Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy?
I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day.
Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?
Women have been having abortions since the dawn of time. It's not likely something that is going away. I do think it should be regulated heavily though. Religious views aside, my opinion is that the mother should be denied access to an abortion unless they are a rape victim. My reason behind this is because unless they were raped, it was their decision to have sex- and therefore they should accept the consiquences. Many will argue that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body, and I agree. But if that's the case, they have control over not having sex. A 12 year old knows what could happen. I think it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy simply because 'it's an inconvenient time for me' or 'oh I'm not ready for motherhood'.
IMO, rape victims are the only women that should have the option, since their pregnancy was the result of a violent crime, and not personal irresponsibility. There are enough laws and groups in place for women to get the support they need, be it social or financial. Hospitals now of days don't let the mom leave the hospital until they give the staff a name, the name of the father that is. Once they have the name, they do a DNA test, if it matches- he's paying child support, if not, they go back to the mom for another name until they find someone to pick up his share of the burden.
My .02 cents.
__________________
"Pull up a stool. Nothing to do except shot after shot. Drink till I puke, and I'm standing on the edge of what is real." - Smile Empty Soul
"I love those moments. I like to wave at them as they pass by." - Captain Jack Sparrow
Last edited by TheLoneSock; 24th October 2009 at 3:10 AM..
You forgot the situations where delivery may be potentially fatal to mother and/or child.
Cheers,
D.
Yes I didn't mention that, but I agree. At that point I think it should be the mother's option wether she attempts the delivery or not, and if she chooses abortion, then ok.
If she is the type that consistently has miscarriages though, or is genetically unfit to give birth, I think she has a responsibility to behave accordingly.
I think it's a more clear cut case than that of rape. I don't presume to have any idea how most women would feel in that situation, so I'm not going to suggest that abortion is wrong in such cases.
My only question would be that I don't see how it necessarily impacts on the unborn child's right to live. I can certainly see how a child that is a product of rape would be or could be a daily reminder of the event, and that's not insignificant, but I'm still uneasy about it.
Complications during pregnancy are a different kettle of fish because in some cases it can become a triage situation.
Women have been having abortions since the dawn of time. It's not likely something that is going away. I do think it should be regulated heavily though. Religious views aside, my opinion is that the mother should be denied access to an abortion unless they are a rape victim. My reason behind this is because unless they were raped, it was their decision to have sex- and therefore they should accept the consiquences. Many will argue that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body, and I agree. But if that's the case, they have control over not having sex. A 12 year old knows what could happen. I think it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy simply because 'it's an inconvenient time for me' or 'oh I'm not ready for motherhood'.
IMO, rape victims are the only women that should have the option, since their pregnancy was the result of a violent crime, and not personal irresponsibility. There are enough laws and groups in place for women to get the support they need, be it social or financial. Hospitals now of days don't let the mom leave the hospital until they give the staff a name, the name of the father that is. Once they have the name, they do a DNA test, if it matches- he's paying child support, if not, they go back to the mom for another name until they find someone to pick up his share of the burden.
My .02 cents.
Your position is, is that the baby(or fetus) has a right to life and a mother should be forced to carry him/her/it to term if necessary, because of the baby's right to life? Correct?
If this is the case, why should the baby of a rape victim have less of a right to life? This seems to be a contradiction. If the baby's right to life is more important and supercedes the wishes/well being of the mother to make the choice of whether to carry the baby/fetus to term, then it doesn't make any sense for the baby's right to life to not supercede the wishes/well being of the mother if she is the victim of rape. In my opinion this is a pretty big contradiction on the side of the pro life crowd(who say abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape).
Last edited by BUENG1; 26th October 2009 at 6:38 PM..
Your position is, is that the baby(or fetus) has a right to life and a mother should be forced to carry him/her/it to term if necessary, because of the baby's right to life? Correct?
If this is the case, why should the baby of a rape victim have less of a right to life? This seems to be a contradiction. If the baby's right to life is more important and supercedes the wishes/well being of the mother to make the choice of whether to carry the baby/fetus to term, then it doesn't make any sense for the baby's right to life to not supercede the wishes/well being of the mother if she is the victim of rape. In my opinion this is a pretty big contradiction on the side of the pro life crowd(who say abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape).
You should have waited for a response to this question before assuming anything and making your own statement.
My position has less to do with a right to life than it does personal responsibility. Only a court can decide when a person has living rights. My opinion though, is that if a woman is taking all the actions necessary to concieve, she has a responsibility (as does the father) to see the gestation through. There are only a couple of reasons a mother wouldn't want to have the child:
1) Fear of not being able to care for the child. Answer: give it up for adoption, lack of resources is never a good excuse.
2) Fear of altering her body (vanity). Answer: this is a BS excuse, but one I have heard a few times, there is no answer to this other than the woman is vain and cruel.
If the woman was impregnated not by her choice, or if delivery of the baby would be fatal to the mother- that is the point where I think it would be acceptable to abort (as soon as the pregnancy was diagnosed, no later than the first trimester).
My stance has nothing to do with punishing the mother for irresponsibilty- it's about giving life a chance. I have never been one to call abortion murder, you won't see that in any of my responses. I do however think it's extremely morally wrong to be wanton with your body and then refuse to give the life it creates a chance of survival- ESPECIALLY when there are many forms of precautions available (condoms, BC, surgical procedures for M & F).
Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?
Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.
__________________
A person starts to live when he can live outside himself.
Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?
Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.
Responsibility is appointed to the one to whom the child belongs. So, you would rather the mother be burdened with the responsibility of having murdered an innocent person versus her being responsible for nurturing her child?
