. I would accord increasing rights as the foetus develops, but I can no longer take the view that every fertilised egg is sacred, let alone every sperm.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cheesy
Apprentice
# 5268
|
Posted
Well said Moth
--------------------
Vote scz. Please. Anything to get him to shut up. Lazy toerag. ps I was aka nosmo
Posts: 11 | From: devon | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from RooK quote:
Moo, that's funny. I assume you're joking.
No, I'm not joking. The researchers studied many pairs of identical twins, and didn't find any who were 100% genetically identical. All were between 90 and 100%.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I agree with the various posters who have pointed out pragmatic reasons for differentiating between implanted and unimplanted fertilized eggs. My point is not that there is no reason for doing so. My point is that there is no moral reason for doing so. Thus, in my opinion, the hard-line moral argument against early abortion fails for lack of consistency unless extended to include some common forms of contraception.
It has been argued that preventing implantation is not equivalent to abortion because no positive action is taken to kill the fertilized egg. Extended to a post-birth situation, that logic would say that leaving your infant on a mountaintop to freeze is not the same as killing it. Hogwash. Even though you have not directly caused the death, you have arranged the circumstances which made it inevitable.
As much as I would like to take a black-and-white pro-life position, I can't find one that is intellectually honest, other than banning non-barrier concraceptives along with early abortion. I think RooK may have the right of it in saying that we are stuck with weighing human suffering, and doing the best we can do to minimize it.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
I would still find it difficult to opt for a termination of pregnancy, as I have a huge respect for life. But I would not condemn a woman who did.
That's exactly how I feel.
Thank you so much for sharing that with us Moth. I cried as I read it as I'm sure you did while you wrote it. This is the kind of story I think of when this subject arises - not happy children with mild differences or handicaps, not parents who are looking for perfect-specimen offspring - just loving parents who have terrible decisions to make and don't need the rest of the world casting judgment on them.
My own beautiful son has paronoid schizophrenia. Since the day he was born he has been the absolute light of my life, I loved caring for him and spending time with him when he was a "normal" brilliant student and since he became ill I love being with him and caring for him just as much; even when he is having his most violent and dangerous psychotic episodes. Caring for him gives my life purpose and I take satisfaction in all the ways I can help him. However I use birth control to insure that I wont risk having another child with this disease- not because I wouldn't love him or her just as much but because I know I would feel a terrible guilt to think I had knowingly brought someone into the world to suffer. I don't have to "consult him" as Papio suggested, to know if he is happy. He has tried to kill himself many times and has begged me to kill him on several occasions.
In recent years God has blessed us with a new medication which has improved his quality of life wonderfully but it's not something that works for everyone and there are still millions of people who continue to suffer daily with this disease inspite of the new medications
People on this thread have spoken sarcastically of the "inconvienience" of parents raising their child to age sixteen. Parents of many disabled children know that they will need to provide care for their child not only during the parent's entire life but have a responsibility that goes beyond the grave. In the U.S. where medical care is so costly and group homes for the disabled are in such short supply as to be practically non-existant, then parents need to have hundreds of thousands of dollars saved before they die in order to feel that their child will have decent care after they're gone. My son's medical care costs about $500 dollars per month. Assisted living homes run around $2-3000 per month now. What these costs may be in fifty years, when we are gone, are anyone's guess. I can't allow myself to spend any money on myself without feeling fear and guilt so I find myself in the odd position of trying to brave the weather with no winter coat while having over half a million dollars in the bank. No these decisions shouldn't be about money but as long as decent care requires money it's something parents need to think about if they don't want their child to join the homeless mentally ill who are living in cardboxes while trapped inside waking nightmares through lack of medication.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
My position, St Cuervo, is as one employed by the Local Authority to look after teenagers. As such I am required to act in a certain way, respectful of equal opportunities and other issues where people have different moral opinions. I am not supposed to promote any particular political or religious views either. I am required to act and encourage the young people to act within the law, but abortion is not illegal. It is a moral issue and people have demonstrated the varying views held by the population on this thread.
For this reason if I were chatting with a pregnant teenager I believe it would be unacceptable to say that abortion is wrong, it is murder and they were stupid to become pregnant (even if this was my opinion). Likewise I don't see that counsellors, nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers have a right to express such a view, unless pressed to give their personal opinion and even then I would expect it to be more tactfully put.
