What's at risk in the abortion "debate"

pdxmouse

I was pro-choice with the thought it was regrettable before I had Bug. Being pregnant and going through labor changed my thinking quite a bit. First I was horrified by the thought that anyone be forced to go through this against their will. Then I started thinking about how that bond between me and the little kicking thing inside me would be different if I hadn't deliberately made the choice to bring her into the world. And then there's the additional thought that's a little fuzzier but includes the idea that taking away options disrespects women who would choose to be mothers anyway. For me the choice stopped being just about choosing abortion. Fenton, I'm not 100% sure, but my memory is that Sullivan was one of those who was advocating that the Dems drop the pro-choice platform in order to appeal to otherwise liberal religious groups. Although the relationship is a bit conflicted, he's a pretty devout Catholic.

CaptainSerious

I consider myself pro-choice, but sometimes conversations on this board make me question whether I am. I think 1st trimester abortions shold be legal in all cases. I'm ok with restricting abortion after the 1st to those in cases of fetal deformaties and life and health (including mental) of the mother. I realize it would be incredibly difficult to craft and enforce such restrictions and it opens a lot of questions. At the same time, the woman contemplating aborting a healthy fetus b/c it has the wrong sex organs makes me sick and I think she's a poor excuse for a human. I almost agree completely, but take it a step further.  If we are okay with setting limits on acceptable reasons for abortions after the first trimester and are in agreement that terminating for sexual preference is abhorrent, why not prohibit it--even in the first trimester?I don't think it would be easy to come up with a list of "acceptable purposes" that everyone agrees with, and I realize that enforcement is nearly impossible, but why, as a matter of public policy, shouldn't we say that we are against aborting for certain reasons?

CaliopeSpidrman

I agree with Fallin that someone who wants to abort their fetus after 18 weeks or so because it has a penis instead of a vagina (or vice versa) is a poor excuse for a human being.  It's one thing to say it, but to actually go through with it?  That's cold.  But I still support their right to choose.  In fact, I hope they choose not to have any kids because they make shiittyass parents.  The world is crowded with enough people already.

kaybeeknits

But I still support their right to choose. In fact, I hope they choose not to have any kids because they make shiittyass parentsI agree. I doubt those same people would give up the 'offending' child and I really can't imagine how messed up that child's life would be

monj76

I was on second tri last night and this lady has to decide whether to abort her 18 week fetus. She has cervical cancer and her doctors want to start treatment right away. She also has two kids, so she is forced to decide her life or the child shes carrying. I cannot imagine having to make this heartwrenching decision, but thank god she has the choice.http://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/20377770.aspxI have no idea how to make it clicky.

pdxmouse

Kind of in line with Cali's thinking- partly because they'd make shittyass parents, and like I was saying- what kind of relationship is the mom going to have with the womb fruit if she resents having to carry it? It might be a deplorable reason, but once she doesn't want it why would it be right to let it occupy her body, putting her in discomfort, possible health risks and the eventual agony of labor- I don't think any of that will make her want the little guy more. And if she's bsc it could send her into some serious mental problems even the utterly selfish don't deserve. Plus there's the problems of enforcement. How do we make sure the reasons behind abortion are the ones we would like? If we restrict to just rape, incest or health do we make every woman who was raped report it, go through the trial and if the guy isn't found guilty she has to carry the kid? That's what used to happen. What about for young victims who often don't telll anyone they're pregnant until it becomes too obvious to deny? Do we start investigating supposed miscarriages? Not to mention the reality and liklihood of back alley abortions. Anyway, I meant to include this last night, but it's the POV of an evangelist who claims that a lot of the outrage from religious groups was manufactured for political reasons in the 80s: [url]http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/06/killing-in-the-name-of/[/url]