And please don't label all of us pro-life posters as being hypocritical. I find more hypocrisy in saying, "Abortion is moral, yet infanticide is immoral," or "We shouldn't use up our resources on these unwanted children, yet we should use our resources on the elderly and disabled." It seems to me that the pro-choice posters are entirely disregarding a whole group of people, which isn't very different from what other depersonalizing extremists have done. They are in full support of a genocide of an entire group of individuals, because they are unwilling to see their intrinsic personhood. If anything is , it's that.
Regardless, I know many pro-life individuals who donate time and money to help pregnant women and children in need. There are a ton of private organizations that provide for people looking for this kind of assistance.
__________________
"Our dad use to murder us in cold blood each night and dance about on our graves singing, 'Alleluia!'" John Cleese in the skit Four Yorkshiremen
Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?
We do. It's called paying state and federal taxes on our income.
Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy. [/QUOTE]
Are you just posting to egg people on?
It's not hypocritical to want a mother to take responsibility for her child. Not in any way, shape or form.
Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?
Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.
Further, there are plenty of individuals currently in existence who aren't necessarily living the most fruitful lives. By your logic, we should kill them off, since no one is coughing up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted mentally ill, disabled, infirm, etc.. I mean, shoot, maybe we should set a standard for when murdering innocent persons is okay? How about this:
If that person's life isn't that great: kill 'em. If that person isn't of a certain mental capability: kill 'em. If a person doesn't have a certain life-style: kill 'em. If a person doesn't look a certain way: kill 'em.
Hopefully, such a proposal is shockingly absurd to you. However, that is exactly the kind of ramifications that come with basing the right to life of an individual on his/her quality of life. Who, pray tell, is to determine what quality of life is acceptable?
Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?
Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.
Just bill the unwanted children, and they can work it off once they are old enough.
We are already billing them for the stimulous package. Pretty soon, we will be billing them for Obamacare (Seperate issue). It is a lot more humane than killing them.
You should have waited for a response to this question before assuming anything and making your own statement.
My position has less to do with a right to life than it does personal responsibility. Only a court can decide when a person has living rights. My opinion though, is that if a woman is taking all the actions necessary to concieve, she has a responsibility (as does the father) to see the gestation through. There are only a couple of reasons a mother wouldn't want to have the child:
1) Fear of not being able to care for the child. Answer: give it up for adoption, lack of resources is never a good excuse.
2) Fear of altering her body (vanity). Answer: this is a BS excuse, but one I have heard a few times, there is no answer to this other than the woman is vain and cruel.
If the woman was impregnated not by her choice, or if delivery of the baby would be fatal to the mother- that is the point where I think it would be acceptable to abort (as soon as the pregnancy was diagnosed, no later than the first trimester).
My stance has nothing to do with punishing the mother for irresponsibilty- it's about giving life a chance. I have never been one to call abortion murder, you won't see that in any of my responses. I do however think it's extremely morally wrong to be wanton with your body and then refuse to give the life it creates a chance of survival- ESPECIALLY when there are many forms of precautions available (condoms, BC, surgical procedures for M & F).
I never said you called abortion murder, and I never attributed my statement to you.
I guess the first thing to have a selective abortion ban is nearly impossible. If someone said you could have an abortion if you were raped, everyone who wanted an abortion would say they were raped by a 5'10 white male with a mask on wearing a white tee shirt. And of course everyone would be in front of a judge asking for permission for an abortion.
From my point of view, an abortion ban's sole purpose is to protect the unborn child. That is the only real benefit of this ban and off course the consequence is the mother is forced to carry the child to term. These are the two most important things that are in contention. Everything else, including the why's are secondary. Being reckless isn't the issue, no one would care if you had sex without a condom unless a baby was conceived. Personal responsibility is only as important as the consequences of recklessness.
The life of the fetus or baby is what the real issue is(versus the mother's choice to carry the baby to term), and consequently I can't see how a baby's right to life who is the product of rape is less important than one who was the result of a one time sexual encounter.
You should have waited for a response to this question before assuming anything and making your own statement.
My position has less to do with a right to life than it does personal responsibility.
Predict outcomes of your actions and decisions, and ensure you're equipped to deal with them.
If society elected to criminalise abortion for all women - or for most women, excepting rape victims, then society would have a responsibility for managing the consequences of that decision. That seems fair, in accordance with your credo of taking responsibility for actions and decisions one makes.
I wonder how society would go about deciding who had really been raped, and who was just making up a rape allegation in order to get an abortion. How it would reassure men who lived in terror of the increased likelihood of rape allegations being made against them. Or rape victims who faced increasingly impossible odds when it came to bringing their attackers to justice.
We talk a lot about personal responsibility on this board....and that's fair. However, when it comes to social responsibility people often get tetchy. Perhaps that's also fair. Why, after all, should society take responsibility for an individual's choices, decisions and actions?
I would say that the more society interferes with that individual's freedoms, the more responsibility it has to take for the consequences of that interference. I'm not convinced society would do a great job of managing the various outcomes of effectively telling women "you don't have the right to an abortion, unless you've been raped."
Taramere, you grasp exactly what I was getting at when I began this thread. It is the thing some others here have so far failed to grasp.
It is not enough to simply make an abstract calculation about what is right and act accordingly. You have to consider the impacts of policy decisions in THE REAL WORLD, not in some hypothetical la-la land where everyone is good and rightious and behaves in a perfectly responsible manner.
Personal responsibility is a fine thing, but it is not enough. You also have to enact polices that are socially responsible.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Hybrid Mode