This is what I meant by unethical. I agree that moral issues are all around and I do make more of a point about recycling and fair-trade issues than some, but I don't condemn anyone for drinking Nescafe or for binning their newspaper and I don't see that these issues have the same degree of seriousness.
OOT
--------------------
Though the bleak sky is burdened I'll pray anyway,
And though irony's drained me I'll now try sincere,
And whoever it was that brought me here
Will have to take me home. Martyn Joseph
Posts: 979 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Sasha, I am wondering how you reconcile these statements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
But I also think we should realize that
disabled people and people with terrible diseases were not put on this earth so that the rest of us could drop a coin in the March of Dimes jar and feel good about ourselves for the rest of the day. They aren't here so that their mothers can win Mother-of-the-year awards or so that their pastor will have a special prayer to lead. They live with and endure their problems all day every day, long after Lord and Lady Bountiful have gone home. If medical science can relieve or prevent their suffering then I consider that a gift from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
My own beautiful son has paronoid schizophrenia. Since the day he was born he has been the absolute light of my life, I loved caring for him and spending time with him when he was a "normal" brilliant student and since he became ill I love being with him and caring for him just as much; even when he is having his most violent and dangerous psychotic episodes. Caring for him gives my life purpose and I take satisfaction in all the ways I can help him.
How is your seeking meaning in life by caring for your son so much better than the mother you expressed contempt for earlier in the discussion because she "enjoys them while she can"? After all, you're deriving meaning and purpose from someone else's suffering, what is the difference?
[ 04. December 2003, 14:47: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Erin, I thought my two posts re-inforced rather than contradicted each other. What I'm trying to say is that no matter how much satisfation she and I take in caring for our children, no matter much we love them, at the end of the day - it's not about us. It's about our sick children, and I honestly think, in all good conscience, it was wrong for her and would be wrong for me, to deliberately bring more such children in the world to suffer.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
it's not about us.
The pro-abortion stance is "it is the mother's choice" - which is it's all about me . You are getting really confusing now.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
No, that's wrong, sharkshooter. The point Sasha is making is (I think) that the question re: whether certain lives are so painful that it would be better that they not be lived must not be decided based on how the mother perceives her blessedness as caretaker; rather, the mother must consider how it is in reality for the handicapped child in question. She must consider this before deliberately choosing to become pregnant again with another child likely to have the same disability. (As with Tay Sachs, if both parents carry the defective gene)
Similarly, the woman pregnant with a severely handicapped fetus must consider things (as far as is possible) in that manner.
That's a different question from the earlier discussed one regarding whether a normal mother with a presumably normal pregnancy may make the decision based solely on her own wishes, to terminate that pregnancy "for convenience".
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
Erin, I thought my two posts re-inforced rather than contradicted each other. What I'm trying to say is that no matter how much satisfation she and I take in caring for our children, no matter much we love them, at the end of the day - it's not about us. It's about our sick children, and I honestly think, in all good conscience, it was wrong for her and would be wrong for me, to deliberately bring more such children in the world to suffer.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you repeated her assertion that she deliberately brought children in the world to suffer.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The pro-abortion stance is "it is the mother's choice" - which is it's all about me . You are getting really confusing now.
Could we have a moratorium on calling those people in favor of legal access to abortion "pro-abortion"? I haven't been calling you all "anti-choice". And by the way, shame on you (and anyone else who's made the assessment), for your assessment that the so-called "pro abortion" stance is "it's all about me." You haven't got the first damned clue what you're talking about. Perhaps you desire to assess the so-called "pro abortion" view in this way, so that you can morally marginalize it comfortably, and condemn those who've made that choice. It's convenient not to have to think of them as morally complex decision makers, I know. It is this sort of lack of charity that contributes to the inability of the sides of this debate to communicate clearly or convince each other on this issue.
[ 04. December 2003, 15:40: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
What else does "It is the mother's choice" mean? That seems to me to be saying it is all about the mother.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
There was an article in the New York Times magazine last month about how there are towns in India wherein the number of girls:boys is so low that it's become a matter of public concern. I think one town had a ratio of about 750 girls for each 1000 boys. This was because, even though it is now illegal in India for sonographers to report the sex of a fetus, there are still many who will, and abortions for sex selection continue apace. In India the problem is economic as well as cultural -- a daughter requires a dowry and leaves her family to become part of her husband's family -- i.e., a net loss on the family books, whereas a son will stay with the family and bring wife and dowry into the family, and is in this sense a net gain.
