How About A Total Abortion Ban?

cincybearcat

decides2dream wrote:

actuaklly, it is entirely dependent on your perspective...and also dependent on just how much you infer and what was the OP's actul intent. me, i think it was simply meant to spur discussion/thought....and most especially to realize what a TOTAL abortion ban would entail. i personally do believe waaaayyyy too many people look at abortion as a 'convenience' and a way to avoid responsibility, and this ban clearly demonstrates that for many, that is NOT the case at all. you may personally not be for a total ban, but i sure as shit hear enough people in this country clamoring for one. so i think this thread is very relevant and does not hurt the dicsussion in the least. it IS important to realize, imo anyway, that abortion IS quite necessary for many women and girls.....and it's not all avoidance of responsibility (tho as ever, pov, b/c i believe abortion IS a responsible choice as well as any other).

Fair enough. Personally, I htink discussing the fringes of issues is non-productive. The middle is where the meat of the matter is (or tofu depending on how you swing).

It'b be like us discussing only the cases when women have received 3+ abortions. The fringe.

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

Is the 10-year-old victim of incent not innocent as well?

And I'm not advocating we kill her.

decides2dream

cincybearcat wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

actuaklly, it is entirely dependent on your perspective...and also dependent on just how much you infer and what was the OP's actul intent. me, i think it was simply meant to spur discussion/thought....and most especially to realize what a TOTAL abortion ban would entail. i personally do believe waaaayyyy too many people look at abortion as a 'convenience' and a way to avoid responsibility, and this ban clearly demonstrates that for many, that is NOT the case at all. you may personally not be for a total ban, but i sure as shit hear enough people in this country clamoring for one. so i think this thread is very relevant and does not hurt the dicsussion in the least. it IS important to realize, imo anyway, that abortion IS quite necessary for many women and girls.....and it's not all avoidance of responsibility (tho as ever, pov, b/c i believe abortion IS a responsible choice as well as any other).

Fair enough. Personally, I htink discussing the fringes of issues is non-productive. The middle is where the meat of the matter is (or tofu depending on how you swing).

It'b be like us discussing only the cases when women have received 3+ abortions. The fringe.

i'm glad you went there....because, yes, exactly. and in that 'other' abortion thread, that IS exactly where it went in focus, many times....the fringe. and i agree, focusing on the extremes is really unproductive. however, i do think this thread simply is pointing out just what a total ban truly would be like, b/c again, i do believe there are people who think it would be a 'good' thing, without actually thinking of all the instances where abortion truly is necessary. obviously, you and i disagree even there as i am 100% for a girl/woman to have an abortion in all cases of rape, but sure the medically necessary areas are where most i think could agree to some common ground. i just thought this thread was presented as a good snapshot of what it could well be like if abortion was made absolutely illegal in all instances.


and look at you, being all PC. meat or tofu......

decides2dream

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

Is the 10-year-old victim of incent not innocent as well?

And I'm not advocating we kill her.

no.
but you ARE advocating she suffer for something done to her against her will, and in some instances...give birth to her own brother or sister! :shock: seriously, factor in the young age, the brutality of rape, the lack of choice, the possibility that a family member may've done this, the absolute psychological damage such may do to a young girl, hell, even a grown woman. the girl or woman is innocent, and sure, the potential human life inside is innocent. difference is, the girl or woman already exists out in the world, can think and feel pain, etc....whereas the embryo or fetus cannot.

imagine this - what if it was your wife or sister or daughter? would you truly want to force them to give birth to a child that was the result of rape when they don't want to? obviously, some women may choose to keep the pregnancy, but i do believe the option should be theirs. then again, i believe it always should be the girl/woman's decision, no matter the circumstance of her pregancy.

cincybearcat

decides2dream wrote:

imagine this - what if it was your wife or sister or daughter? would you truly want to force them to give birth to a child that was the result of rape when they don't want to?

That's exactly how I try and look at the situation.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Pretty sure I've stated my beliefs on this before.