CaptainSerious

Kind of in line with Cali's thinking- partly because they'd make shittyass parents, and like I was saying- what kind of relationship is the mom going to have with the womb fruit if she resents having to carry it? It might be a deplorable reason, but once she doesn't want it why would it be right to let it occupy her body, putting her in discomfort, possible health risks and the eventual agony of labor- I don't think any of that will make her want the little guy more. And if she's bsc it could send her into some serious mental problems even the utterly selfish don't deserve. I guess I just fall into the "there are consequences to your actions" camp.  If you intentionally conceive a child, you should be forced to carry that child, unless there are certain drastic changes in circumstances.  If you choose not to parent that child, fine--you can always make an adoption plan.  But why should a planned child be snuffed out because you don't like it's sex (and maybe down the line eye/hair color, skin tone, etc.)?Plus there's the problems of enforcement. How do we make sure the reasons behind abortion are the ones we would like? If we restrict to just rape, incest or health do we make every woman who was raped report it, go through the trial and if the guy isn't found guilty she has to carry the kid? That's what used to happen. What about for young victims who often don't telll anyone they're pregnant until it becomes too obvious to deny? Do we start investigating supposed miscarriages? Not to mention the reality and liklihood of back alley abortions. I already acknowledged the enforcement problems.  In fact, I do not advocate a hard-line enforcement of the law, for many of the reasons you've enumerated.  However, we have lots of laws on the books that are there to indicate what the public policy ideal is, but are never/sparsely enforced:  prohibition against paying people under the table/hiring undocumented workers, dry towns/counties, private gambling prohibitions, prostitution/solicitation (depending on the area)--the list goes on and on.

FallinAgain

Capt--I think I'm ok with first trimester across the board because it's a least closer to a clumop of cells than anything.  Plus, I truly believe that women should have the right to control their reproduction.  I'm less certain why they shouldn't have to be all adult and make that decision by a certain time deadline.  Do it or don't but do it before the second trimester.  As to the disgusting sex chooser,  F her and her mental health for having to carry an unwanted boy to term.  How about she knows she won't be able to abort a boy just for having a penis and makes a grown up decision to not get pg? Adopt a girl.  I sincerely hope infertility on her.I get that enforcement would be tricky, but theoretically I don't have a problem with limts.

Irishgrl417

I agree that she probably shouldn't be a parent at all. She will definitely be screaming "that's not your baby" at people. The first time I met her she didn't realize I'd already met her H. She clutches his arm and says "this is my fiance, K." Umm, yeah I know and I just came out of another guy's bedroom, did you really think I was going to jump him or something? They only had 2 guys in their wedding and even though K was very close with his brother, the other guy was the best man because she doesn't like the brother much. Oh, and after they got married she insisted both of them chang their middle names to her maiden and she took his last name. It didn't matter that his middle name had been his mother's maiden name.So yeah, she's a bit of control freak.

FallinAgain

It might be a deplorable reason, but once she doesn't want it why would it be right to let it occupy her body, putting her in discomfort, possible health risks and the eventual agony of labor- I don't think any of that will make her want the little guy more. And if she's bsc it could send her into some serious mental problems even the utterly selfish don't deserve. This pisses me off. Why should it be right to let it occupy her body, putting her discomfort, possible health risks and the eventual agony of labor?  Maybe b/c she as a grown woman made a decision to get pg knowing all of this and knowing there's a 50% she won't get what she wants.  Maybe because some things are just flat out wrong.  I can't think of a single problem mental or otherwise that someone who knowingly did this would not deserve.  In addition, for an argument seemingly based on feminist principles, this seems to take any sense of power or responsibility away from the woman.  She made the decision to get pg.   This makes it sound like something that just happened to her.  

pdxmouse

I think there's a difference between carrying something unwanted in your own body and turning down adopting a kid you've never met.But in an ideal world, yes. And it's not that they'd be forced to house and care for the unwanted child, but that they wouldn't get to go shopping for a "better" one. There'd also be free medical care for life so correcting vision problems would be moot. In an ideal world bsc lady wouldn't think there'd be a huge difference between raising a boy or a girl because there'd be equal support for either. I don't like her decision, I just don't like the consequences of not letting her make it more.

FallinAgain

I'm curious how many people would actually go through with aborting a fetus because it wasn't the gender they were hoping for.I would hope none, but I suspect someone even willing to contemplate this operates with a whole different moral compass so who knows.