The popular (though less trackable) alternative to sex-selection abortions has been killing daughters through poisoning, exposure, or neglect. As bad as I think abortion for sex-selection is, I'm not sure if (at least until such time as attitudes change) it isn't better than bringing them into the world and then drowning or starving them to death.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Laura wrote
quote:
As bad as I think abortion for sex-selection is, I'm not sure if (at least until such time as attitudes change) it isn't better than bringing them into the world and then drowning or starving them to death.
Well I'm off to a shipmeet. Will remind myself as I'm battling the rush hour traffic that people are probably better than they appear to be.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What else does "It is the mother's choice" mean? That seems to me to be saying it is all about the mother.
Okay.trying.again.last.time.then.I.start.drinking.early.today.
"It's the mother's choice", if I said it (which I didn't) is a rather obvious way of, well, stating the obvious. Of course it's the mother's choice at the moment, not the state's, or the fetus' (whom we regrettably cannot ask). This does not necessarily mean "it's all about the mother". My own position would be "it's okay if, on balance, it's more about the mother than the fetus, depending on the situation". There might be some who would say "it's all about the mother." I haven't seen a lot of it here. Anyway, my point is that your conclusion "it's all about the mother" doesn't flow from "it's the mother's choice".
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Laura wrote
quote:
As bad as I think abortion for sex-selection is, I'm not sure if (at least until such time as attitudes change) it isn't better than bringing them into the world and then drowning or starving them to death.
Well I'm off to a shipmeet. Will remind myself as I'm battling the rush hour traffic that people are probably better than they appear to be.
RR
I'm sorry, maybe I'm being sensitive, but are you saying I sound like a horrible person for writing this? I wasn't supporting either of these loathesome practices. I've been actively considering adopting a girl from India or China for these reasons, even though we could (D.V.W.P.) have more children of our own.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
On another subject, the non-effectiveness of the so-called "pro-life" message in the general population of American Women of childbearing age, here, in the fairly religiously conservative journal First Things (which I enjoy very much), is an incredibly insightful self-examination of the pro-life movement's failure to reach these women and why, by a conservative member of that cause. I posted it during the last debate on this subject, and I remember several people found it very eye-opening in understanding each side of the debate more.
Here it is:
Paul Swope, Abortion: A Failure to Communicate (First Things, April 1998)
It is a long article, well worth reading, but here are some of the salient portions for those with shorter attention spans (or shorter lunch breaks):
He notes upfront that:
quote:
This research [on how women think about unplanned pregnancy] suggests that modern American women of childbearing age do not view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as those of us who are pro-life activists. Our message is not being well-received by this audience because we have made the error of assuming that women, especially those facing the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, will respond to principles we see as self-evident within our own moral framework.... This is a miscalculation that has fatally handicapped the pro-life cause. While we may not agree with how women currently evaluate this issue, the importance of our mission and the imperative to be effective demand that we listen, that we understand, and that we respond to the actual concerns of women who are most likely to choose abortion.
In particular, the problem is that
quote:
The report suggests that women do not see any "good" resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. Instead they must weigh what they perceive as three "evils," namely, motherhood, adoption, and abortion.
Unplanned motherhood, according to the study, represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as equivalent to a "death of self." While the woman may rationally understand this is not her own literal death, her emotional, subconscious reaction to carrying the child to term is that her life will be "over." This is because many young women of today have developed a self-identity that simply does not include being a mother. It may include going through college, getting a degree, obtaining a good job, even getting married someday; but the sudden intrusion of motherhood is perceived as a complete loss of control over their present and future selves
Therefore, it is not surprising that,
quote:
When these women evaluate the abortion decision, therefore, they do not, as a pro-lifer might, formulate the problem with the radically distinct options of either "I must endure an embarrassing pregnancy" or "I must destroy the life of an innocent child." Instead, their perception of the choice is either "my life is over" or "the life of this new child is over." Given this perspective, the choice of abortion becomes one of self-preservation, a much more defensible position, ...