If the fetus cannot survive, that is one thing. However, the issue gets extremely messy when it comes to rape/incest. A few years ago, I was initially in favor of allowing abortions in those cases. However, after much thought, my gut feeling now is that the baby is innocent and since I believe abortion is killing a baby, I don't think abortion should be an option in those cases. I'm not 100% sold one way or the other because of how difficult a situation it is, but that is how I feel. Now, if at sometime I can be convinced that the health of the mother is at risk in those cases (mental health in those cases I would think), I might be able to be swayed. It is the most difficult question in the abortion debate for me.

Is the 10-year-old victim of incent not innocent as well?

Absolutely. What's your point?

Why should she be made to suffer further?

decides2dream

cincybearcat wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

imagine this - what if it was your wife or sister or daughter? would you truly want to force them to give birth to a child that was the result of rape when they don't want to?

That's exactly how I try and look at the situation.

so then going by this:

cincybearcat wrote:

If the fetus cannot survive, that is one thing. However, the issue gets extremely messy when it comes to rape/incest. A few years ago, I was initially in favor of allowing abortions in those cases. However, after much thought, my gut feeling now is that the baby is innocent and since I believe abortion is killing a baby, I don't think abortion should be an option in those cases. I'm not 100% sold one way or the other because of how difficult a situation it is, but that is how I feel. Now, if at sometime I can be convinced that the health of the mother is at risk in those cases (mental health in those cases I would think), I might be able to be swayed. It is the most difficult question in the abortion debate for me.

you basically are unsure what you personally believe should be done?
definitely fair enough....and also why i personally believe it's a good idea to leave such a decision with the thinking/feeling person who Is most effected by it, ie, the mother.

_

decides2dream wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

Is the 10-year-old victim of incent not innocent as well?

And I'm not advocating we kill her.

no.
but you ARE advocating she suffer for something done to her against her will, and in some instances...give birth to her own brother or sister! :shock: seriously, factor in the young age, the brutality of rape, the lack of choice, the possibility that a family member may've done this, the absolute psychological damage such may do to a young girl, hell, even a grown woman. the girl or woman is innocent, and sure, the potential human life inside is innocent. difference is, the girl or woman already exists out in the world, can think and feel pain, etc....whereas the embryo or fetus cannot.

imagine this - what if it was your wife or sister or daughter? would you truly want to force them to give birth to a child that was the result of rape when they don't want to? obviously, some women may choose to keep the pregnancy, but i do believe the option should be theirs. then again, i believe it always should be the girl/woman's decision, no matter the circumstance of her pregancy.

I think it's also important to remember the situation the unborn "baby" would be born into and whether or not it will be good for that child (given that it wasn't good for his/her sister).

know1

Jeanwah wrote:

I believe that anyone who is pro-life should be ready and able to take care of any saved infant. After all that's what you're fighting for, right? And if that said baby wasn't wanted, it should be expected that those faithfully fighting for these babies should be ready and willing to raise them.

I can see some logic in that, but it's pretty narrow minded and attempts to stereotype this down into two distinct sides who are comprised of people who have the same exact reasons for supporting or opposing.

It's kind of like the stereotype that all people who are against abortion are Christians or religious.

To make it personal, I a consider myself anti-abortion not pro-life when it comes to this issue.

And to argue the opposite, I could say that I think anyone who has sex should be ready and able to take care of the resulting child (let's exclude rape here for the sake of argument).

know1

cincybearcat wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

actuaklly, it is entirely dependent on your perspective...and also dependent on just how much you infer and what was the OP's actul intent. me, i think it was simply meant to spur discussion/thought....and most especially to realize what a TOTAL abortion ban would entail. i personally do believe waaaayyyy too many people look at abortion as a 'convenience' and a way to avoid responsibility, and this ban clearly demonstrates that for many, that is NOT the case at all. you may personally not be for a total ban, but i sure as shit hear enough people in this country clamoring for one. so i think this thread is very relevant and does not hurt the dicsussion in the least. it IS important to realize, imo anyway, that abortion IS quite necessary for many women and girls.....and it's not all avoidance of responsibility (tho as ever, pov, b/c i believe abortion IS a responsible choice as well as any other).