CaptainSerious

Choosing to parent is pretty much an unbreakable contract.  Sure, you can always take advantage of one of those safe-house laws that allows you to drop your children off at nearly any age, but for the most part, if you choose to parent your child, it's for life.  Why is it so unreasonable that this begins at the point of pregnancy?You mention giving up a kidney.  I say that the law might not force you to go through with the surgery, but if you choose to have the surgery, you are stuck with the consequences of that decision for life.  Is that any different that choosing to become pregnant?In fact, breaking any of the contracts you've mentioned has consequences.  And while I do believe that having an abortion has consequences, I don't think they are nearly as grave on a woman who planned to do so, based on the child's characteristics, even before she was pregnant.  What I'm trying to say is that at some point, we have to draw a line and expect people to live up to the natural results of their choices.As far as a law, I'm thinking something along the lines of requiring a woman to meet with a counselor first and declare her reasons for wanting an abortion.  If they are outside the "approved reasons" the clinic cannot proceed.  Like I said, this is nearly impossible to enforce and incredibly easy to circumvent, but I don't see the problem with it as a matter of public policy.

pdxmouse

I'm pretty aware of this little guy in me, I talk to him, I rub what I'm hoping is his back, I squeeze my belly in little hugs- he's not a fully separate person, but he's still a pretty real little being. If something should happen I'd be devastated. So no, I don't think for me he's the same as a tumor. (Although early on when people would get that "is she?" look on her face I was tempted to pat my belly and say "It's a toom-ah" because my sense of humor runs that way.)But that doesn't change that it's still my body that's transforming to accommodate him. Unlike that house or job it's every moment, every bit of me that is affected. There's no escaping it. If he weren't someone I desperately wanted I'd be literally wanting to crawl out of my skin to get away. I don't mean to be all "when you're pregnant you'll understand" because my experience isn't universal, but pregnancy takes over in ways that are hard to understand before you go through it.

FallinAgain

But you chose to go through all those changes.  I don't get the argument that there should never be a point where you just don't get to back out anymore just because you changed your mind or it's too uncomfortable.  ANd

CaptainSerious

I think there's a difference between carrying something unwanted in your own body and turning down adopting a kid you've never met.But that "something unwanted" was wanted until she found out its sex.  That's a HUGE point.  It's not that she decided she doesn't want to be pregnant or to have a child, she just doesn't want this one--whom she's also never met.And it's not that they'd be forced to house and care for the unwanted child, but that they wouldn't get to go shopping for a "better" one.I'm not saying she has to parent a boy, either, just that she should be required to deliver him.  Then, by all means, she should break all ties and let someone else raise him so that she doesn't mess him up more.

Vinny08

I understand your point Mouse.  While pregnant, I could not imagine not wanting him with every fiber of my being.  For people that don't want to be pregnant, they have too much responsibility for something they don't care about. I think it is beyond vile that anybody would consider aborting because of gender.  However, if these sick f*ucks don't want to carry the child, I think it is best if they don't. Yes, I get that they should give birth and put up for adoption.  But I wonder how many woman go through the birth and then decide that they don't want to bother with adoption for some other BSC reasoning.  These are not sane people, and if they make that choice to abort, I support anything that takes the responsibility of growing that fetus out of their hands.I don't know how much sense I am making here.  So, basically, if somebody is capable of wanting to terminate their pregnancy, I support that decision.  There are far too many unloved and unsupported children out there.

pdxmouse

Fallin, the way the law currently stands there are restrictions past a certain point. So no, you don't just get to back out for any reason. You cannot get an abortion past 25-28 weeks without serious reasons and finding a doctor or clinic anywhere past the first trimester can be very difficult. It's not something I agree completely with, but that's already been decided. The ones who are advocating "debate" want it more restricted. Or just to intimidate or kill so many doctors that moms who wanted their babies and almost made it to term will die because no one have the training to give them a safe abortion to save their lives.

FallinAgain

But I think the question is doesn't a law that allows them to abort after finding out the sex put them in the position to get pg planning to to this thing everyone agrees is deplorable?  If they couldn't abort, perhaps they simply wouldn't get pg in the first place rather than risk a 50% chance of having to bear a boy they don't want. Everyone also keeps calling her BSC or crazy without anything supporting that assumption other than that she is planning to do something heinous.  If you don't assume that she's BSC and thus somewhat less culpable for her actions, if she's just an assshole, does that color your thinking?

FallinAgain

Fallin, the way the law currently stands there are restrictions past a certain point. So no, you don't just get to back out for any reason. You cannot get an abortion past 25-28 weeks without serious reasons and finding a doctor or clinic anywhere past the first trimester can be very difficult. It's not something I agree completely with, but that's already been decided. Yse, I know.  I'm saying that I'd support in theory legal restrictions far earlier than 25-28 weeks.  The ones who are advocating "debate" want it more restricted. Or just to intimidate or kill so many doctors that moms who wanted their babies and almost made it to term will die because no one have the training to give them a safe abortion to save their lives. To lump everyone who wants more restrictions with those who kill or threaten doctors is just unfair.