This is why, as he explains in a description of ad campaigns, those focusing on the child only, those which have been historically most used by the pro-life community, actually repel ordinary woman who are not already pro-life, rather than convince or attract them. As Mr. Swope says, "In contrast, consider a common pro-life slogan: "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart." While this may be an effective phrase among pro-lifers, the effect upon a young woman in crisis would probably be to: 1) provoke anger at the messenger (pro-lifers), 2) confirm her sense that pro-lifers ignore her life and situation, and 3) drive her further into denial and despair. If the pro-life goal is to lower the abortion rate and not just to state an objective fact, we have to ask whether such a message may well be counterproductive."
At the end he states: quote:
If pro-lifers are willing to reframe the debate in a way that affected women can better understand and appreciate, the movement can regain the moral high ground in the mind of the American public, and begin to reach successfully the very women who most need the pro-life message.
[ 04. December 2003, 17:28: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
Can I add my plea to Laura's that those of us who are (to some extent at least) pro-choice are not referred to as pro-abortion. I am against abortion. No sane person could view it as a good thing. I have already said that I would be most unlikely to choose it whatever the circumstances.
As for the 'it's all about me' tag, I also refute that. I do think it's the mother's choice. That is because it is her body, her life, her ability to cope that we are considering. She alone has to make the decision whether the life now growing within her is to be cherished or destroyed. If she chooses to smoke, drink, take heroin or even eat listeria filled pate, she will affect that child forever. The child cannot escape being utterly dependant on her. It's a fact of life.
All pregnant women realise very quickly how their sense of self becomes eroded and made secondary to that of the foetus. She is told she must eat this, do that, not do the other. She may be made to change jobs or give up work early. She doesn't realise it yet, but that's nothing compared to the sacrifices she will make once the child is born.
Unlike some here, I do not take it as a given that a foetus is a human being deserving of full human rights. I'm not a historian, but I'm told that the medieval church did not regard the foetus as having a soul until 'quickening' - the first tangible movements of the baby. I'm certain there have always been a huge number of early abortions, and always will be.
I am totally opposed to abortion being made illegal because I regard that as imposing one conservative religious view of the qualities of the foetus on a community which plainly does not agree. Personally, morally, I am opposed to abortion for myself. Although I regard it as my decision to make, I have chosen to be subject to what I believe to be God's will in the matter, and I do not believe that He would want me to kill the foetus. I also have His assurance that He will be with me and support me. None of that gives me the right to decide for anyone else.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
As for the 'it's all about me' tag, I also refute that. I do think it's the mother's choice. That is because it is her body, her life, her ability to cope that we are considering. She alone has to make the decision whether the life now growing within her is to be cherished or destroyed.
[highlights added]
How many times did you say she or something similar? And yet you claim it is not "all about her"? I fail to comprehend that. I guess I am as stupid as Laura thinks.
quote:
All pregnant women realise very quickly how their sense of self becomes eroded and made secondary to that of the foetus. She is told she must eat this, do that, not do the other. She may be made to change jobs or give up work early. She doesn't realise it yet, but that's nothing compared to the sacrifices she will make once the child is born.
That just sounds like being a parent. I experience that daily, just like all parents do.
Laura: Thanks for your last post. Although I haven't read the entire article yet, I will do so when I have the time.
I will make one last contribution to this thread based on one of your excerpts from the quoted article, and I will make it as calmly as I can.
quote:
their perception of the choice is either "my life is over" or "the life of this new child is over."
There is a difference between the end of a life and the end of a lifestyle (or a lifestyle).
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Sharkshooter, I wasn't saying you were stupid. I was frustrated that we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I'm perfectly happy to disagree about this issue, but I'm not satisfied not to be clear with each other.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I will make one last contribution to this thread based on one of your excerpts from the quoted article, and I will make it as calmly as I can.
quote:
their perception of the choice is either "my life is over" or "the life of this new child is over."
There is a difference between the end of a life and the end of a lifestyle (or a lifestyle).
Right! But the point of the writer of the article was that this is not how pro-legal-abortion people see it. He was illustrating the divide in perception between the pro-life position and the understanding of many pro-choice women. They see it as the end of their lives. And assertions otherwise from the pro-life side only highlight the judgmentality and incharity of the public-relations efforts of that movement. They care about the babies, is the message that comes across, they don't give a shit about women.
Actually, as a parent, I can say it is the end of life as you know it to be pregnant and mother a child. That's why we tell teenage girls not to get pregnant, so that their lives don't change completely before they are ready. In fact, in my case, it compelled me to do horrible things, like go to law school. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
Sharkshooter, I was deliberately using those pronouns. Only the mother can make those decisions. No-one else is carrying the baby. She doesn't have to make selfish decisions if she doesn't want - most mothers don't, they want the best for their babies. All I contend is that they are they are her decisions.