Fair enough. Personally, I htink discussing the fringes of issues is non-productive. The middle is where the meat of the matter is (or tofu depending on how you swing).

It'b be like us discussing only the cases when women have received 3+ abortions. The fringe.

But the fringes are where you get all of the arguments when you offer a position that is directed to the middle. That's why I likely won't post too much more in this thread. It just goes around in circles.

The majority of people getting abortions were not pregnant because of rape, yet that is where people point as soon as you oppose it.

That

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

actuaklly, it is entirely dependent on your perspective...and also dependent on just how much you infer and what was the OP's actul intent. me, i think it was simply meant to spur discussion/thought....and most especially to realize what a TOTAL abortion ban would entail. i personally do believe waaaayyyy too many people look at abortion as a 'convenience' and a way to avoid responsibility, and this ban clearly demonstrates that for many, that is NOT the case at all. you may personally not be for a total ban, but i sure as shit hear enough people in this country clamoring for one. so i think this thread is very relevant and does not hurt the dicsussion in the least. it IS important to realize, imo anyway, that abortion IS quite necessary for many women and girls.....and it's not all avoidance of responsibility (tho as ever, pov, b/c i believe abortion IS a responsible choice as well as any other).

Fair enough. Personally, I htink discussing the fringes of issues is non-productive. The middle is where the meat of the matter is (or tofu depending on how you swing).

It'b be like us discussing only the cases when women have received 3+ abortions. The fringe.

But the fringes are where you get all of the arguments when you offer a position that is directed to the middle. That's why I likely won't post too much more in this thread. It just goes around in circles.

The majority of people getting abortions were not pregnant because of rape, yet that is where people point as soon as you oppose it.

That

again, entirely untrue.
i always admit that there are all sorts of reasons why a girl or woman may choose abortion and that yes, i believe it is her right to do so. i don't 'make excuses' b/c i feel and think none are necessary.

i discuss rape in THIS thread, b/c for this topic...it IS important imo. it is the idea of a "total ban"....and i do believe, rightly or wrongly, that even those against 'abortions for other reasons'....thus think abortion should be illegal....do not realize ALL a total ban would encompass. thus this thread is excellent food for thought for those who might be of the persuasion of wanting a 100% ban, to realize there ARE many reasons for abortions, and not all a matter of 'convenience' as some believe. whether most are or aren't is irrelevant imo when discussing a total ban. one wants to entertain a partial ban, entirely different discussion, tho again, my personal views remain unchanged.


and know1, on the other abortion thread...i would be curious and interested on your pov in regards to BC, the morning after pill, etc. i think it's a side of this discussion many of us have not addressed much here, at least that i am unaware, in any case. contrary to popular belief, many of us amongst the pro-choice persuauasion DO want to gain a better understanding of those with vastly different perspectives on the issue.

Cosmo

Nicaragua probably needs more people, anyway.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

again, entirely untrue.
i always admit that there are all sorts of reasons why a girl or woman may choose abortion and that yes, i believe it is her right to do so. i don't 'make excuses' b/c i feel and think none are necessary.

i discuss rape in THIS thread, b/c for this topic...it IS important imo. it is the idea of a "total ban"....and i do believe, rightly or wrongly, that even those against 'abortions for other reasons'....thus think abortion should be illegal....do not realize ALL a total ban would encompass. thus this thread is excellent food for thought for those who might be of the persuasion of wanting a 100% ban, to realize there ARE many reasons for abortions, and not all a matter of 'convenience' as some believe. whether most are or aren't is irrelevant imo when discussing a total ban. one wants to entertain a partial ban, entirely different discussion, tho again, my personal views remain unchanged.


and know1, on the other abortion thread...i would be curious and interested on your pov in regards to BC, the morning after pill, etc. i think it's a side of this discussion many of us have not addressed much here, at least that i am unaware, in any case. contrary to popular belief, many of us amongst the pro-choice persuauasion DO want to gain a better understanding of those with vastly different perspectives on the issue.