CaptainSerious

For people that don't want to be pregnant, they have too much responsibility for something they don't care about. As a person who is in the process of adopting, I think it's fair to say that most prospective adoptive parents recognize that it's highly likely their children will not have had the best prenatal care.  It's a risk we're aware of and accept, so really, we're not expecting that all birthmothers will alter their lives drastically when it comes to smoking/drinking/drugs/doctor's appointments.  We all hope for the best, but recognize how difficult it is for a woman who is trying not to attach to the child to go through with all the typical expectations of pregnant women. There are far too many unloved and unsupported children out there.I agree with you if you are talking about children who were subjected to abuse and neglect by their biological families, but if you are referring to children in need of adoptive homes at birth, this isn't true.

Vinny08

If you don't assume that she's BSC and thus somewhat less culpable for her actions, if she's just an assshole, does that color your thinking?I think this decision makes her crazy.  There is no other way for me to look at a decision like that. 

GroomzMcFinehiney

Good point Fallin.  I didn't even consider the notion that she might not be crazy at all.  Maybe if there could just be a "you get 1 abortion, and Groomz gets to decide if the doctor ties your tubes while he's in there" policy.

buddhagouda

[i]Or just to intimidate or kill so many doctors that moms who wanted their babies and almost made it to term will die because no one have the training to give them a safe abortion to save their lives.[/i]I think it's grossly biased and completely unfair to lump everyone that wants restrictions on abortions together with the whackos that think killing doctors is the best way to bring it about.

Vinny08

I agree with you if you are talking about children who were subjected to abuse and neglect by their biological families, but if you are referring to children in need of adoptive homes at birth, this isn't true.Captain, I am talking about children that are not put up for adoption.  I am talking about children that remain with their biological families that don't give a s*it about the child.  My older brother was adopted.  He is my brother and it makes zero difference as to what body he came out of 37 years ago.  Just thought that was a worthwhile fact to share here.

pdxmouse

I was referring back to the article, not lumping everyone together. One of the points in the article is that it isn't just people making moral judgments, the debate includes real and ugly threats coming from one side. Curious, how does having the protesters, the shooters, the ones who mail packets of white powder, and so on effect the way you speak about abortion? If I were anti-choice I would personally be concerned that poorly chosen words would make the crazies think I supported their actions.

FallinAgain

Again, we're going to have to disagree.  I see the right to end at least potential life as entirely more complex than the right to voice hatred.

CaptainSerious

Irish said she was nuts, I don't know her and Irish does. But no, I defend people's rights to be _assholes. I might not like it, but it's the also why I think the KKK should get to parade. See, I think the KKK should get their parade because they are just trying to perpetuate their beliefs.  If we are talking about strictly parading, they are not hurting anyone.  I'm very much a John Stuart Mill libertarian--and your right to swing your arm ends with my nose.  I do believe that aborting a planned potential child for superfluous reasons is harming what will be a person, at little to no lasting benefit to the woman (since no one is forcing her to raise the child).  And I'm not okay with that, BSC or not.I agree with you that there are lots of other ways to reduce abortion rates, and I'm all for that.  But my thought that sex-selection abortions should be prohibited is not based simply in my desire to reduce the overall number of abortions.  I believe the act is not only universally morally wrong, but also infringes on the rights of that potential child and society as a whole--which will never stand to gain from any benefits that child may bring about.

buddhagouda

[i]Curious, how does having the protesters, the shooters, the ones who mail packets of white powder, and so on effect the way you speak about abortion? If I were anti-choice I would personally be concerned that poorly chosen words would make the crazies think I supported their actions.[/i]I don't support crazy on either side.

FallinAgain

Curious, how does having the protesters, the shooters, the ones who mail packets of white powder, and so on effect the way you speak about abortion? If I were anti-choice I would personally be concerned that poorly chosen words would make the crazies think I supported their actions. I'm not sure anyone here would describe him/herself as anti-choice so this may be the wrong group to ask.As someone sympathetic to both sides, I genrerally try to use neutral language--anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights or similiar, for example.  However, I don't worry to much about people thinking I support the crazies.  First, I just don't care what the true crazies think.  Second, anyone who assumes that you can't be ambivalent about abortion or even be anti-abortion rights without being a crazy isn't worth much thought from me.