And yes, pregnancy is the beginning of parenthood. That's why I said that the sacrifices one makes in pregnancy are as nothing to what comes later. However, once the child is born, someone else can make them if the child is adopted. In pregnancy, the mother must make those sacrifices herself.
I accept that if you truly believe that conception means that, suddenly, a new human springs into being, you must be always against abortion for anyone and against some forms of contraception. I don't believe that. As I said, I think it is a process, not an event.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I do think it's the mother's choice. That is because it is her body, her life, her ability to cope that we are considering. She alone has to make the decision whether the life now growing within her is to be cherished or destroyed.
If an alcoholic destroys his liver by drink we do not say, "that liver was part of his body and it was his choice to cherish or destroy it." Even though the liver is part of his body, we do not endorse his decision but, rather, we look on him with pity and ask "what went wrong that drove him to do this."
If a teenager takes a knife and makes cuts up and down her arm we do not say, "that arm was hers to mutilate as she choose." Even though the arm is part of her body, we do not endorse her decision, rather, we try to reach out to her and determine why she was driven to the brink of suicide.
In the same manner we have the case of abortion. When a woman decides to destroy part of her body (the fetus) why do we suddenly turn around and claim that something different has occurred? As the case of the alcoholic and the suicidal teenager show, the mere fact that something is part of your body does not give you the right to destroy it.
Add to this the consideration that, as Christians, we know that our bodies are Temples of the Holy Spirit and we should be very careful in making the argument that people have the right to destroy parts of these Temples.
St. C.
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Actually, I would say that each human has the absolute right to kill his liver by overdrink, or to commit suicide. More of a right to do this than to abort at 24 weeks, actually. Conversely, assuming what you say is true, then the distinction is that the liver does not grow into another human and require 16 years (or in the case of a severely handicapped human, a lifetime) of loving and monetary care. So that's what I think of your metaphor. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 04. December 2003, 22:07: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
My position, St Cuervo, is as one employed by the Local Authority to look after teenagers. As such I am required to act in a certain way, respectful of equal opportunities and other issues where people have different moral opinions. I am not supposed to promote any particular political or religious views either. I am required to act and encourage the young people to act within the law, but abortion is not illegal. It is a moral issue and people have demonstrated the varying views held by the population on this thread.
For this reason if I were chatting with a pregnant teenager I believe it would be unacceptable to say that abortion is wrong, it is murder and they were stupid to become pregnant (even if this was my opinion). Likewise I don't see that counsellors, nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers have a right to express such a view, unless pressed to give their personal opinion and even then I would expect it to be more tactfully put.
This is what I meant by unethical.
OOT
I also have to work with pregnant teenagers deciding whether to have abortions.
What is important is to make sure that they understand what decisions they are making and to look at the consequences, (and one I don't think anyone has mentioned yet on this thread is the pain and discomfort of the abortion to the pregnant girl/woman), and to help them to avoid getting into the same situation again.
In the past, regularly, and nowadays sometimes, young women have been forced to have abortions, or forced to have the baby and then have it snatched away and given to someone to adopt, or made to live in "shame". This has been clear and cruel abuse.
I do not have the right to make the decision for the young woman, nor to tell her what she ought to do. She has to make her own choice and I have to support her whatever her decision - post-abortion counselling, advising her where to get help and practical support, whatever.
And this can be very stressful for OOT and me! But we have to be detached and empower the young person who has to make the decision.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Conversely, assuming what you say is true, then the distinction is that the liver does not grow into another human and require 16 years (or in the case of a severely handicapped human, a lifetime) of loving and monetary care. So that's what I think of your metaphor.
Actually, the distinction you note strengthens, rather than weakens, my case.
If we would question a person's destruction of a body part that does not have the capacity to become a life (the liver in the case of the alcoholic or the arm in the case of the suicidal teen), how much more should we question a person's destruction of a body part (the fetus) that does have the capacity to become a life?
St. C.
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Que?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
So the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic?