Kind of like what I was saying about more than one reason for opposing abortion.

Regarding BC, I'm totally for it except for the morning after pill. I think that starts to tread on abortion grounds.

And you're right, there are situations where an abortion seems MORE acceptable to me than others - I already said I wouldn't support letting the mother die if the doctor had to choose between her and the child or her and both dying. Rape is another one where it's more difficult to oppose it but since I do believe it's a child, I still have to. (I know I said I'm anti-abortion for other reasons besides my belief that it is murder, but those other reasons probably wouldn't have me to oppose it in a situation of rape).

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

again, entirely untrue.
i always admit that there are all sorts of reasons why a girl or woman may choose abortion and that yes, i believe it is her right to do so. i don't 'make excuses' b/c i feel and think none are necessary.

i discuss rape in THIS thread, b/c for this topic...it IS important imo. it is the idea of a "total ban"....and i do believe, rightly or wrongly, that even those against 'abortions for other reasons'....thus think abortion should be illegal....do not realize ALL a total ban would encompass. thus this thread is excellent food for thought for those who might be of the persuasion of wanting a 100% ban, to realize there ARE many reasons for abortions, and not all a matter of 'convenience' as some believe. whether most are or aren't is irrelevant imo when discussing a total ban. one wants to entertain a partial ban, entirely different discussion, tho again, my personal views remain unchanged.


and know1, on the other abortion thread...i would be curious and interested on your pov in regards to BC, the morning after pill, etc. i think it's a side of this discussion many of us have not addressed much here, at least that i am unaware, in any case. contrary to popular belief, many of us amongst the pro-choice persuauasion DO want to gain a better understanding of those with vastly different perspectives on the issue.

Kind of like what I was saying about more than one reason for opposing abortion.

Regarding BC, I'm totally for it except for the morning after pill. I think that starts to tread on abortion grounds.

And you're right, there are situations where an abortion seems MORE acceptable to me than others - I already said I wouldn't support letting the mother die if the doctor had to choose between her and the child or her and both dying. Rape is another one where it's more difficult to oppose it but since I do believe it's a child, I still have to. (I know I said I'm anti-abortion for other reasons besides my belief that it is murder, but those other reasons probably wouldn't have me to oppose it in a situation of rape).

if you would take a peek in the last page of the other abortion thread, i would really love to know why you are ok with Bc pills and not the morning after pill. i appreciate you being candid, and i am not trying to put you on the spot...i am genuinely curious as to the "whys" of that.....since the BC pill and the morning after pill are essentially one and the same, the morning after pill merely being a high dose of regular BC pill, and both can esssentially do the same thing. and yes, you may already know that.....idk.....but it just makes me wonder why all the more then.


and i know you clearly stated you were not for a 100% ban, i understood that and accept that. i do realize that everyone who is labelled 'pro-life' is not 100% anti-abortion.

know1

decides2dream wrote:

if you would take a peek in the last page of the other abortion thread, i would really love to know why you are ok with Bc pills and not the morning after pill. i appreciate you being candid, and i am not trying to put you on the spot...i am genuinely curious as to the "whys" of that.....since the BC pill and the morning after pill are essentially one and the same, the morning after pill merely being a high dose of regular BC pill, and both can esssentially do the same thing. and yes, you may already know that.....idk.....but it just makes me wonder why all the more then.


and i know you clearly stated you were not for a 100% ban, i understood that and accept that. i do realize that everyone who is labelled 'pro-life' is not 100% anti-abortion.

I'll probably pass on the other thread, but my opposition to the morning after pill has to do with timing and not with mechanism of action.