RR - I don't think rights are intrinsic. Or rather, whether or not they are, is immaterial. You do not have rights simply by virtue of being. You have rights because society gives them to you. If society removes those rights, you will not have them any more. So no, the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic. It is a right given by society, and one that I believe should continue to be given by society.
quote:
Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
If an alcoholic destroys his liver by drink we do not say, "that liver was part of his body and it was his choice to cherish or destroy it." Even though the liver is part of his body, we do not endorse his decision but, rather, we look on him with pity and ask "what went wrong that drove him to do this."
If a teenager takes a knife and makes cuts up and down her arm we do not say, "that arm was hers to mutilate as she choose." Even though the arm is part of her body, we do not endorse her decision, rather, we try to reach out to her and determine why she was driven to the brink of suicide.
Actually, we do allow the person to destroy their liver, or to slash their wrists (I assume you were going for suicidal slitting wrists rather and coping strategy self-harm). Neither action is illegal. They may be immoral, according to your personal views, but society neither bans people from damaging themselves, nor punishes them if they do.
quote:
St C adds:
Add to this the consideration that, as Christians, we know that our bodies are Temples of the Holy Spirit and we should be very careful in making the argument that people have the right to destroy parts of these Temples.
St. C.
Uh, close but no cigar. you're half-right in the context, and wholly wrong in the interpretation. The context is that since your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, you should not sin sexually. You can argue that a sexual sin is (in many cases) the antecedent to the abortion. However, this verse says nothing about therefore not damaging your body, or not removing foreign bodies from it, etc.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
RR - I don't think rights are intrinsic. Or rather, whether or not they are, is immaterial. You do not have rights simply by virtue of being. You have rights because society gives them to you. If society removes those rights, you will not have them any more. So no, the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic. It is a right given by society, and one that I believe should continue to be given by society.
Ooooohhhh... let's throw in a cross-cultural difference just to make it a complete thread. Many people, myself included, firmly believe that you do have rights simply by virtue of being. I will refer you to the Bill of... wait for it...
Rights.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
RR - I don't think rights are intrinsic. Or rather, whether or not they are, is immaterial. You do not have rights simply by virtue of being. You have rights because society gives them to you. If society removes those rights, you will not have them any more. So no, the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic. It is a right given by society, and one that I believe should continue to be given by society.
Ooooohhhh... let's throw in a cross-cultural difference just to make it a complete thread. Many people, myself included, firmly believe that you do have rights simply by virtue of being. I will refer you to the Bill of... wait for it...
Rights.
But if they got amended, then you would no longer have those rights. So how are they intrinsic?
[Added smilie.]
[ 04. December 2003, 23:59: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
The whole basis for the american system is the "inalienable" rights among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with which we are "endowed by our creator". See Declaration of Independence. To secure these rights, goverments are instituted among us. See id. To the extent that a government takes away these rights, um, well, you know how that goes...
[ 05. December 2003, 00:09: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
To wit:
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
(am I the only one who always chokes up at these lines?)
[ 05. December 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
The whole basis for the american system is the "inalienable" rights among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with which we are "endowed by our creator". See Declaration of Independence. To secure these rights, goverments are instituted among us. See id. To the extent that a government takes away these rights, um, well, you know how that goes...
If they are inalienable, then they can't be taken away by anyone, nor can they be given up by anyone, according to a dude from the UK government's Medical Ethics board*. So that strikes out capital punishment, as well as suicide.
Or not. Perhaps these rights are not "inalienable", not intrinsic, simply given by society to those within society.
Sarkycow
*He gave a talk I heard recently, about euthanasia. He pointed out that the UK has signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among which is an inalienable right to life. Which means it cannot be taken from you, nor can you give it up. His thrust was that the idea of giving someone power of attorney, and thus the ability to decide whether to turn your life support off is illegal, and more importantly, cannot be done. An inalienable right is one that is incapable of being surrendered or transferred.
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
You do not have rights simply by virtue of being. You have rights because society gives them to you. If society removes those rights, you will not have them any more. So no, the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic. It is a right given by society, and one that I believe should continue to be given by society.
I thought you would like to know that the thought expressed above is the foundation of facist political philosophy. Only in a toltaritarian system do all rights derive from the state. This line of thinking is also completely opposed to the political philosophy the United States was founded on.
Erin referred you to the Bill of Rights, I would refer you to the Declaration of Independence to see a different view on where rights come from: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
So you say rights come from the state. The Founding Fathers say rights come from God and that the state exists to protect those rights.
Sorry, but I'll stick with the Founders.
P.S. Your views on rights frighten me.
quote:
Actually, we do allow the person to destroy their liver, or to slash their wrists (I assume you were going for suicidal slitting wrists rather and coping strategy self-harm). Neither action is illegal. They may be immoral, according to your personal views, but society neither bans people from damaging themselves, nor punishes them if they do.
I never said otherwise.
My only point was about our attitudes toward people who destroy parts of their bodies. I would guess that most people instinctively know that something is wrong with a person who drinks himself into liver failure or slashes her wrists. Destroying part of your body in this manner is not normal healthy behavior. My question was why do we recognize this in other cases (suicide and alcoholism) but not in the case of abortion. We take steps to counsel heavy drinkers and suicidal folks to stop hurting their bodies but counselors like OOT claim to be unable because of "ethical reasons" to take these same steps to counsel people considering abortion. Surely you see the contradiction here?
quote:
Uh, close but no cigar. you're half-right in the context, and wholly wrong in the interpretation. The context is that since your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, you should not sin sexually. You can argue that a sexual sin is (in many cases) the antecedent to the abortion. However, this verse says nothing about therefore not damaging your body, or not removing foreign bodies from it, etc.
Sarkycow
Uh, no. In the same passage (1 Cor 6), in addition to sexual sins, St. Paul writes about defrauders, idolitors, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. Clearly then (unless you take a very narrow reading and rip the last three verses entirely away from what went before) he is referring to more than sexual sins.
On the other hand, is there any shred of evidence anywhere that God would call the willful destruction of one's own body "good"?
St. C.
[ 05. December 2003, 00:24: Message edited by: St. Cuervo ]
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Or not. Perhaps these rights are not "inalienable", not intrinsic, simply given by society to those within society.
No no no no no. As St Cuervo pointed out, the idea that society bestows rights is totalitarianism in a nutshell. As well as a blood-curdling, bone-chilling thought.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Oh yes, and you misunderstand the way the process works. Even if the government decided to throw out the Bill of Rights (which it will do only when it pries my Glock from my cold, dead hand), the rights still exist. The government has just violated them.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Destroying part of your body in this manner is not normal healthy behavior.
It is, when it's destroying you and it's you or it. Go back and read the thoughtful article which Laura posted.
I once read someone who described an unwanted pregnancy as like being an animal caught in a trap, prepared to gnaw its own leg off to escape.
Having had an unwanted pregnancy scare I can understand that feeling.
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
It looks like maybe the origin of personal rights is an unnecessary detour from our discussion. Can we all agree that by existing in a society we implicitly accept a certain amount of curtailing from what rights and freedoms we might possibly have? More importantly, can we all see that this is a really long and complex conversation if we really wanted to dig into it? I'm suggesting a separate thread here.
It seems quite evident that none of us are likely to change our current opinions about abortion. There is, however, something about the "pro life" group I would like to know. How many of you are "anti choice"? How many of you, and people that you know, would make it law for abortions to cease being the choice of a woman advised by her doctor?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Gee, Saint C, I quoted the Declaration twice. I guess I've become invisible again.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It seems quite evident that none of us are likely to change our current opinions about abortion.
Not quite true. The pendulum of my own opinions on the subject started on one side and then swung far to the other side. Now I find that it may have swung back, at least part way. Some of us do reconsider our opinions.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Rook, are you talking Bentham and the social contract?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Rook, are you talking Bentham and the social contract?
[Google - skim skim skim]
Er, ah, yeah. I guess so.
Scot, that seems remarkable to me. Would you be willing to describe this swing of perspective? It does reaffirm in my own mind the importance of making it a choice. Would you refuse others choice?
[ 05. December 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Of course not. I don't generally appreciate having other people make my moral decisions for me and I try not to make theirs for them.
I wrote a long and gushy account of my experiences and shifting positions on this issue. You'll be relieved to know that I deleted it. Instead, I'm just going to tell you why I think the debate is worth having.
This thread is the first discussion of abortion that I've participated in for years. Still, I've been listening all that time. Based on what I've heard, I've come to a number of conclusions: There are well-intentioned, compassionate people on both sides of the debate There are raging nutjobs on both sides too. Whichever side wins, some people will be hurt badly. There is no single answer that fits every possible situation. There really are gray areas.
For those reasons and more, I can't tell someone else what decisions he or she should make on this issue.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