I actually stated that I am for a 100% ban with provisions that in medical situations where the life of the mother and child are in jeopardy that the doctor do whatever necessary to save as much life as possible.

decides2dream

know1 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

if you would take a peek in the last page of the other abortion thread, i would really love to know why you are ok with Bc pills and not the morning after pill. i appreciate you being candid, and i am not trying to put you on the spot...i am genuinely curious as to the "whys" of that.....since the BC pill and the morning after pill are essentially one and the same, the morning after pill merely being a high dose of regular BC pill, and both can esssentially do the same thing. and yes, you may already know that.....idk.....but it just makes me wonder why all the more then.


and i know you clearly stated you were not for a 100% ban, i understood that and accept that. i do realize that everyone who is labelled 'pro-life' is not 100% anti-abortion.

I'll probably pass on the other thread, but my opposition to the morning after pill has to do with timing and not with mechanism of action.
I actually stated that I am for a 100% ban with provisions that in medical situations where the life of the mother and child are in jeopardy that the doctor do whatever necessary to save as much life as possible.

so it is based on a judgement of the action rather than the mechanism. gotcha. however, wouldn't you far prefer that action rather than an abortion? honestly, that's the part i don't understand.

i am pro-choice, and i would far rather more girls/women choose the morning after pill - if they can/are aware - than to wait it out and choose abortion. i think it is a far better way to go when possible. if reducing abortion is the goal, why not?

again, if one accepts hormonal BC methods, why is the TIMING of such....such a sticking point? seriously, one may well use another method of BC, say a condom, and the condom breaks, realize there is a tear, whatever....after intercourse...isn't it wiser to choose the morning after pill (high dose BC pill) rather than take the chance? i mean, otherwise, it's quite the assumption that everyone who chooses the morning after pill was 'irresponsible'...and beyond that, if BC pills are a-ok beforehand, it simply doesn't make logisitical sense to say no to it afterwards, from a BC/preventative stance. obviously it may make sense to some from a moral standpoint, but again, the results are the same. the morning after pill is no more 'abortion' than any form of hormonal BC.


it reads to me, in any case.....that this is more about judging the actions than actual avoidance of abortion per se. thank you for clarifying your position.




btw - you cannot be in for a 100% ban, with provisons...b/c then it is not a 100% ban. you obviously support a partial ban then, even if the 'partial' portion is very miniscule in your scenario.

_

know1 wrote:

Regarding BC, I'm totally for it except for the morning after pill. I think that starts to tread on abortion grounds.

:? :? :?

How so?

_

cincybearcat wrote:

Fair enough. Personally, I htink discussing the fringes of issues is non-productive. The middle is where the meat of the matter is (or tofu depending on how you swing).

It'b be like us discussing only the cases when women have received 3+ abortions. The fringe.

I've been thinking about how these conversations so frequently revert to the fringes. I think this happens when people make absolute statements, e.g. "I support a total ban on abortion" or "Women who have abortions are irresponsible" or "Women should not have abortions." For me anyway, these generalizations are problematic.

So, for instance, if someone says we should have a total abortion ban, I would also be inclined to post an article that illustrates the atrocities that occur when such a ban exists. Point being: This is how a total abortion ban would impact these women and children. Although these examples may be on the fringe, they are still reason enough not to impose such an extreme measure.

Statements about abortions (or the women who have them) necessarily being irresponsible or about what women "should" and "should not" do are similarly irresponsible, ignorant, and short-sighted, in my opinion.

know1

scb wrote:

know1 wrote:

Regarding BC, I'm totally for it except for the morning after pill. I think that starts to tread on abortion grounds.

:? :? :?

How so?

Maybe I'm just ignorant of how it works and not really against it. My assumption when I said that I was against it was that it was terminating an egg that was likely fertilized at that point. If there is NO question that it is NOT fertilized, then I do not oppose it (even though I'm not necessarily a fan of it either).

_

know1 wrote:

scb wrote:

know1 wrote:

Regarding BC, I'm totally for it except for the morning after pill. I think that starts to tread on abortion grounds.

:? :? :?

How so?

Maybe I'm just ignorant of how it works and not really against it. My assumption when I said that I was against it was that it was terminating an egg that was likely fertilized at that point. If there is NO question that it is NOT fertilized, then I do not oppose it (even though I'm not necessarily a fan of it either).

It can keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus - and so can regular birth control pills.